National confirms support for VSM bill at first reading
September 11th, 2009 at 4:12 pm by David FarrarAs widely expected, NZPA reports National will vote for Heather Roy’s VSM Bill (now in the name of Sir Roger Douglas) at its first reading:
National has made its first public show of support for a bill to dismantle compulsory student unions.
National would support ACT’s Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill at its first reading this month, associate education minister Wayne Mapp said yesterday.
The bill, originally sponsored by Dr Mapp’s fellow associate education minister Heather Roy of ACT, would require student unions to hold annual membership drives to receive their levies.
Under the current law, unions with compulsory membership can collect levies automatically as part of students’ enrolment fees.
National’s own membership bill in 1998 saw a series of binding referenda on campuses: while around half the polytechnic unions turned voluntary, Auckland and Waikato were the only university unions who opted to do so.
This is not quite correct. National’s VSM bill in the mid to late 1990s was very similar to this bill. However New Zealand First refused to support it beyond select committee, so a compromise was done which was the 1998 law of referenda.
National would listen to the views of submitters before deciding whether to support the bill further, he said.
“Students remain the only group in society forced to join a union,” he said.
“Students should be able to make their own decision about joining a student association — this ensures that their freedom of association is upheld.”
Compulsory membership of student associations means executives have little or no incentives to manage their associations well or responsibly. When your members have the ability to decide not to renew their membership, it encourages the association to focus much more closely on issues their members want them to be involved with rather than the pet issues of a few dozen activists.
Plus of course one should n0ot have to fund political representation you disagree with. The notion of a student association speaking for all students is as absurd as a residents association speaking for all residents.
It is excellent to see National living up to its principles of freedom of association.
Related posts:
- Why universities are against VSM
- Another reason for VSM
- VSM Bill to pass
- Huge student association fraud
September 11th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
This is fantastic news David. Long overdue!
Just when many are losing faith in National to do the right thing they at least get it right on this one. Roll on Select Committee hearing!
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Bloody good stuff! Now to prepare the submission in support.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Yay! Not before time. As someone who did two degrees and a diploma, it was having to compulsorily support the Student Union flakes/lefties/boozers that really really cheesed me off.
And in the twenty years between my two qualifications, nothing had changed.
I hope this passes, it would be a real blow for democracy.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I hope the bill prevents the universities from levying on behalf of the student associations through the student fees.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Look out…DUCK…the lefty trolls are coming…yahoo
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
As it is currently drafted F E Smith yes it does. However that could change at SC. Suggest you submit that suggestion to the select committee. I certainly will be noting that – don’t want a clayton’s VSM. This is the time to get it right.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
F E Smith – it aims to do so, but will need amendment.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Cheers David.
Mike, couldn’t agree more on your last point.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Here, as in Australia, the abolition of compulsory membership does raise some difficult issues which would need to be resolved at the same time. I am personally opposed to compulsory membership of anything. However, as I understand it, many of the services needed by students are presently provided through the student unions. If those services are to continue, then responsibility for them would presumably need to be transferred to the universities themselves or outsourced in some way. There is a cost to these things, and they are currently funded through the students association levies. In Australia, there are legislative and/or policy barriers to passing these costs onto students. This needs to be clearly sorted as part of any change.
[DPF: In reality very few essential services or facilities (such as student health) are funded by a students assn. Under vsm one would expect the institution to directly fund any facility or service that is considered essential (as they mainly do anyway). But they should not be allowed to fund political advocacy, newspapers, radio stations, club grants etc]
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
The current wording is not going to cut it, it will need tightening to both end and prevent the Auckland situation from occurring nationwide.
I link to a pdf of the Bill here but the relevant part is:
At Auckland no student directly has to pay any money to the student association. Instead the money is taken from student levies and payed via a service agreement to the association.
Still, this is nothing select committee or a well drafted amendment cannot fix.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
National has to support this all the way or suffer a back lash from the fast growing Young Nats.
This compulsory fee managed to catch many unintended. I attended a Executive Development course years ago (bloody waste of time and money with leftie twats but that is a different story) and elected in a fit of madness to take advantage of the situation and sit one exam as part of future education plans.
Had to pay, I think about $120 which was a one year fee and I was there for 10 days and did not have access to any student services. There was 10 on the course and we all paid so they got about $1200 for nothing.
Add up the number of similar courses which take up every Uni break over the years and you will soon see the $$ gained from guible course attendees like me.
Get rid of this rip off which in the main only supports leftie strategies.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
It’s very, very significant as it’s my first trade and now payout on iPredict
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Nice one Gooner
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
National would support ACT’s Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill at its first reading this month, associate education minister Wayne Mapp said yesterday.
What a weasily statement. Typical Nats. they just don’t have any balls at all. If they did they would just say out it goes andUni etc can’t collect on their behalf. Total losers these guys.
Winners never lose the do things.
And without doubt its all going to come out to haunt them in short order.
Take note of what’s happening on the industrial scene. The unions are setting up for a stouch with employers even in these times of unemployment et al.
Buses drivers to go out, polytech teachers threatening to go, Firefighters currently on strike and harassed Mr Smiley today.
Headmasters to ignore the govt. public service unions flexing their mussels.
Why don’t those dumb Nats. just Act to take way the power of the unions forever.Reinstate the contracts Act. Never mind the mindless debate with all the lefty trolls and so on.
But they won’t do it. Just ain’t got the guts.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Fair enough. Never understood why it was compulsory in the first place.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
“Labour’s tertiary education spokeswoman Maryan Street said today it was no surprise that National would back the proposal to the select committee.
Ms Street said the select committee would show that compulsory membership of student unions brought many benefits.
The problem with voluntary membership was that those benefits were not apparent to students attending university for the first time and they may not believe they provided value.”
Lol, patronising much?
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Ho ho ho, another plank of mind-numbing socialist control chopped away. I love it. Keep ‘em coming.
Vote:September 11th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
“It is excellent to see National living up to its principles of freedom of association”
Believe me we were not sure it was a 100% given that the Nats were going to support this – especially with comments from Hutchinson before the election, telling associations that the Nats wouldn’t change the law. WTF was he thinking?
I hope that the Nats at ALL levels don’t wimp out and push this through all the way this time. You don’t have a better time to do it with an ACT/Nat majority. In a perfect world the Nats would be living up to its principles of freedom more often and we’d have the best Government in living history.
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 12:18 am
Living up to its principles? What a joke. How do you explain the restrictive price controls on the University sector then? This isn’t about principles, it’s about neutralising a breeding ground for left wing activists. They should at least be honest enough to admit that.
Besides, all this will mean is that the Universities will have to carry the costs of student services previously provided by the student associations. If National has a skerrick of integrity, it would allow Universities to charge more to recover these costs. But I bet they won’t …
Yet another tertiary funding cut.
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Further to DPF’s comments above, here are some of the services provided by VUSA.
- Student job search (in association with other student unions)
- Foodbank
- Hardship fund
- Women’s room
- Campus Angels (night security)
- Counselling
- Information and advocacy for academic problems (grievances, plagiarism etc)
- Support for over 40 sports clubs and 50 cultural clubs
- Advocacy for student issues
- Advice on adapting to independent life
- Student health
- Major building projects
- Contribution to costs of running the student union building
Who will pay for those? Or should we just shove the student body into downbelow and forget about the ones who don’t make it?
[DPF: What a collection of myths. SJS is primarily funded by the Government. The SA contribution is miniscule. Student health and counselling are funded by institutions not SAs in 99% of cases. Again most building and facilities are institution funded, not SA funded. Trust me - I have read over 100 sets of SA accounts.
Some of the other stuff such as club grants should not be funded by all students.
My estimate is that tertiary institutions will only have to pick up around 20% of what SAs fund. They should not (and hopefully will not be able to) fund newspapers, radio stations, political advocacy, grants, social events, sporting events etc etc.
As for the fees maxima on tertiary fees - I agree with you they should be lifted, and have blogged so. But I note that any facilities fee is not actually covered by the maxima - just tuition fees]
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 1:49 am
Righto Vibenna,
SJS, why duplicate what Winz has done for years
Foodbank, duplication of other agencies
Women’s room, do you have Men’s Rooms as well? Oh that’s right, they used to be called toilets
Counselling, plenty of that around elsewhere
Info/advocacy, still exists with or without unions, it is mostly organised by the institution themselves but passed a buck to the union to organise it when they didn’t need to
Clubs are all very well except when people aren’t interested, or they duplicate other existing institutions
Student health, there is plenty already in the community at good prices
Buildings, what does that mean? Are the buildings necessary?
I spent years at a Polytech where the union facilities were minimal and made worse when they decided to sink their funds into running studying a hotel bar, they lost a six figure sum in the process. Most of the facilities they have now were paid for by the institution. Most institutions now are cynically transferring their student support services to the union knowing they can enforce the collection of the levy. But at Polytechs particularly the nature of the courses, short term or part time, mean many of those paying don’t actually make use of the services, to the extent that a small number of users are benefiting from the large mass who don’t use them, imagine the problems if everyone did use them.
Most of what you describe above is feelgood stuff, sounds nice until you work out it costs millions to provide and is only being used by a handful, many of the activists who call for this stuff are dropouts, layabouts who want to make a career out of political activism that these unions foster. It is understandable that you see this as having political motivation, any time I am compelled to give my money to a political cause that I don’t believe in, that is obviously a pet cause of the Labour Party, I am going to make a lot of noise, and I expect Key has a good mandate for this type of thing
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 2:30 am
Swampy – which association lost six figures on the hotel and when did that happen?
Vote:September 12th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Swampy – in Australia, the end of students associations saw an increase in University costs for providing some of the same services. So what I’m saying is – if Voluntary Student Unionism is introduced, the Government should let Universities raise their prices.
At the moment, the sector is run with strict price controls – a Muldoonist tactic.
Vote:September 13th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Vibenna’s right about the Australian situation and, despite Labor’s pre-election comments on VSU, they’ve got a bill in parliament now (that’s having a torrid time in the Senate) to restore elements of SA funding.
Re NZ, the myths exisit on both sides, David’s fond of debunking the ones he doesn’t like a promulgating others… the great offense against human rights principally. Yawn. Current law suffices and, until now, appeared to be working fine for the various institutions that used the referenda mechanism… but meddle away and stir the university activists, upset the administration and put further pressure on resources… they’ll love you for it.
David you’re fond of telling Labour their focused on beltway issues, tell me how this issue translates in the public (even outside the handful of very active right and left wing junior activists?)
@Madeleine, I’m sure National are hoping that supporting a VSM bill is enough to restore the faith of the younger members of the party, it’s pretty hollow but… can’t see it improving productivity, increasing wages, promoting economic recovery … anything of substance.
Vote:September 13th, 2009 at 10:51 am
If the services provided by VSU are so wonderful and useful, why are the lefties afraid of lifting the compulsion factor.
Don’t worry, vibenna: students will be rushing to join the VSU…..yeah right.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 1:05 am
vibenna is deliberately distorting the facts on VSM and making up what or who funds the “services”.
Even if a student union was half as wonderful as you tell us, surely you’d be willing to wager this by allowing the students to join on their own terms so we can see if what you’re saying is true or just nonsense.
Or are you hiding behind compulsion so that you don’t ever have to prove your “facts”?
Vote:September 21st, 2009 at 9:58 am
I don’t think most people realise the implications of this bill.
Where do you think universities are going to find the money to fund the services that student associations provide?
And for the services that universities don’t want to provide, and student associations are unable to offer any more, guess what, they are going to vanish! Similiar to what has happened in Oz.
Vote: