Interview with Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett is a member of the Australian Democrats and a Queensland Senator in the Federal Parliament. This is the transcript of an interview regarding the effects of Voluntary Student Unionism that I conducted this year in preparation for an article published in The Big Issue.

Why do the Democrats think VSU will "silence student voice"?

Student Unions play an important role in supporting students during their time at university. They achieve this by providing a range of services from sporting facilities to legal advice, advocacy and child care. Without active and dynamic services, students - particularly those who do not have the financial resources - are effectively restricted from full participation in university life. They can essentially become voiceless.

Isn't it true that student elections are poorly attended and student politicians have themselves not been able to capture the interest of students?

Student elections do have a habit of being poorly attended and many students do ignore student politics but this does not mean that the services provided by the unions are not worthwhile and should be done away with nor does it mean that student politics is a basket case. A certain amount of malaise would be evidenced if Australia adopted voluntary voting, but that would not mean that the government should stop providing services to the people.

If these student organisations are so important in protecting student rights, surely indirectly supporting mismanagement (the likes of which led to the dissolving of the Melbourne University student union) is not the right path?

I would agree that supporting mismanagement is not the right path, but neither is throwing the baby out with the bath water. While the system was far from perfect it most certainly wasn't in a state of terminal decline. Recognition of the problems that existed and the implementation of initiatives to reform the system would give a much better outcome than abolishing student unions altogether.

Why is the government's legislation, which bans the up-front financial cost of an amenities fee being extracted from students, unfair? The hefty amenities fee, unlike HECS, cannot be deferred – hurting poorer students even more.

Poorer students, particularly poorer students attending our regional campuses will now be unable to access the diverse range of facilities which have, until now, been available to them.

Child care services, financial help and legal assistance for example, have been provided by the money derived from these up-front fees. They have made it easier for people from low socio-economic backgrounds to attend university without the added financial hardship of seeking these services privately. The up-front fee ensured that all students had equal access to services provided by the student body and without the money coming in to support these services, they will close.

In some regional areas, services provided by the student unions are an integral part of the wider community in which they operate not just the university campus and, therefore, their closure will have financial ramifications well beyond the university campus.