Heather Roy on VSM
June 30th, 2009 at 2:00 pm by David FarrarHeather Roy notes the latest ($175,000 stolen from CPSA) in a long line of thefts of student money and summarises recent cases:
December 1999 – Brendan McQuillan, president of Nelson Polytechnic Student Association, admitted stealing $8,004. November 2003 – Florence bailey, office manager of Massey Students Association, jailed for two years and three months after stealing $203,000. November 2005 – Victoria University Maori Student Association treasurer Wi Nepia jailed for stealing $161,000. 2005 – Otago University’s Te Roopu Maori, the Maori students’ association collapsed amid allegations of financial impropriety. Estimated fraud $21,000. April 2007 – Clelia Opie, officer of Victoria University Students’ Association, spends $6,000 on phone calls.’
Now there are not that many student associations in NZ. The fraud rate for them is hence staggeringly high. Heather notes:
The fact is that compulsory student association membership creates a pool of money and a lack of accountability on how that money is managed. Misuse of funds in a voluntary organisation would result in a loss of confidence by members in the executive. But in student organisations, despite frequent fraud and theft, students are still forced to pay union fees whether they want to or not. Student associations are also often plagued by accusations of advocating only the views of their executives rather than those of their wider memberships.
It’s a disgrace that National continues to force most students to belong to a students’ association.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
It’s a disgrace that National continues to force most students to belong to a students’ association.
Why doesn’t National bring in voluntary association? It’s not like they’re depending on the Workers Party for support in the Select Committees.
[DPF: I don't know. I wish they would]
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
It’s a disgrace that National continues to force most students to belong to a students’ association.
Amen!
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Let’s get a violin out for DPF, or should I say high horse. I think everyone would know your feelings on Students Associations by now so how about letting the students make the choice as opposed to an ex student.
I don’t care either way, but I think it’s the students who should make the choice not the government.
[DPF: Of course students should make the choice as to whether to join or not - but the Government won't let them]
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Nigel! How dare you come to kiwiblog and think that people should have the right to decide for themselves? Next, DPF and coy will be arguing for voluntary rates, councils, taxes, etc.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Agreed with Nigel, Student Associations are more than capable of voting to become voluntary, and not all student unions are compulsory anyway. AUSA has been voluntary all decade, because the students chose that option. Regular referendums that have been held to return back to compulsory unionism have failed. The government does not need to tell them what to do tertiary students are suppose to be our brightest individuals, one would hope that they are capable of making up their own minds.
[DPF: Putting aside the fact there is no good reason why 51% of students should have a legislative right to force 49% to join a student association, the average referendum on VSM resembles an Iranian election. Think about elections where one party controls the media]
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Auckland University has voluntary association, in 2 out of the 5 years I was there they brought about 2 f***ing referendums, spending redicolous amounts trying to get us to vote compulsary membership back. Fuckers.
In saying that if a Uni as a whole chooses to be compulsory, fine with that, and I think currently there is the ability to get a referendum to make it voluntary is there not?
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Of course, any referendum succeeding in making things voluntary or compulsory are making them that way for the next generation of students (three years) rather than for themselves, for the most part.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Hells bells: why shouldn’t an intelligent student be able to choose whether or not to join their Students Association? If I was studying at Vic I would choose not to (from all reports Vic Students Association is a disgrace), if I was at Canterbury I would choose to join as theirs is strong and you get a reasonable bang for your buck. Nigel asks for the students to make the choice, that is exactly the point, with VSM every single student gets to make their choice. If one is forced to pay and this money is stolen by corrupt individuals, or used on services that you will never use, how fair is that?
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
DPF:
“Now there are not that many student associations in NZ. The fraud rate for them is hence staggeringly high.”
Whoa there, horsey! That last assertion needs a bit more by way of evidence!
You’ve listed 6 alleged cases of “fraud” (defined broadly) that have taken place over a ten year period. The NZUSA/TMA website lists 31 student associations as members/affiliates (but this isn’t the full number of associations in NZ … but it’s a minimum number). So we have less than one alleged case of fraud per year for over 30 institutions (or a less than 3% reported incidence of fraud per year for these associations).
Now let’s look at KPMG’s most recent bi-annual survey of fraud in Australian and New Zealand firms; “Almost half (49%) of the New Zealand respondents had experienced at least one fraud during the survey period.”It is significant for New Zealand business that the rate of fraud per respondent is higher than the survey average of 45% and that has been the case now for three consecutive surveys,” Leishman says.”
http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/fraud-costing-new-zealand-firms-millions-2469080
Oops! Suddenly students associations don’t look all that bad, do they?
[DPF: The correct comparison is frauds serious enough to result in criminal prosecution - not that someone claimed too much in expenses. Student Associations have an appalling record for massively large frauds (as a proportion of income]
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
I hate compulsory membership, but I haven’t actually done anything about it for one very good reason:
I’m not an Arts student, therefore I actually have work to do.
I can’t afford to spend my time fucking around playing politician. The only people who can are liberal arts bums who can take a shit on their exam paper and still get an A. Quite frankly, the membership fee doesn’t concern me enough to bother.
There is absolutely no rational argument for union membership being compulsory. How the hell can you claim to represent students when students have no choice about joining your organisation?
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
These young socialists (most, if not all, are lefties) are doing what is second nature to their perverse ideology: to steal from others.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Nigel your point is being disingenuous.
People elected to student unions are paid handsome commissions and are in general a cosy little club that look after the other members of their little elite.
Why would they allow a vote on the subject of voluntary membership when they are fully aware that if the vote goes the way they dont want, theyll be gone and lose all of their privileges.
Vote:I’m sure most student unions around NZ would actively suppress vsm campaigns, with their control of student media etc, then allow a vote on it…
June 30th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
As one who has both been a student and a parent of students putting them in charge of money is a very bad move.
They have no concept of the consquences of their actions hences the tens of thousands up to eyeballs in debt thru wasteful spending on the what we used to acll the 2 Bs Booze and Birds in our time.
IMHO Uni students like Beneficaries should be issued with Vouchers for the necessities of life.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
“How the hell can you claim to represent students when students have no choice about joining your organisation?”
Err … so John Key is Prime Minister of New Zealand how? I don’t remember getting asked whether I wanted to be part of NZ. Just what is the link between the concept of “representation” and one’s choice to be a part of something?
[DPF: Go ask a constitutional law professor about the difference between a nation state and an incorporated society]
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
The Last National Government implimented a referendum for students on compulsary student membership. At Otago Uni, where I voted to abolish compulsory membership, only 9% of the student population voted. The outcome was 5% to 4% for retaining the status quo. Hence Complusory membership was retained by the 5% of students who wanted to keep it.
I find it strange how student unions are so left wing, yet most university graduates who go out and earn a living, pay taxes and show responsibility will bat the other way. At the time I advocated that we should be happy to pay our tuition and student loan interest in return for lower taxes on the other side as it would work out cheaper in the long run. I still feel the same way. Right now interest rate and principle right offs are just an additional tax.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
It is immoral to force anyone to be a part of any institution or organisation! Who’s with me?
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Well that fucks it for god then Ryan.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
That is quite possibly the most retarded comparison I have ever heard.
The logical distinction between the government of a country and representation by a private organisation is so obvious that your failure to grasp it actually causes me physical pain in my cerebral cortex (that part of the brain which appears to be absent in your case). [And yes, I am aware of the biological impossibility of that statement. Your lack of mental proficiency is so profound it has actually managed to violate the science of human biology].
I’m actually a bit surprised that the same person could both make that comparison and operate a keyboard to a level of proficiency sufficient to communicate said comparison.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Perhaps you’d like to explain the obvious logical distinction between the government of a country and representation by a private organisation.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
“# Manolo (565) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
These young socialists (most, if not all, are lefties) are doing what is second nature to their perverse ideology: to steal from others.”
And the old tories doing the only thing they know how. Disenfranchising others, and reducing the quality of education in order to keep the poor down.
“Grizz
The outcome was 5% to 4% for retaining the status quo. Hence Complusory membership was retained by the 5% of students who wanted to keep it.”
Over the 4% who wanted to see it go?
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Gosh, Christopher,
Searing and rigorous analysis like that might even earn you a C- in an Arts paper, if you weren’t “so busy” with your “real” subjects! Of course, some actual argument on the point would be nice – just how is your choice in joining an organisation relevant to it’s ability to represent you? But hey … so long as you’re happy acting like a 4 year old told he can’t have an ice-cream for desert … .
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
DPF:
“Now there are not that many student associations in NZ. The fraud rate for them is hence staggeringly high. ”
Or the accountability is very good amongst them so fraud gets discovered far more often?
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
“[DPF: The correct comparison is frauds serious enough to result in criminal prosecution - not that someone claimed too much in expenses. Student Associations have an appalling record for massively large frauds (as a proportion of income]”
Again, it would be nice if you were able to provide some meaningful, comparative analysis on this, rather than argue by blunt assertion. For instance, the KPMG survey I cited reveals this:
“Usable replies were received from 420 organisations, a response rate of 20 percent.
The total value of fraud reported was $301.1 million with an average value for each organisation of $1.5 million. Twenty-six respondents reported single frauds with a value of greater than $200 000 each and there were seven organisations where the value of fraud exceeded $3 million.”
Hardly a matter of “too much in expenses”, is it? (Although arguably one of the “serious frauds” you cite on the part of student’s associations – the $6000 phone bill – could be said to fall into this category).
“[DPF: Go ask a constitutional law professor about the difference between a nation state and an incorporated society]”
Frankly, I wouldn’t believe anything a constitutional law professor says. They invariably have a greatly over-inflated opinion of themselves and their abilities. I’d prefer Christopher to tear himself away from his hectic little life doing very important stuff and substantiate his position.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
“just how is your choice in joining an organisation relevant to it’s ability to represent you?”
People view the state as a completely different entity to that of a private organisation. To most people, the thought of choosing to disassociate themselves with the country they live in, doesn’t come into their minds. Generally speaking people accept that government has a role to play in shaping society, and for better or worse that democratic majority is the way to determine government and representation.
The same can not be said for a students association. The various opinions around the role of a students association are as varied as the students that attend universities. It is quite correct to state that an organisation loses its moral voice to speak for its membership if it has to coerce that membership into joining. One of the things that decision makers look for is the strength of feeling behind an organisation saying something. They know that the bigger the organisation in terms of members, the more clout it has in its statements. That goes out the door though when the same decision maker knows that an organisation can make as outlandish statements as it chooses because its members can’t leave in disgust.
Bottom line is SAs are an anomaly. If one wishes to make comparisons, then the best thing to compare them with are other membership based lobby groups such as the AA – rather than the state.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Mike,
So the difference between membership of a government and membership of a private organisation is that most people think that there’s a difference between membership of a government and membership of a private organisation.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
“People view the state as a completely different entity to that of a private organisation. To most people, the thought of choosing to disassociate themselves with the country they live in, doesn’t come into their minds.”
Possibly this is true as an empirical matter – but so what? Let’s say there IS a group that wishes “to disassociate themselves with the country they live in” (or, more accurately, form their own “country” within NZ). Let’s call this group “The Tuhoe Nation”. Now, why exactly can’t they do so?
“It is quite correct to state that an organisation loses its moral voice to speak for its membership if it has to coerce that membership into joining.”
Not at all. What matters in terms of “moral voice” is how the organisation’s leadership interacts with and responds to the demands of its membership, not how those members became members.
“One of the things that decision makers look for is the strength of feeling behind an organisation saying something. They know that the bigger the organisation in terms of members, the more clout it has in its statements.”
So that might make SA’s less effective lobbyists (quite possibly true). But this isn’t just (or even mainly) what SA’s actually do.
“Bottom line is SAs are an anomaly. If one wishes to make comparisons, then the best thing to compare them with are other membership based lobby groups such as the AA – rather than the state.”
Yes – SA’s are anomalies … because they exist in anomalous institutions (Universities/Polytechs). The reason for SA’s is both to serve those institutions purposes (provide various services and benefits to those students attending the institutions for the purposes of education) and to allow for the voices of those students to be heard within and without those institutions. So comparing them with either the state or “membership based lobby groups” is actually pointless … SA’s are different to both, and if they didn’t exist, something very much like them would have to get invented.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
“[DPF: Go ask a constitutional law professor about the difference between a nation state and an incorporated society]”
For the sake of semantics asking a constitutional lawyer to justify the difference of treatment between a nation state and an incorporated society is like asking a wine taster to justify the difference between a $200 and $500 bottle of wine. Yes they know allot on the topic but they also have a vested interest. A constitutional lawyer has to be able to justify the difference between the two as that enables them to argue for differing treatments.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
“Yes they know allot on the topic but they also have a vested interest. A constitutional lawyer has to be able to justify the difference between the two as that enables them to argue for differing treatments.”
Plus it keeps them in a job. Bloody parasites.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
‘And the old tories doing the only thing they know how. Disenfranchising others, and reducing the quality of education in order to keep the poor down.’
Typical lefty stupidity and hatred.
Actually the Tories want people to be wealthy so they can buy the capitalists’ products.
Jeez!
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Well that’s one of the differences Ryan. Most people can see that there are many differences. Hope you can too.
The main difference that I alluded to (my apologies for not breaking it down more clearly), is that people accept the role of government, it’s place in shaping society and that the idea of government is there to reflect the will of society. The idea of membership doesn’t come into that.
That same consensus doesn’t come into what the role of private organisations actually is. What is the role of the private organisation? That is an area that has much less consensus than the role of government. Trying to equate SAs with the state, is both illogical and offensive.
Also the idea of belonging is an interesting one to consider. Almost every New Zealander would feel they belong to New Zealand – in that they are a part of it, it means something to them. Even if one disagrees with the representatives in government. The reverse is true with SAs. Most members don’t feel they are a part of the organisation. Being a member is not the same as identifying with an organisation – particularly if you are forced to join.
But at the end of the day I know that people don’t actually think SAs and the state are the same thing and should be bound by the same rules. No one is actually that offensive as to believe that. However it gets suggested merely to divert the argument towards a conclusion those supporting compulsory membership ie. who actually supports CM based on the idea that SAs should be treated the same as the state? Answer – no one, otherwise you would see people clammering for people to be forced to join the AA.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Again, you’re simply stating that people accept the morality of compulsory state membership while not accepting the morality of compulsory private membership. I agree that voluntary state membership is not a popular view, but that doesn’t make it self-evidently idiotic.
Again, you keep coming back to consensus as your point of difference.
I am.
Actually, I was diverting the argument toward the logical conclusion that those supporting voluntary membership should extend that value to the state. I’m against compulsory membership, but you apparently are in favour of it in situations where most people are in favour of it.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Mike,
For what it’s worth, I actually don’t disagree with you that much. I guess my larger point, however, is that unless you are a complete, thoroughgoing social-contract theorist, “the state” poses a big problem for the individualist conception of society. And if it is somehow OK to subordinate the individual choice to belong or not to that institution, then it does throw into doubt the claim that an institution’s moral value/basic legitimacy depends entirely on choice. Because the “Tuhoe problem” is still there – what happens when someone/group rejects your claim that almost everyone “feel(s) they belong to New Zealand – in that they are a part of it, it means something to them.”?
But as you say, analogies between the State and SA’s are ultimately not much use (just as analogies between the AA and SA’s actually aren’t much use, either). Instead, the question should be “what are SA’s for, within what institutional frameworks, and what rules of membership are necessary to allow them to perform that function?”
[DPF: AG If people want to make a case for SAs being compulsory the better comparison is to local Govt. I still regard that as a flawed comparison but even if one accepts it, then I want the safeguards of local Govt - oversight by the Auditor-General, legislation requiring democratic operations and genuine consultation with ratepayers, a SA Commission that determines remuneration etc etc. In giving local bodies the powers of compulsion they have legislated for accounta bility. With SAs they have given them compulsion and no requirements to be accountable or in fact even democratic]
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Ryan (and AG?),
Ok accept where you are coming from in terms of discussing individualism. I tend to hold similar views myself in that people should choose to be able to lead the lives they wish without negatively impacting on the ability of others to do so (the oft quoted rights to life, liberty and property so long as one does not transgress on the same rights of others). To this extent I agree that “membership” of the state can be perceived as a negative – particularly if the shaping of society (as I referred to), impinges on individual rights.
I was making the above points as I have often encountered people stating that we should treat SAs like we treat the state as an excuse for making membership compulsory. While you are being consistent Ryan in using the same arguments for VSM as applying to state “membership”, most people would not see being involved in the state as being forced to join something they rather would not. (Believe me I have some sympathy for what you suggest – just don’t necessarily think the majority of New Zealanders do). I do think it is offensive to say that because you have no choice in being a “member” of New Zealand, you should also have no choice in being a member of a SA.
AG – I don’t think it is necessarily possible to come to any sort of widespread consensus as to what the role of a SA is. I do feel that forced membership of a private institution is never justified, even if it is determined that the (consensus) roles of that institution can not be fulfilled without it. In the case of SAs, and what I take their roles as being, I do not however feel that they need collapse without forcing people to join (or more importantly – fund).
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Heather Roy is a GOVERNMENT MP now.
The question here is not “why isn’t something being done about this awful issue our Heather has uncovered?”
It would be fair to ask “What is Heather Roy doing about it?”
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Ratbiter “Heather Roy is a GOVERNMENT MP now.”
No she isn’t. ACT MPs are not government MPs strictly speaking. Heather is a Minister outside cabinet with limited scope to influence the legislative agenda, beyond what has already been agreed in the confidence and supply agreement. Part of that limited scope however is agitating for changes. What DPF links to is her doing exactly that.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Well, we have our answer to the question.
If the National Goverment actually did something dozens of idiots would argue the case that black is white louder and louder until the cows came home.
Then they’d argue that the cows were actually sheep.
Does John Key really have the balls for a fight like that? No. (Sigh)
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
This situation must change but it must not follow the model at Auckland which is effectively compulsory funding.
Student associations are just lobby groups that provide services they are not like city councils or governments so unless those of you making such comparisons are going to advocate for compulsory membership of all similar types of organisations you cannot justify the funding and membership of them remaining compulsory.
Their existence violates freedom of conscience and association.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Agreed Madeline, however the compulsory funding aspect only applies as far as the University. The Association exists very much as a VSM operation.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Interesting this comes up. When the Snack was around at university, (before the time bands DPF gives above), the Student Association accountant was involved in a very significant looting of the funds through back-doors he had installed in the accounting systems he had helped develop. As far as I know he was only knicked for a smallish proportion of what he got away with as thanks to his ability to manipulate the accounting systems and the lack of any independent paper trail (which conveniently disappeared) available. There might seem to be a “moral hazard” in existence, anough money to be worth taking, poor record keeping or poor checking processes in at least some cases, and a group of people who typically seem to believe that they have a right to other peoples property. Not that the accountant should necessarily fall into this last category, but maybe the atmosphere is catching.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
The difference between a SA and a government, is that a government is a very high-level organisation that derives authority from its monopoly power to use violence to protect its citizens.
Such manifestations of violence is the right that police have to use violence to achieve peace and order, and armed forces to use violence to protect its citizens from attack.
Student associations do not have the sovereign power that comes from the ‘organisational’ benefits of coordinated force. They are simply an abuse of the freedom of association rights- rights that we signed up to with the UN Declaration of Human rights. There was no exception built into that treaty that exempted student associations.
The only people who should have the right to decide if SA are an association that serves their interests, is the students themselves. True voluntary membership allows for this. Quasi forms that throws individual rights into a lottery of majority vote are not true rights. Individual rights exist to protect minority interests.
The only public service SA provide are representation of students at university-level meetings. This can be done at trivial costs, and ought to be a decreasing function of student membership.
The brutal reality is that SA do not serve student memberships, and are treated with complete indifference and contempt by most students. It is merely another financial impost on the path to getting a degree. It is unfortunate that SA tend to attract either leaders interested in rorting the system, or leaders with overtly political agendas- but without the competence to manage the financial resources of the organisation. As such, fraud is straightforward, with swings to incompetence frequent. You can’t put 20 year olds with no work experience into managing institutions with large financial resources.
Compulsory SA’s are an affront and an insult to a free society. Freedom of association was recognised in the UN Dec of HR as a key right that provided a bulwark against the totalitarian evil that stalked Europe for most of the 20th C. The fact that anyone finds compulsory SA meritable at all isn incomprehensible. Why not make everyone who works for the government belong to the National party- or give companies the right to ban unions from forming in their workplaces. It is not different to compulsory SA.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Mike,
“I do feel that forced membership of a private institution is never justified, even if it is determined that the (consensus) roles of that institution can not be fulfilled without it. In the case of SAs, and what I take their roles as being, I do not however feel that they need collapse without forcing people to join (or more importantly – fund).”
Of course, the obvious response to that is “who is forcing anyone to go to Universities?” Don’t like being in a SA? Become a drain layer … principles come at a cost, after all. Furthermore, we now have a market in NZ – some Universities have VSM, others don’t. Let’s let the consumers decide which they prefer (or if they even care). So where’s the problem?
Chthoniid
Really want to equate compulsory SA’s with Nazi/Stalinist totalitarian dictatorships? Really? Really?? Or is that a bit, you know, silly? Fact is that SA’s do a necessary job (in that, without them Universities simply internalise their current roles and charge students accordingly (a la Auckland)). Having a SA’s to run these functions helps the University, and making them compulsory solves free-rider problems. And, frankly, the only people who care are those who really should get out more (current author included).
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
AG
You miss the point completely. The issue is one of protecting individual human rights. Freedom of association is there in the UN Declaration, and the preamble makes it quite clear that these are necessary rights to protect individuals- in ways that were graphically illustrated by their abuses by the totalitarian regimes of the 20th C. It’s not okay to say that liberal democracies can violate these rights just because they aren’t as bad as Stalinist USSR. The point is that no state should tolerate the loss of these rights. Freedom of association is not less important than any other right. It is the right that allows workers to form unions and the right to have a public-sector job without having to join the ruling-party.
There are many voluntary organisations that exist that provide broad benefits, that also don’t rely on compulsion. I belong to several- they tend to be solicitous of member’s interests and active at targetting benefits to members. There are ways to make SA attractive without requiring compulsion. It doesn’t need a lot of money to have someone representing students on university committees (over the entire student body, probably less that the cup of a coffee). Albeit my experience of such committees is that the students are somewhat overawed and dominated by the academics.
The current situation swings wildly to making students forced riders of such associations. The reaction is that the vast majority of students regard student leaders with indifference or contempt. They don’t vote, they don’t participate in functions organised by the SA. If they have a grievance they go the the head-of-department or academic directors further up the chain. I’ve been an academic since the early 1990s and I’ve never seen a student leader represent any students with problems or conflicts in three universities in NZ. I’ve seen plenty of students take the direct route to academics, bypassing the SA completely.
SA exist largely to stroke the egos of student leaders, who often regard it as preparation for a polticial career. It is a stupid, mindless fiction that compulsory SA’s are either representative of student interests. In my experience they exist largely to rort members for pizzas and koru-club memberships, or as a stepping stone into politics.
There are few redeeming features in the SA that inhabit our higher learning institutions and many large and manifest flaws. It’s time to put them out of our misery.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
I think this is a matter for the educational authorities to take up.
Vote:I understand that if one enrols for a particular institution of tertiary education that the compulsory student association fees are added onto your first enrolment invoice.
I have seen many of these institutions advertising their facilities and expertise, BUT I have never ever seen any of them advertise that, the cutting point in choosing them is that student association fees are voluntary. The news media love those income generating advertisements, but the adverts leave out one of the most important items. The Students’ Association fees. Once one institution breaks ranks they all will, to remain competitive.
I wait in anticipation.
June 30th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
AG – “Of course, the obvious response to that is “who is forcing anyone to go to Universities?” Don’t like being in a SA? Become a drain layer”.
If that is the obvious response then we obviously need VSM. To think being forced to join a SA should simply be viewed as a cost of going to university is preposterous. Kind of like saying if you don’t want to catch swine flu you should just stay away from everybody – technically correct but realistically stupid. Likewise is stating that a student should choose to move to a city where there is VSM if they wish. They shouldn’t need to move anywhere to enjoy basic rights to freedom of association.
So to recap – the leading arguments against VSM on this thread so far are:
1. SAs are just like the state, so choice about membership should not be optional.
2. No one is forced to join a SA because no one is forced to go to university – bricklaying awaits.
3. There is choice because the Dunedin student can instead choose to study in Auckland.
With rationale like this, it truly is a wonder that National have not already enacted VSM, or even signalled their intention to do so. Hopefully Heather is able to wake them up.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
The arguments for the majority to require the minority to contribute are pretty limited – whether on social or economic grounds. Primarily this is justified when there are significant benefits for the community in question that individual members of that community can’t capture for themselves and freeloading becomes a problem.
The classic situation in NZ is around commodity levies where the argument is that the producers of an undifferentiated product are better off overall investing in industry goods, and if it isn’t compulsory no one will invest and the industry will be worse off. We can see both sides of this argument playing our between Turners and Growers and Zespri right now.
The reason we allow industry levies is because the product is undifferentiated (and by way of counter-distinction the products from enrolled students is highly diverse) and the things that the money is spent on has significant industry benefits (e.g. R&D that is widely acknowledged as offering significant externalities).
The general test for Student Associations are two fold: do they create significant net externalities (i.e. benefits for the student population as a whole that those that pay can’t capture) and perhaps another way of thinking about the same problem, can they exclude non-members from the benefits of membership. I note in passing that the test for intervention needs to be set high because the cost to unwilling participants who may in the end receive limited benefits needs to be protected in a democracy.
Having run the odd membership organisation or two there are two primary goods and services that membership associations offer.
The first is membership services e.g. using collective strength to organise discounts and cheap services. New Zealand abounds with membership organisations that do this and manage quite happily to exclude others from the benefits (e.g. Consumer’s Institute). There is no case here for Student’s Association’s, or the majority of the enrolled students voting in a referendum, having the right to enforce all enrolled students to join. Apart from being economically inefficient, it is a travesty in terms of our democratic principles.
The second is as a political organisation – typically Associations represent their members politically (NB small “p”) to achieve a good environment for their members to thrive within. Clearly this does potentially create a situation where externalities exist, although not as extensively as you might think on first glance. Better conditions can be limited to members – as unions that negotiate deals that only apply to their members show.
As I’ve noted earlier because coercion by the majority is a high price to pay in a democracy the onus lies with the proponents of compulsion to produce a compelling case to be allowed to do this. If the ability to achieve collective gains for students through collective action is the reason for this special privilege then one would expect this right would be limited to the specific areas where those gains applied, and not to an organisation with a wider brief.
In practice it’s hard to see the case for enrolled students to be forced to join an organisation to ostensibly act politically on their behalf. As I’ve noted student interests are diverse, many may not seek the so called benefits of their political representatives and free loader issues can be dealt with in other non-compulsory ways.
You only need to see this issue as enrolled students being forced to join a political lobby to see the problem.
But the problem is more fundamental for student associations that rely upon compulsion. The compulsion undermines their political legitimacy in a democracy. An organisation in a democracy is really only as strong as its voluntary membership – the population at large take notice because members belong and pay their dues because in support of the organisation. For this reason student associations that are relying on coercive powers are limited in their ability to be political actors, and yet, as I’ve noted, this is probably the only basis they could claim for coercion.
For this reason if I was running a student’s association I’d avoid coercion like the plague.
End of rave.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Anyone think John Key will make any difference to this subject?
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Two comments
1 up until July 2005 the total compulsory Student Body Fee at The University of Sydney was A$352pa (half-rate for part time students).
The Howard Government then removed the power of compulsory joining & levy. At that point the Fees were (still are) Nil.
But SUPRA (the Students Body) then actively had to go out to Students to solicit voluntary membership & justify their existence obtaining funds by whatever means.
The result is they have carved out a place in the University on their own merit – some of their work now justifies requesting ‘contributions’ for service which is truly justified!
They also make money on bar proceeds, organising functions, obtaining student discounts, etc.
So why cannot that happen in NZ too?
Surely the National/ACT/Maori coalition could ensure removal of compulsory joining/fee charges if so disposed.
If not, why not? Heather Roy should explain!
2 In any case, isn’t NZ a signatory to the International Declaration of Human Rights wherein Clause 14 (?) states no one should be forced into a compulsory association if against the wish of the individual. Why does that not apply here?.
Vote:Doubtless others can provide chapter, verse & application in this instance.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Far too many folk here think that this is super important.
Lefties actually.
Union Fees, (Political) should be voluntary, as opposed to Union benefits.
SA fees should be similary divided. One subscription for a General account, and one for Politics.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Chthoniid,
Yes, rights exist to protect individuals. But saying the compulsion to be a member of a SA at a University somehow forces us down the slippery slope to totalitarian dictatorship is as silly as saying the prohibition on displaying electoral advertising on election day, or prohibiting the wearing of gang patches in Wanganui, inexoriably leads to the gulags. Redbaiter might argue such balderdash – you strike me as a bit more sensible than that. All rights (freedom of association, freedom of speech) are subject to limits – the question is whether compulsory membership of SA’s while undertaking voluntary further education at University is a justifiable limit on the right to free association.
That then brings us to “what are SA’s good for” (and this brings in Mike Collins’ post also). I think we need to distinguish between the myriad of different things a University and their SA’s do. I’m not surprised if students go to lecturers or HoDs where they have problems with things like course work, marking, etc. The SA can (and should) have little or no role here, because it’s within the educational remit of the academic staff. (I would note, though, at my University this process is facilitated by a class reps system that was the initiative and is fostered by the SA.) There are other issues, however, that it would not be appropriate for a student to bring to the academic staff (such as battles with landlords, the proctor, the police, etc). Here SAs have an advocacy role. And then there is the wider “student voice”/consultation role that SA’s play in respect of representing the student body to University management and external bodies (such as the city council). If no SA existed, something similar would be created to fill that void (in terms of co-option by those bodies). Then there are services such as gyms, campus papers, campus activities, funding for clubs and societies etc. These are part of “the campus experience” that every University feels compelled to offer its students. Either SA’s provide and manage them, or the Universities do directly (and charge students to do so).
Now, it’s all very well to say “let every student choose whether or not they think the SA’s do a good job at all this … if they think they do, then they’ll agree to pay for it.” Frankly, I don’t think most students really know or care what their SA’s do. But most students understand very very little about the University as an institution, what its needs are and why it works the way it does. That’s why we don’t say to students “you get to decide how much you think you should have to pay in course fees each year.” So I’m quite happy to paternalistically say that we as an institution need SA’s, that in order for these to function effectively all students (actually – nearly all … the SA at my University refunds the association fees to the small handful of students who go in and demand that they do so) need to be members, and that while this may rankle with some … so what? I’ll bet there’s a bunch of gang members unhappy they can’t wear their patches on Wanganui’s main street, but all rights can be constrained.
Vote:June 30th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Following our David’s logic, given the high level of fraud in the New Zealand private finance sector (billions rather than this petty uni fraud) and given the high social cost of us all having to guarantee these dodgy institutions, is it time to stop forcing us all to subsidise these rich bankers?
of course not, in David’s world bank profits are private, losses are the taxpayers problem.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 1:30 am
Sonic, that’s a fallacious argument and you know it. Just because the Police didn’t prosecute several Labour politicians doesn’t mean that the laws no longer apply to all New Zealanders, does it?
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 3:23 am
It is just the worst possible argument for any sort of freedom to say “People must not be forced to choose whether or not to be forced into something. We must skip the choice and go straight to forcing them into it in the first place!”
In any case, without being fully aware of what my student association fees went to, my thinking is that if my fees went towards things like the $2 meals at the OSA hall (at least, I think that’s what it was – I was a bit ‘unaware’ of stuff like that), I’m pretty happy. The bread was good.
If it went towards paying somebody to represent my beliefs, I’m not as thrilled. This is because of two reasons – one being the obvious, that my beliefs are often the complete opposite of the sort of people who become student association presidents – the other being that surely students will always get fired up and protest if there’s anything they disagree with. They LOVE to protest. Or is anything like that just organised by the president anyway, and would it never happen if they were around?
I don’t know.
All I know is that it seems to me inherently wrong to be forced into something like that with no opt out. If the benefits of membership are so great, I would think students would want to belong, if they’re made aware of them. For my part, just being the way I am, I’d rather make a donation to the university for meal subsidies/extra computers and services.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 6:53 am
Ha ha, brilliant. The age old arguement that a SA should be compared to local or national Governments has been flawed since day one. The apologists for compulsory membership seem to sing off the same tired old songsheet.
A student association budget is split into many different “services”. Some goes into protesting the National Government. Ever wonder why most student association and most certainly NZUSA went missing over the last 9 years?
Other “services” include decolonisation workshops, executive “training”, and “representation – which in real terms is redundant considering most students didn’t vote for Labour at the last election. NZUSA campaigned very heavily for students to vote for the Alliance the same year that same party got wiped off the political landscape. Student associations spent a lot of money that year telling students the Alliance was the only one able to represent them.
OUSA for example had put aside under $1000 for “advocacy” which was promoted as one of the core services for students – however what about the other 1.2million they get p/a?
At the last VSM campaign OUSA prevented halls of residences from getting pro VSM speakers to talk to students and they also instructed the Student Gym and Health services to not allow posters informing students that they wouldn’t lose these services under VSM – because they didn’t want students to know the facts. So any comparison to Stalinism is very welcome!
National have to get some fucking balls and use this opportunity to get VSM into campuses now. If they don’t do it god knows when we’ll have another chance.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 8:16 am
Thieving other peoples money by those who already get to live off money removed from others without their consent is just another stepping stone to be a labour party list MP.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 8:48 am
Hence why Labour has so many of these parasites in their ranks.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 8:53 am
Its the path of the professional politican Clint. That way the student elect is full of commies, they’re the only ones who go to university to become politicans.
Real students are focused on getting a qaulification.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 9:16 am
I remember at Massey we formed a club affiliated to MUSA, called ourselves some Maori name that meant nothing, and got a big grant that we spent on a big party. What’s more, we did it the next year as well, and we got the money even though everyone knew it was a scam. That was the best use of my MUSA fees I ever had.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 9:51 am
The reason why students tend to be oblivious of what the SA does, is because of the compulsion aspect.
The SA spends little time actually marketing their services, and the student execs and employed staff are content to keep the actually funding and spending opaque and byzantine. This creates scope to allocate funds with little oversight, and perversely also encourages the rorting and fraud that is too common.
Students are bright, intelligent people who are deemed competent to vote, engage in binding contracts, marry and serve in juries. It is extremely patronising to turn around and say that they are too dumb to know realise the benefits the SA provides. I think many know that it’s not worth the $300 or $400 a year it costs them.
Many of the benefits that SA provide are able to be provided by other bodies (such as the university or Tenancy tribunals or private welfare organisations). I spent the last 12 months of my PhD in the SI, but as a fee-bitch to the WSU got to subsidise other students to join the ‘varisty gym or the ‘varsity rugby team. This is a simple forced rider problem. They aren’t any subsidies for students to join other clubs or off-campus sports or cultural teams. There’s nothing unique about these services. Students aren’t pariahs- they’re allowed to join gyms elsewhere.
But it’s not about the money, or slippery-slope arguments. It’s about the fundamental right of an individual to decide for themselves that an organisation represents their interests- and having the choice to not join organisations that don’t. Freedom of association in short.
The argument is simple. Evil people violate fundamental rights. The defence that it’s okay to be a little bit evil by supporting compulsory SA (‘cos at least it’s not as bad Nazi Germany) is wrong. Evil is still evil- the bar has to be set very high to show overwhelming benefits to compulsion in a Free Society. Compulsion for SA does not come close to that bar.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 10:45 am
What precisely is wrong with the current arrangements under which many SAs are voluntary? How’s that “the Government won’t let them”? Storm-meet-teacup. If ever there was an issue blown out of all proportion to reality, it’s this one.
But if there’s instances of individuals rorting the SAs, they should be charged and prosecuted asap… just like any other individual in any other organisation…
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 10:53 am
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/2554019/600-rise-in-services-fee-shocks-students
Vote:Canterbury University raises the levy from $85 to $600 to make up for increase in student numbers not offset by government funding. Every student at Canterbury will have more reason to keep their student exec in the spotlight, and I would imagine there may even be a vote there soon on voluntary membership.
The real concern this article highlights for me is that the university set the fee increase, not the SA. This would suggest the university itself has a vested interest in compulsory membership.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:19 am
Rightnow, aren’t you conflating two issues to draw a false conclusion?
This is the Uni fee, not a SA fee, despite it appearing the funds are ring-fenced for student services. Universities have, IMHO, long seen students as cash-cows which is one of the many reasons I remain unconvinced by the arguments against SAs. Despite not getting mentioned here, SAs do enormously important work for students behind the scenes – much of which is about holding institutions to account.
I’ve just read Simon’s piece, I mostly agree – I too have run several membership organisations – that the benefits have to be (a) in terms of the provision of services that individuals themselves easily arrange/purchase (b) externalities. I suspect the main objections to this however, by the proponents of VSM, is about what collective services need to be provided and the nature of the externalities.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 11:46 am
Paul, it’s possible I am conflating them. I understood the student levy mentioned to be the membership fee for the SA.
Vote:Are these separate things? It’s been a long time since I last saw a list of fees.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:48 am
I’m just going on the story which appears to say it’s a Uni levy, not an SA levy. I’ve no direct knowledge however.
Vote: