NZUSA
March 30th, 2009 at 1:00 pm by David FarrarI ran into the co-presidents of NZUSA, when down in Dunedin. That reminded me that I had been planning to criticise their response to National’s policy of writing off an additional 10% of any student loan repayments. Note my critical comments are aimed at NZUSA as an institution and not personally directed to the co-presidents.
I would have thought that having hard working taxpayers writing off debt of those with student loans, if they make voluntary repayments, would at least get a small thank you from NZUSA. I mean most sector groups are happy when you give money away for free to their members.
But NZUSA’s response was:
Student leaders are critical of National’s announcement of a new student loan repayment bonus scheme, citing its strict eligibility criteria and lack of vision and scope as its downfalls.
The so called strict eligibility criteria being that they made it easier from their pre-election policy by expanding it to those overseas, and only requiring $500 of repayments over a year – not in a lump sum.
“However most borrowers are already making considerable compulsory loan repayments each week, and can’t afford to make further contributions on top of this. When they are already doing everything they should, why are they now being ignored by the government?”
This is amusing, as compulsory repayments are made through the tax system. Basically those with a student loan effectively pay an extra 10% tax, until they repay their loan. So when NZUSA says people can’t afford to make further contributions, they are in effect calling for lower taxes to list after tax pay. Except they actually attack any reduction in tax rates even though it helps people repay their student debt.
“We question why National has created such a narrow policy that will merely reward the rich and leave everyone else to struggle”
This is the most outraegous part. National is giving away taxpayer money to students and graduates who make voluntary repayments of just $10 a week, and this is called rewarding the rich.
Did NZUSA slam Labour for rewarding the rich when it wrote off interest on student loans? Of course not – even though it massively favoured the well off in society.
Did NZUSA slam Labour for rewarding the rich when it announced that they would no longer restrict student allowances to poorer students, and give them to everyone regardless of wealth? Of course not.
“With such tough economic times, and loan repayment obligations already being met by most loan borrowers, why are the majority being punished and left out of this policy to reduce the debt burden?”
And now NZUSA says this policy of giving away free money to students and graduates who make voluntary repayments, is “punishing the majority”.
I do not, of course, advocate that NZUSA should sycophantically welcome everything National does. But their response to the student loan write-offs was unbalanced to put it mildy – and I daresay totally out of kilter to what would be the reaction from the average student or graduate.
I think National are absolutely nuts to not be introducing voluntary membership of student associations. NZUSA explicitly campiagned against National in the 2008 election. Even though more under 25 voters, supported National than Labour – all those National voting students were forced to fund literature telling them not to vote National.
National could announce a free handout of $20,000 to every student and I suspect NZUSA would condemn them for it, or at the least spend most of their press release complaining it is not $25,000 or it is unfair women students don’t get more than male students or ….
So why is National going to keep forcing hundreds of thousands of students to keep funding student associations who will, beyond any doubt, campaign against National in the next election? It’s almost like National wants to lose the election. I mean could you imagine Labour supporting compulsory membership of (say) Federated Farmers if the Feds spent money telling all farmers to not vote Labour?
Related posts:
- NZUSA on Student Debt
- Labour’s Student Loan Policy
- Quick students and graduates act now
- NZUSA on sexist advertising
March 30th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
“ran into the co-presidents of NZUSA, when down in Dunedin.”
You were driving something large I hope.
[DPF: Actually arranged to grab a beer with them, but never found the time. My post is about issues, not people]
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
I developed a strong antipathy towards the student unions in the late 80s.
As an institution they are a blight on the ‘rights to association’.
I endeavoured to flee the grim grasp of the Waikato Students Association in my final years on Campus, only to discover to my horror that the University has made the Union the authority in matters dealing with exemptions.
That meant the case that they were an affront to basic human rights, managed incidentally by persons of dubious aptitude but great political ambition (i.e. yet another self-serving elite who believed they knew better how to make decisions with other people’s money than the individuals themselves), didn’t go down to well.
It was a strange Kafa-esque like world. There were criteria to give students exemptions to membership. But like good foxes guarding the henhouse, they would never say what these criteria were. Getting such ‘student leaders’ to give up money and power, was not going to happen on their watch.
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
“Captain Crab (242) Vote: 38 12 Says: “Incidentally I ran into Clark last night in the basement of the Beehive ”
I hope you were driving a very large SUV!
…sorry Murrary – joke has been done before. Wasn’t particularly funny or origincal that time either…
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
It wasn’t meant to be funny and its a shit load older than kiwiblog.
You have to have seen student politicians to really have a hate on for them. then multiply it by how much money they take out of your wallet.
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
“But their response to the student loan write-offs was unbalanced to put it mildy – and I daresay totally out of kilter to what would be the reaction from the average student or graduate.”
These changes make little or no difference to ME as the average graduate, because making ends meet effectively limits my student loan repayments to the default repayments. However I have no problem with an incentive being offered to those who can organise themselves to make extra repayments. It is quite a nice incentive they are offering, too!
I am sure it is appealing for the Kiwiblog right to interpret the NZUSA comment as something to the effect that graduates who can afford to make lots of voluntary repayments are “Rich Pricks” and that nasty “business-friendly National Party” is looking after them, its mates. But that is because you, Dave, and your ilk have been outraged at the original “Rich Pricks” comment for so long that you can probably now do it in your sleep.
The job of NZUSA is to represent all students. This proposal benefits only those students/graduates that can afford to make extra repayments; that is what they are objecting to. Is this a sign of the hypocrisy/ignorance of the left? Really??
[DPF: The only person referring to rich pricks here is you. And (for example) the recent tax cuts would allow graduates on even the minimum wage to make voluntary repayments. And the vast majority of graduates are on higher than the average wage, so suggesting only a small minority will ever be able to make a voluntary repayment is wrong]
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
“..and I daresay totally out of kilter to what would be the reaction from the average student or graduate.”
That’s precisely the point. The USA “leaders” are elected by a handful of students, while the bulk of the students could not care less. These elected leaders, mainly students of Political Science, Art, or Feminisn and Women’s Studies, are radical left wingers not precisely known for their democratic behaviour.
Why the compulsion? Association to any USA should be voluntary, despite the protests of the lefties.
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
David has an “ilk” now?
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
I know the NZUSA presidents personally and while they are nice people, this PR is clearly an ideological anti-National rant. Its unfortunate, because it only takes one PR like that to make it difficult to take anything a group says seriously.
[DPF: Yeah Sophia and Jordan are good guys, and it is not aimed at them. As you say National can now dismiss NZUSA as irrelevant because hey they attack us when when we give money away to students and graduates]
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I stopped taking anything said by any student unions seriously years ago.
They arent even worth the effort to laugh at.
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Until student union membership is voluntary, the student unions cant be considered the voice of their constituents.
Hey, I just had a great idea! I now speak for all students in NZ.
They havent given me the authority to do so, I just assumed it. The best thing is that it doesnt cost them a goddamned cent. I will do it for free!
I will also speak for all Maori, Asian immigrants, straight people, prisoners, welfare recipients, superannuatants, livestock, and all members of the Labour Party.
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
ACT have a VSM bill all ready to go… all the nats need to do is pick it up and run with it.
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Anyone with a decent degree will be able to work out that a 10% bonus on a student loan repayment is anything but generous. Only useful for someone in last eighteen months of repayments.
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Edit fn still missing
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Anyone with a decent degree will be able to work out that lower taxes over their entire life is of far more benfit than somethign short tem like universal student allowances of the other crap that NZUSA push…
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Would those lower taxes come with a slightly higher tuition bill for the student?
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
“Anyone with a decent degree will be able to work out that a 10% bonus on a student loan repayment is anything but generous. Only useful for someone in last eighteen months of repayments.”
How so? Given that interest is paid (if it is paid) on the balance of the loan, the amount of money saved is going to be greater for someone with a longer pay off horizon.
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Absolute poppycock Trev. Which ever way you look at it, that 10% is free money. And last time i checked, anyone giving away money for free is usually looked upon as generous.
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Students don’t often have degrees Mike, thats why they’re students.
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Why are National so scared of VSM?
The way I see it they have two options…
1) Be attacked by NZUSA for the next eight years.
2) Be attacked by NZUSA for the next eight years and get to tell students they’ve saved them $130/year.
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
You usually need a prior degree to be admitted to most masters and doctoral programmes, and there are a surprisingly large number of grad students (around 16%) on most campuses.
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
I hope membership of the NZUSA is strictly voluntary.
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
“We question why National has created such a narrow policy that will merely reward the rich and leave everyone else to struggle”
You chastise this as the most outrageous part of their argument, but I think it is the most persuasive. University students come from generally more well-off backgrounds, and go on to be the richest members of society (on average). It is just a pity that they don’t make the connection that this is an argument against all subsidies for students, rather than just this particular one.
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
VSM should be promoted. Personally I do not see it as a big issue but freedom of association should be promoted.
I suspect a fair few of those who borrowed for the “free money” might actually pay their loans back in full. Will be interesting to see how expensive this actually is over time as it should encourage repayments.
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
That person who wrote so sensibly at 2.52 p.m.
Vote:Is he the same guy that was in the cabinet that made Student Loans interest free?
If so, then, how can a person be involved in such a non sensical move then write so brilliantly.
Shut up, Sharon!
March 30th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
NZUSA arguing the case for students; wow, there’s news!
Chthoniid, I don’t think it was, but I was the person responsible for this – and I did reject one application – I apologise.
I want to be really clear about this; I have no problem with universal membership provided people can opt out. I simply mean that. on one occassion, I wrongly rejected an application. I don’t, however, think it is wrong that the Association determines the matter (or did), I simply think I was wrong in my determination of one application.
Now, given that I’ve been around this particular argument more than enough before, excuse me if I don’t want to get into the repeat-loop again.
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Chthoniid, I don’t think it was, but ifI was the person responsible for this – and I did reject one application – I apologise.
missed the ‘if’
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
I don’t think NZUSA is arguing the case for students when it attacks the Government for helping students.
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
“I think National are absolutely nuts to not be introducing voluntary membership of student associations.”
No, they’re just not stupid. Student’s already have the right to chose whether they want to go voluntary.
Plus, Tolley—in an uncanny act for her—said to student media that “The current law gives student bodies the ability to change between voluntary and compulsory student membership. The government supports that flexibility and doesn’t see changing the system as a priority.” linked from http://tinyurl.com/cg9pyv
Student Associations provide a whole lot or services (other than the really awesome ones like Salient) which simply would not be met if National legislated.
Students should chose, not politicians.
[DPF: Students should indeed choose - on an individual level]
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
[DPF: Students should indeed choose - on an individual level]
I agree. This is what freedom of association means. You are free to associate- or not associate- with any group you choose to (outside criminal conspuacies etc). It’s in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It doesn’t matter if thuis inconveniences anyone else.
That student unions have been so resolutely opposed to people exercising this right shows how completely contemptuous they really are of “rights”.
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
lets see, because it represents a gross assault on natural justice because the body making the decision has a financial stake in the outcome, that the institution one has a grievance with, gets to decide the validity of the complaint, that the students making the determination lack the qualifications (legal and moral) to do so. Student politicans at Waikato in this period were self-serving scum- that could make bad decisions without their victims having any recourse.
That you still can’t see anything wrong with having that power, exercising it badly, and imposing costs on others, basically tells me that nothing had changed. The festering cancer that is the compulsory student membership needs to be excised.
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
DPF: What do you mean National are nuts for NOT be introducing VSM? Since when did the National Party rule this out?
Paul Williams – Ahh you just *had* to roll out that old chestnut “Universal Membership” didn’t you?
Sheesh. Going by that logic maybe a sports club should enforce that all local residents join them in the interests of public health!
The WSU situation is a completely different kettle of fish – that union was a sham and run by crooks and liars after they cheated the students out of voluntary membership.
This is an issue ACT on Campus and Student Choice have championed for over a decade. DPF has also a strong interest in this as I remember reading his submission for VSM back in 1996!
Read this article on VSM, it’s bloody brilliant and a good point of view. http://tinyurl.com/c5qfu6
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
You mean like when the courts decide your parking fine? Don’t confuse the princpals of natural justice with the limitations of your experience. The fact is that generally all body corporates initially deal with internal challenges ’bout which they might have an interest. You’ve got a leap of logic in your argument that outrage won’t obscure… calling people scum, hmm, how’s that work for you in the real world?
Clint, at the risk of upsetting you… I was long gone at the time your grievances, hyperbolically described, occurred. There was no corruption that took place in the times I was involved… there was a little indulgence, sure, but I think you’ll find it wasn’t by the lefties but rather folk you might prefer to be mates with…
And decades you say, nah, I doubt it, there was a blip on the radar where a couple of clever folk had a few wins but I’d not get carried away… sanity prevailed/s (and most of us moved on…)
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 3:59 am
I wasn’t at WSU Paul, but we all heard about the compulsory union buying a TV station and then selling parts of their operations and blaming VSM for it – before it was even introduced. Some of the stuff WSU did were a national laughing stock. But I digress. WSU was a success story for VSM, it had good support from the community and the students who felt it was worth joining went ahead and joined. It also was a good example of how desperate the left were in trying to get it back.
We’ll get the unions voluntary – we’ve been pretty patient but it will happen
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 9:01 am
Jackson Wood. You’re mincing words and rolling out all the old compulsory fibs to try and discourage the debate.
The law is biased towards the compulsory student associations – and why should all students subsidise your activities in order to get a degree. Kinda ironic that you’re from Victoria – with the worst most excessive and embarrassing Student Association in the country. The participation in your elections is one of the worst in the country and VUWSA is a training ground for the Workers Party.
Put it this way, if your association was so wonderful, surely you’d be a supporter of letting students choose to join VUWSA. What is stronger? An association with 10% participation and huge apathy or full participation and active membership?
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 9:08 am
Student Unions – WTF is that about eh?
Its a club – those who want to can join.
Q/Why does it need to be compulsory? A/ So the University Exec has some some pet students to lean on.
Q/ What do the pet students get out of it? A/ a free ride on student ‘dues’ to spend on trips and piss.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 9:30 am
No, unlike the courts which are filled by people trained in law, with numerous checks-and-balances, the Student Union is run by wet-behind-the-ears, poorly experienced, puerile students with left-wing political agendas. The system was not transparent, fair or balanced.
There was no way that the WSU was going to buy the view that they were an immoral institution that supported human rights violations (freedom of association).
You were singulalry unqualified to make a judgement on exemption. I don’t think anything has changed.
If they had let me get an exemption, they would have been deluged by applications from students making the same case. That would have turned off the money-pump that was the vast majority of students that under-utilised union services.
Compulsory student unions are not like other body corporates, the analogy is so cretinously stupid I’m amazed you have the chutzpah to make it. It stands on a single premise. That freedom of association shall be shat upon. Other bodies allow freedom of association.
In the real world, I don’t usually have to people forcing me to do things I normally have the right to refuse, and taking money off me in duress. Normally such people are liable to arrest for theft. But somehow this is all okay if a student union does it. So I’m quite happy to reserve the title of scum to a few rare instances.
For years student unions treated me with contempt. It’s just karma.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 11:33 am
Perhaps so, but you claimed the process was flawed, which it’s not. Rather you’re experience, or at least your take on it, was less than satisfactory. Moreover there were checks and balances in the process at the WSU, matters could be appealed as per any other incorporated society both internally and externally. You started making a comment about the principals, I’m glad you’ve not modified that to be about your experience.
As I said up-thread, I know I rejected one application that I shouldn’t have. I don’t believe it was yours.
Oh yeah you do, all the damn time… it’s a fantasy to think that you’re entirely free and fanciful to think that student unions should be some ideologues’ nirvana. Move on.
I don’t know what you experienced that so embittered you, but whatever it is, you’re generalising. I know that not everyone agrees with the largely left-centre perspective of student associations and that this is a cause of friction but (a) the clear majority did (probably still do) and (b) the capital “P” politics is only one small element of their activities.
The vociferousness of a minority perspective was amplified by some events that, in retrospect, could have been handled differently. However, the majority of students and the services they want/need shouldn’t have been jeopardised for an undergraduate obsession with Ann Rand.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 12:43 pm
The problem Paul, as you so aptly demonstrate, is that the Student Union could not make a fair judgement. Exemption applications were judged by the student leaders either under the suspicions that the student wished to save money (free ride on the services funded by others), or were politically/ideologically driven (e.g. your crack about being a Randian undergraduate- sorry, wrong on both counts).
Hence, the position that the whole institution was immoral would not be considered fairly. The student union saw themselves as the good guys. I saw them as the bad guys. Giving them the power to adjudicate exemptions is deeply wrong. They’re the bad guys. I don’t want associate with them. I don’t to give the money. I don’t want them to lobby for policies I oppose. Going to them ‘cap-in-hand’ to beg for an exemption was deeply offensive. For this reason I reject utterly and without reservation, your claims that the union had the expertise and authority to make these decisions.
I’m very dubious about your claims of fairness, checks and balances, and this is completely at odds with my experience. The process by which to claim an exemption, the criteria employed to judge an exemption, and the reasons used to reject the application were kept from me. I asked, I was informed I would not be told of this information. Whatever process existed on paper, it ultimately depended on the whim of the student union to share that information. This is what happens when the foxes are allowed to guard the henhouse.
Now, while I accept that there are other aspects of my life where my choice is constrained, this doesn’t justify compulsory student union membership. This is a puerile, schoolyard argument. ‘Cos Billy was allowed to torture cats, I thought it was okay to torture puppies. It doesn’t make it right.
I am a free-thinking, rational, adult human being. I can make judgments whether associations advance my interests or not and support them freely. Student unions are based on the arrogant conceit that I can’t make these judgments, and student leaders will make them for me. Yet many voluntary organisations are able to provide services to their members without recourse to compulsion- typically by using a range of member-exclusive benefits.
Fwiw, perennial disgust at the assumed moral superiority of student leaders, and being treated as a fee-bitch, has contributed to my bitterness at this institution.
Vote:April 1st, 2009 at 12:32 am
Chthoniid – students are generally too immature and partisan to be able to give clear fair judgements. I was based in Otago and they were not even on the same planet as the majority of the students hence why the terrible participation in anything they organised. The arguments why we had to join were also flawed – but in order to articulate them you had to run the gauntlet of angry left wing students who would do all they can to shut you down. Sounds like you had similar experiences!
There are hundreds if not thousands of horror stories about student unions. Put all that aside and think why should any student be forced to subsidise a student bar to get a degree. Paul – I respect your opinion but again ask yourself why should students be made to join? WSU was/is a basket case – I thought nobody would want to defend that place
Vote:April 1st, 2009 at 1:02 am
Clint, sounds like something I’ve heard before, something about the Bill of Rights giving individuals too many damn rights… if they can vote, sign contracts etc… that’s more than mature enough surely.
But let me again concede that, though my views haven’t changed all that much, student unions didn’t always tolerate diversity… odd that really, I was so determined to help people to do their own thing and yet for a small group, personally, I think I didn’t get it quite right (‘cept Bryan Sinclair, he oughta be someone’s sub…
)
Vote:April 1st, 2009 at 8:36 am
For someone who didn’t want to get into a debate on this issue Paul, you seem to be putting a lot of effort into this.
If you want any kind of affirmation that you were a good bloke, and did a good job in the WSU, you’re not going to get it from me.
Advocates of compulsory student unions are tarred by the same brush that made Nazis require civil servants join the Nazi party. Yeah, and the Nazis used for the greater good arguments as well.
It’s wrong because it tears a great breach in the freedom of association rights. Anybody who has a moral compass that swings vaguely in the correct direction can recognise that. Clearly your’s doesn’t.
Vote: