That students are vulnerable and so relevant objects of sacrifice is a slightly trickier argument to make. After all we are the 'leaders of tomorrow', bright young things destined for success and power, usually from well off families and following in the footsteps of well educated parents. What need do we have of welfare, of protection?

There are a couple of responses to this point. Firstly, it is a gross simplification to think of all university students, even at UWA, as privileged and empowered. Many students do not have the stereotypical pater and mater providing for them and paving the way for their future success. Furthermore, regardless of background there are still many issues of discrimination and prejudice which make students vulnerable, and need to be fought - The Women's Collective and Sexuality Information Department, both departments of the Guild, exist for exactly this reason.

Secondly, it is not just the students of today for whom we need be concerned, it is also the potential students of tomorrow. They are the most vulnerable of all, without a voice and entirely subject to the decisions made by current university administrations and governments. If equitable access to university education is not maintained, many deserving potential students will never have the opportunity to access higher education, and so will be deprived of the life changing opportunities that it provides.

Thus the Guild, like many other political organisations, does work towards defending the interests of the vulnerable. It therefore seems that political institutions, at least if the Guild and the students who constitute it are any example, do often involve a concern for external goods. Halfway there! It is the second criterion for worth however, internal good, which is the most widely perceived problem for organisations like the guild and people like our politicians (on whatever level), who claim some moral legitimacy in the face of significant cynicism.

There seems to be a prevailing attitude out there that people who participate in political activity are in it for themselves; for money, career, prestige or just plain attention. If this is the case, then it is entirely appropriate that people are cynical and disparaging. But what evidence is there those such motivation are widespread, or even infrequent but present, amongst those involved in politics? What is the basis of this climate of disgust that exists towards the politically involved?

The fact of the matter is, of course, that there are some bad eggs who are in it for themselves, just as there are those who get involved in charity simply to rort the system. Equally evident however, is the reality that the vast majority of those who get involved in politics (at least on a Guild level; I have little experience of other levels, and there are important differences between them) do so out of a desire to see good things done, whatever their political orientation. Some get frustrated, and leave; some get complacent, and forget why they started in the first place; for most, however, it is this passion for making things better which drives participation, a vision of how the world should be and the energy to at least help bring it about.

But what about the perks, you might say, what about the favours - surely they are a more plausible explanation of what motivates people to get involved in politics? This is the second element of internal good, sacrificing personal gain for greater goods. It is true that if politics is all a matter of perks and rorts, then there is nothing special about participating in it. Is this the case in the Guild? Quite plainly no. The only student who receives any money in the Guild is the President, which is fair enough given that the position requires a more than full time commitment. The heads of many charities also receive some remuneration, not because without the incentive they would leave, but because even the best will in the world requires food and shelter to fuel it.

No other position in the Guild is paid, but all require a commitment of time and energy. Such commitment is often freely given, but not without sacrifice. These are still students, after all, and value the opportunity to learn and do well just as much as everyone else. That people are prepared to sacrifice study, to sacrifice time with friends and family for a good that they believe in is not incredible, indeed different people do it in different capacities all the time - but it is praiseworthy. There are certainly good times, opportunities for personal growth, to learn valuable skills and meet interesting people, so it's certainly not all bad. In the final analysis, however, participation would rarely be justified on a personal cost-benefit analysis, it requires something more.

Australian society is partly constituted by a notion of egalitarianism, of equality and a fair go. Another expression of this idea, however, is the tall poppy syndrome; that those who seek or possess power over us have to be brought down to earth, and fair enough top. However, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. Those who sacrifice for what they believe in, not for their own benefit but for everyone's, are both worthy of praise and important for achieving a whole range of goods. Yes, not all who are involved in politics of whatever sort are self-sacrificing. But why assume that none of them are, and in that same breath both provide a disincentive against participation and commit an injustice against those who have given up good things for themselves for the good of others - they deserve better.