Although most associate them with advocacy, the biggest function performed by student unions in New Zealand is redistribution of wealth, and for the most part not very well or fairly.In 2002 (the last available online figures) the Victoria University Wellington Students' Association (VUWSA) spent a paltry $3000 on organised advocacy, while spending, for example, over $100,000 on funding clubs and another $163,000(*) on providing them with a free place to meet in the Student Union Building. Many of these clubs charge membership fees already. While the union is busy complaining how poor we students are, only just over $20,000 went to helping needy students with food banks, etc, making up about a quarter of a percent of VUWSA's budget in 2002.
Is there any good reason for wealth redistribution within students?
There doesn't seem to be a prima facie reason to fund clubs. Perhaps there is a small positive externality to the rest of students from having a successful sporting club at a university. I suspect the overwhelming majority of the benefit goes to students that are actually members of the club; most people surely realise that Conrad Smith playing rugby at OBU doesn't mean I'm any good. Furthermore most clubs clearly have no demonstrable benefit to the rest of the students - a popular (to use) example is the sci-fi club, who appear to watch science fiction and eat pizza. I can confirm the existence of this club as I have seen their signs in the Student Union Building, although I cannot confirm their activities. But it seems that such clubs (even if this one has had its functions exaggerated) have entirely private benefits, and there is no reason to force the rest of the students to fund these individual pursuits.
What about redistribution towards disadvantaged groups? This doesn't appear to fit in with the 'all students are poor' narrative of NZUSA and the local student unions - it would be like complaining the unemployment benefit isn't big enough, and thus instituting a tax on minimum wage earners to pay for it. However if we accept that some students are reasonably well-off (as we should) it doesn't seem that unreasonable. Most university students do come from advantaged backgrounds and can afford to pay. However, even if disadvantaged students beg every week, they are unlikely to eat over $100 of free bread from the VUWSA food bank, which is what they pay in fees. Consumption of welfare services isn't means-tested but based on want - those who show up get the food, no questions asked (I understand). Presumably there is a correlation between need and want, but it seems there are going to be plenty of other factors involved - how much free time you have, whether or not you know the people in the student union, whether or not you feel accepting handouts is below you, etc. None of these seem obviously proportionally related to how much you actually need the transfer, and in the case of free time, there is probably an inverse relationship, or a correlation with prosperity! This seems like a highly inefficient way to help poor students, especially compared with the Government's ability to do so through allowances and loans (whether or not you think they do so sufficiently at the moment).
If student unions truly cared about students they would abolish all intra-redistributory funding. The best way to help students would be to give them the majority of their union fee back and let them buy their own food, pay for their own clubs, and choose their own representatives.
There are other roles that student unions perform, the highest-profile being advocacy for lower fees. I plan to write on this later in the week. Also yes, the title is a statistics joke. Joke broadly defined.
(*) This also provides offices for the student magazine and VUWSA themselves.