Kiwiblog

VUWSA is voluntary from next year. The idea is that they focus less on being a branch of the Labour Party, and more on actually doing good stuff for students.

However they have struck a dirty deal with the university, where VUW will fund them using taxpayer and student money so they can function even if no students wish to join them. This is obviously a sign that VUW is awash in surplus funds and doesn’t need any further taxpayer contributions.

For let’s have a look at how the 2012 VUWSA President plans to use VUWSA assets funded by taxpayers and students:

Now you can’t blame the VUWSA flunkies entirely for this. They have had years of a culture of entitlement where they see VUWSA assets as being available for their personal political activites.

Whom I blame is the Council and Vice-Chancellor of Victoria University. The whole idea behind VSM is to give bodies like VUWSA an incentive to provide better representation and services to students. Handing over a large cheque every year with next to no accountability, means they are unlikely to change.

If I was the new Minister of Tertiary Education, I’d be thanking the Council and VC of VUW for making their job much much easier. If at anytime in the next four years before the Govt gets the books back into surplus VUW asks for more money, then it is an easy “No” as they obviously have lots to spare. Of course some of the academic staff may get upset that they’ll go four years without a payrise, just so VUWSA gets to keep its van for trips to Young Labour conferences.

UPDATE: VUWSA President-Elect Bridie Hood has e-mailed to clarify:

I just wanted to clarify a few of the issues mentioned in your blog post this morning entitled ‘VUWSA Not Learning’.

As has been mentioned in the comments section, all VUWSA Affiliated Clubs are able to access the VUWSA Van for use. Most of the youth political groups are affiliated VUWSA clubs (including VicLabour, VicNats, Greens@Vic, Act on Campus etc), and those which are not have the opportunity to become so. The process is transparent and fair. VUWSA does not privilege any particular groups simply by dint of their political affiliation. 

 As stated on the VUWSA website (http://www.vuwsa.org.nz/other-services/van-and-trailer-hire/) there is a $90 per day fee to use the Van and clubs must also pay for petrol.This is not a service fully funded by the University and/or VUWSA. It is, however, offered at a cheaper rate than other companies such as Hertz and Rent-a-Dent to allow clubs to participate in events.

Regarding my comment on the Young Labour Summer School event page, I was suggesting that VicLabour could hire out the VUWSA van (if it was available) so they could travel to the event at a lower cost than flying.

I’m disappointed to see that a personal facebook post has been interpreted in such a way.Anyone who knows me and knows my work at VUWSA knows that I would never use a VUWSA resource, such as the van, for my own personal gain.

Please let me know if you have any questions on this issue and I am happy to discuss VUWSA policy with you if the need arises. I hope you find the time next year to come and visit us, I think you will be pleasantly surprised with the changes that have been made over the last few years.

A fair response by Bridie, and I accept there was no intention of private gain. I do think there is a wider issue about using income gained through compulsory means to benefit the small minority who are involved in clubs and socs. I’d have no problem with that, if there was a voluntary membership fee and that was one of the “perks” of joining. But the whole idea with VSM is that compulsory sources of income should be used only for essential student services such as a class rep system, a union building.

But full marks to Bridie for the tone of her response.

I’ve blogged at Stuff on the passing of the VSM Bill/Act. Some interesting feedback and discussion from readers there on their experiences.

On Backbenches last night, Wallace Chapman asked all the MPs whether they supported VSM, including Labour MP Shane Jones. A transcript:

Wallace: Should we have VSM for student unions?

Shane: Yeah, yeah we should

It’s great to have one Labour MP speak out in favour of VSM, despite his party having an ideological stance against it.

But it does also point to the crumbling discipline within Labour. On Tuesday a Labour MP reveals the entire Maori caucus wants Goff gone, and on Wednesday another MP reveals he disagrees with his party on an issue which they have spent all year fighting tooth and nail.

Today the VSM Bill, or more formally the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill should have its third reading and effectively pass into law to take effect on 1 January 2012.

For those who want to see the debate, this is my rough estimate of timing:

1. Question Time 2 pm – 3.15 pm (there are three questions to committee chairs)
2. General Debate 3.15 pm – 4.15 pm
3. Royal Society of NZ Amendment Bill. I presume Heather Roy will move it reports progress within the first hour. This means it would finish somewhere between 4.30 pm and 5.15 pm
4. Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. Should start between 4.30 pm and 5.15 pm.
5. Valedictory statements from Keith Locke and Mita Ririnui from 5.30 pm to 6 .00 pm
6. Dinner Break 6.00 pm – 7.30 pm
7. Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill continues at 7.30 pm for a total of two hours so should conclude somewhere between I estimate 8.30 pm and 9.15 pm

Hundreds of thousands of students are going to gain the ability to choose whether or not they wish to join a students’ association. Over time this will impact millions of people, albeit it in a minor way. Heather Roy will have achieved a lot more than many MPs do in their time.

Labour will want to repeal the law in future and force students once again to fund their apprentices. However I think they will find that in a few years doing so will be immensely unpopular.

I note TV3 reported Labour Party activist and NZUSA President David Do as saying:

“[Students] oppose ACT’s bill, that’s why they are protesting, and they feel increasingly frustrated and appalled that the Government is continuing to ignore their voice on this issue,” he says.

This sums up all that is wrong with compulsory membership. David Do does not speak for all students, or even for a majority of students. NZUSA have never asked students if they want student association membership to be voluntary or compulsory. The only scientific poll done amongst students (during the last VSM bill) on this issue showed a majority support voluntary membership.

Student Associations and their benefactors in Labour have no-one to blame for VSM than themselves. They have had massive opportunities to reform, and to provide safeguards that should go with compulsion. But they granted the power of compulsion with none of the safeguards such as you see with local government (not that I am accepting the validity of the comparison, just pointing out the safeguards).

They also made some huge tactical blunders during the VSM Bill progress. As far as I know they never once asked to meet with Student Choice representatives, who are primarily with Act on Campus and Young Nationals.  They failed to grasp that those two groups have considerable influence with their MPs, and are the ones who have pushed their caucuses to support the law change.

Some of the amendments proposed by Grant Robertson I supported (and said so in my submission to the select committee), specifically mandating that tertiary institutes should be required to offer student association membership as part of online enrolment (on an opt in tick basis).  If Labour had gone to Student Choice and said “Look we disagree on the law, but here are some amendments that you guys might support so that student associations do well under a voluntary regime, then it is quite possible Student Choice would have lobbied National and ACT MPs to agree to some of the amendments which didn’t dilute the principle of voluntary and opt in. By neglecting to engage with Student Choice, the student associations have actually made things much harder for themselves.

I was at the Aotearoa Student Press Association Awards on Saturday evening, and did reflect that it was a bit sad that some student media will struggle under VSM, due to the lack of compulsory funding. I am a huge fan of student media and enjoy reading much of their work. That does not mean I do not support VSM though. Just because I personally think student media is a good thing, is not sufficient reason that all students should be forced to fund it.

Hopefully VSM may act as a catalyst for some student newspapers to transform more into the digital age. As even large multi-national struggle with the economics of print publications, the medium may be somewhat historic. There is an opportunity for student newspapers to possibly dispense with a print edition and produce websites and e-papers which will become important hubs of student life. You may even be able to develop a subscription model. If I could get Salient on my iPad for $10 a year, I’d pay for that.

Likewise VSM does provide some opportunities for student associations, as well as considerable challenge. Student associations historically have been pretty lousy at communicating and consulting with the student body, let alone asking them what they want. Student associations need to spent some time and money asking what do students want from us, and what will they pay for.  They should consider innovations such as differing levels of membership fees. Maybe you can join the association for $10 just to have them represent you, but for say $50 you also get discounts in the cafe, free entry to orientation events and the weekly e-newspaper.

Some associations may try to undermine the law, as Auckland and Canterbury do, and have a zero membership fee and get the university to fund them. Apart from the fact that the University may be in breach of new regulations around student services levies, any association that does this will be missing the point of voluntary membership. Being dependent on members wanting to join can actually improve you, because it focuses a lot of your efforts on making sure you are providing the services students want, rather than the services you want to deliver. Even a $5 membership fee would provide that incentive. A $0 fee means that you have no idea if members see any value or not as there is no cost in joining.

There are some good student associations out there. It will be tougher under VSM, but good ones can raise to the challenge. But student associations in many many countries operate well with voluntary membership. Even in NZ, there are many voluntary student associations – the faculty student associations. Many of these operate with small budgets but have dedicated officers.

Finally I hope the universities and other tertiary institutions do their part to make voluntary membership work for student associations. By this I don’t mean backdoor funding deals which fatally undermine their own advocacy that universities are under-funded, but by allowing people to opt into membership through the enrolment process. In fact there is the potential to offer membership not just to the central student association but also the faculty students associations (to those studying the appropriate courses) and even the Maori students association (to those of Maori decent).  One could even offer membership/forwarding of contact details to registered clubs and societies. If you tick the box next to club or soc, they will be given your name and e-mail address.

Each university probably has its own online enrolment software, but NZUSA could play a useful role in developing specs for what changes would be needed to allow some of what I have advocated above. I think it would be great if as people enrol, they get offered the chance to join all relevant student associations, and indicate which clubs and societies they wish to have contact them.

Smart student associations would have been talking to their universities and institutes since November 2010, when the Government made it clear they would vote in favour of this law progressing. They’ve had 14 months to make changes, and prepare. If they put all their faith in Labour’s boasting that they could stop the law from passing before the election, then they were very foolish. However it is still better to be late than never. Within reason, I’m happy to donate my time to helping any student association with preparing for VSM (so long as it is after 26 November).

Anyway as someone who has been a proponent of VSM since I  joined OUSA in 1986, I’m delighted to see this law change finally occur. Students will finally be free to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to join a students’ association, and have the same rights of non-association as pretty much every other member of society.

Labour have failed with their year of filibustering the VSM bill. It completed the committee stages last night and is set down for third and final reading on Wed 28 September.

Hilarious to hear Labour MPs use 1984 speak in claiming the bill removes democratic rights from students. They would have you think our soldiers fought in WWII to defend the right for students to be forced against their will to fund a incorporated society that advocates for things they don’t support.

Having failed in the House, NZUSA have come up with a new strategy:

Maori student representatives have formally lodged a claim into the Waitangi Tribunal seeking an urgent Tribunal hearing into the impacts of ACT’s bill to end universal membership of students’ associations. The Tribunal has acknowledged receipt of the claim and is currently being considered as a single new claim. …

The claim seeks the Tribunal’s recommendation that the Bill is:
(a) abolished and
(b) that provision be made to protect tauira Māori, their local roopu, and their national representation.

“NZUSA supports this claim. The government does not seem to care about the real impacts this will have on the ground. The disgraceful fact remains that the government has done no analysis or real consideration of what impact this Bill will have on student services, student representation, and the quality of education for students as a whole,” says NZUSA co-President David Do.

Mr Do is of course a former chair of Princess St Labour.  NZUSA at times resembles the tertiary education wing of the Labour Party.

I have to say it was very forward-looking of Governor Hobson to have inserted the secret fourth article:

ARTICLE THE FOURTH

Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals that if it establishes any tertiary educational institutes in New Zealand, it shall require all students thereof to become a member of an association of students, and pay whatever fee is demanded by said association, so the association can pay for taonga such as psychic hotlines.

I guess the next step after this will be for NZUSA to ask the United Nations to intervene.

John Armstrong writes in the NZ Herald:

The Labour Party does not have very much cause to feel grateful for anything right now. But it should get down on bended knee and thank the Almighty that hardly anybody would have been watching Parliament late on Wednesday afternoon.

Anyone doing so would have witnessed a spectacle which would immediately have brought several words to mind – words such as pitiful, pathetic, embarrassing and disgraceful.

You can watch for yourself at In the House.

What matters now is that last Wednesday things shifted from straight filibuster to pure farce. The only characters needed to make this Trevor Mallard-orchestrated protest a complete pantomime were Chuckles the Clown and Dorothy the Dinosaur.

Labour not only demeaned itself, again – something it is perfectly at liberty to do – it also demeaned Parliament, and that is unacceptable.

For the best part of an hour, Labour MPs raised timewasting points of order and forced a series of pointless votes to try to stop debate on Roy’s bill from even starting.

Labour made repeated demands that Speaker Lockwood Smith be recalled to the chamber to rule on decisions made by National’s Eric Roy, who was chairing the House.

This went beyond the ridiculous by including decisions from Roy (no relation to Heather Roy) granting those very Labour MPs the call to speak in the debate – a perverse case of deliberately biting the hand that feeds.

Next time Labour protests the use of urgency, they should be reminded of this.

Some of the Labour MPs caught up in this episode must now surely regret it.

One such MP, Wellington Central’s Grant Robertson, felt obliged to post a lengthy explanation on Red Alert, the Labour MPs’ blog.

He made no apology for the ways in which Labour was trying to stop Roy’s bill. He admitted it was “unedifying” – surely the understatement of the week – but claimed it was all part and parcel of parliamentary practice.

Well, no. A clear line can be drawn between trying to delay a measure’s progress through Parliament by filibuster and trying to find and exploit gaps, loopholes and apparent anomalies in Parliament’s rules to subvert the will of the majority. Labour crossed that line.

On top of that, Labour’s filibustering has denied other parties’ MPs the opportunity to get their own private member’s bills – some of which are worthy measures deserving of enactment – on to the order paper.

That is unfair. But it is symptomatic of Labour’s lingering arrogance from its years in power.

Incredibly, it continues to try to pull the wool over voters’ eyes by promising to bring in private member’s bills to block things such as National’s plans for partial state asset sales. Such talk is poppycock. Such bills would first have to be lucky enough to be drawn in the ballot which determines which bills get on to the order paper.

In the last ballot, 24 bills were vying for a lone spot.

Furthermore, there has not been a ballot since November last year. No prizes for guessing who is responsible for that.

This has been the delicious irony. Labour have blocked every single Labour and Green private members bill from progressing, in their desire to ensure their mates retain compulsory funding. And it has all been for nothing.

Enraged by the fact they will not be able to compel people to join OUSA next year, some of the OUSA people protested against John Key in Dunedin.

This photo from James Meager again illustrates why voluntary membership is such a necessary reform.

And if you need further convincing, read how OUSA also protested by ripping up photos of Heather Roy. Having seen the photo Heather asked them to use, I suspect quite a few students probably took one home instead

Logan Edgar, the President of the (compulsory) Otago University Students’ Association left this message at 8.42 pm last night on the Facebook wall of Sir Roger Douglas:

Get fucked you dinosaur…just trying to give yourself a legacy because you know you’re getting too old. You should actually debate the Bill with Pete or Grant… you’d get torn to shreds. Cunt

He has since deleted it, but a copy was automatically e-mailed to the page admin.

What better example can you find of why student associations should be voluntary. Every student at Otago is forced to fund Mr Edgar’s salary. This is what Labour are fighting so hard to preserve. I bet you no President of a voluntary society would ever act like that – they’d lose all their members in minutes.

Meanwhile Otago students may want to consider whether they wish Mr Edgar to continue to represent them.

Grant Robertson blogs:

For me student associations are like local government. Enrolling as a student makes you part of a community, and the student association is the organisation that helps govern that community.

I am amused by how the justifications for compulsory membership of these incorporated societies has changed over the years. Initially the compulsion supporters said that they are student unions, which are like trade unions, and should be compulsory as trade unions were.

Then trade unions lost their compulsion. So the next argument was that student associations are like the Medical Association or Federated Farmers. But over the last 20 years almost every professional industry has separated out its advocacy side from its regulatory side. Hence the Medical Council regulates doctors, while the NZ Medical Association is voluntary. The comparison was of course never valid anyway, as student associations are the exact opposite of a professional association.

Then their next false comparison was to local government. Grant would have you believe that VUWSA is just like the Wellington City Council. I’ll return to this argument later, but for now quote Graeme Edgeler from the Red Alert comments:

I’ve never liked this analogy.

If a university student is like a resident of a community then the local council is the University Administration, and the Students’ Association is a local residents’ association.

If you want to live in an area then you have to pay (directly or indirectly) rates to the local council.

If you want to attend university, you have to pay fees for tuition and services to the university.

In either case you can, you can choose to belong to an association that will fight for your rights with the local government/institution, and may, if the issue is important enough, even address the government(/government).

As I said I will return to the weaknesses in Grant’s arguments shortly. First the most recent false comparison that compulsion defenders are making. They are saying that as KiwiSaver is opt out, so should student associations be. So now they are comparing an incorporated society to retirement investment funds. The analogy is pitiful enough as it is, but also consider that you have a choice of 30+ KiwiSaver funds, while at a campus you get no choice of compulsory student association.

Anyway Grant’s comparison to local government is complete nonsense, but let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and say we accept that student associations are like local Councils, and should have the power to take money off people against their will.

Let us look at the safeguards the Government and Parliament has put around local Councils. They include:

1. A Local Electoral Act to ensure Councils are democratically elected. There is no requirement for a students association to be democratic.
2. A Local Government Commission to set wards, maximum pay rates etc.
3. Statutory requirements for Councils to regularly consult their ratepayers on annual plans etc
4. Over-view from the Office of the Auditor-General
5. Subject to the Official Information Act
6. Ability for the Minister to sack a dysfunctional Council and appoint Commissioners

Student Associations have none of these safeguards. Parliament has terribly let students down by granting student associations the powers of compulsory fees, but not putting any safeguards in place.

I said to the select committee, and have said for over a decade that if you wish to keep compulsory student associations, then as a minimum Parliament should act to put in place some safeguards for students. Grant and Labour never ever did anything about this during their last nine years in office. If they had, then some of the pressure for VSM would have subsided. They only have themselves to blame – they gave their mates a legislative power to have compulsory fees, and refused to put in lace any safeguards for students, as we have for ratepayers and their Councils.

If Grant was sincere about his analogy, then he would agree to some or all of the safeguards above. But never once has Labour shown any concern for those students who have been forced to fund incompetent and even corrupt student associations, against their will. VSM is one answer to the problem, but there were others. I’m not saying I’d prefer the other options to VSM, but Labour has refused to meaningfully engage with Student Choice on any of their concerns.

Labour have spent all year blocking every single private members bill in an attempt to stop students from gaining freedom of association.

Last night they were dumbfounded (check the video out here) when Heather Roy put an end to it by using the procedural motion that the Committee report progress to the House on the Royal Society bill which had been fillibustered to prevent the VSM bill from being debated.

The House voted to report progress, which meant that they automatically proceed to the next item of business – the VSM bill.

Trevor Mallard looked even more manic than normal, while Grant Robertson was so distraught, he looked like someone who had just been told their beloved pet cat had been run over by a car. This gives you some idea of how desperate they are to stop students being able to decide to stop funding their political mates. It is the last vestige of compulsory unionism.

Labour continued with an extended temper tantrum for an hour or so. Probably because they had been boasting to NZUSA and the student associations that they were so clever they had guaranteed the bill would not pass before the election.

It still is not guaranteed of course, but only one clause remains for the committee stage of the VSM bill, and then the third reading. That will require two more members days, but there are three scheduled before the House rises so I rate the chances as pretty reasonable.

If so, it means from 1 January 2012 finally students will have the ability to decide whether or not they personally wish to belong to a students association, and as importantly no longer be forced to fund partisan political advocacy which they disagree with.

NZPA report:

An Otago student is to spend two nights locked in a cage in freezing Dunedin to protest a proposed law that would make student union membership voluntary.

The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, which is sponsored by ACT’s Heather Roy, is currently awaiting its final reading before Parliament,

Supporters say student unions are the only ones left that have compulsory membership, and end up being controlled by political activists who run partisan campaigns that do not represent members.

Opponents argue the bill will destroy valuable associations that provide services at universities and polytechs because most students are hard up and would not voluntarily pay fees.

Otago University Students’ Association student president Logan Edgar is today preparing to lock himself in a cage, on the university’s Union Lawn from 7pm, to protest the bill.

Sadly all Otago students are forced to pay Mr Edgar’s salary. Yep, they get no choice about it Hopefully in the not too distant future they will have the choice of saying you embarrass us with your idiot stunts, and we are not going to pay you to be a idiot any more.

Remember that Labour have made their top parliamentary priority stopping students from being able to stop funding dickheads. They want it to remain compulsory.

The Herald reports:

Musicians and media have hit out at plans to sell student radio station Radio One as an attack on the cultural heart of Dunedin.

Otago University Students Association (OUSA) has confirmed it is looking at selling Radio One to save money ahead of legislation ending compulsory membership of student bodies.

The station is broadcasting nothing but ambient noise and explanatory public service announcements this week to protest the proposal.

Manager Sean Norling said Radio One was Dunedin’s most established independent radio station and was crucial to making the city a viable option for touring artists.

There is an assumption here that if Radio One is sold, and no longer subsidised, it would not exist.

This is not the case. In Wellington we have Radio Active. It used to be owned by VUWSA but as is often the case when you have easy compulsory money, became a black hole and almost bankrupted VUWSA. So VUWSA sold it to existing management, and for over two decades it has continued on stronger than ever. It still has a strong following, is non-commercial, and no longer funded by students against their will.

A student survey last year also revealed Radio One as one of the least valued OUSA assets, Mr Edgar said.

So why should students be forced to fund it?

The proposal would now go through a submissions phase and Radio One staff would have the opportunity to have their say. A decision was likely to be made before the end of the year.

Because the station had a non-profit licence, Norling said he believed it would have “little commercial appeal” and a sale was unlikely.

Radio Active has managed fine for 20 years without VUWSA funding. bFM in Auckland does very well without compulsory AUSA funding.

Norling would be better placed working on a business plan which does not involve OUSA funding, than going on an effective strike.

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

Labour will introduce a bill preventing the sale of key strategic assets without a clear public mandate, says Labour leader Phil Goff.

Goff said the bill would require any future proposal to partly or wholly privatise a State-owned enterprise or Crown entity to gain support from 75 per cent of Parliament, or from a majority of voters in a referendum.

This is hilarious, because Labour is ensuring such a bill will never get drawn from the members’ ballot because they are filibustering the VSM bill.

A journalist should ask Labour if they will stop filbustering the VSM bill, in order to allow more bills to be drawn in a ballot, and giving their anti-privatisation bill a chance to be drawn.

I bet you the answer is no.

So what does that mean? It means that Labour value protecting compulsory student associations from voluntary membership more than they value stopping asset sales. Their number one parliamentary priority is stopping VSM at all costs.

Incidentially turning to the substance of their silly bill, I’ll support a law which requires a referendum to sell any asset, so long one also needs a referendum for teh Government to buy any asset (over a non trivial value).

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

The ACT Party says moves by Labour to delay the passing of its volunteer student membership bill is costing taxpayers more than $453,000 every hour Parliament sits.

The member’s Bill sponsored by ACT MP Heather Roy ends compulsory student association membership, and passed its second reading last December.

Labour opposes the Bill and has stopped Parliament reaching the next stage of debate on it by putting up spurious amendments to other non-controversial legislation.

Roy said the delay tactics, known as filibustering, denied backbench MPs the right to have their issues debated and cost taxpayers the same amount an hour as Hone Harawira’s Te Tai Tokerau by-election.

”Hone Harawira has been rightly condemned for costing the taxpayer half a million dollars by forcing the Te Tai Tokerau by-election, yet Labour’s filibustering is costing taxpayers the equivalent of one such by-election every hour.

The staggering thing is that Labour have not just fillibustered this once or twice – they have filbustered it all year, so desperate are they to protect their future caucus intakes. As someone said, there is no limit to what a mother will do to protect her young.

Heather said:

“I’m not opposed to any party delaying a Bill they strongly disagree with but Labour MPs are delaying Bills they already support.  If Labour continue to debate each of the Royal Society Bill’s 23 clauses – which they openly support – in their entirety this could take 23 hours of the House’s time and cost taxpayers over $10 million.  It is this sort of churlish behaviour that demeans our nation’s Parliament.

This is a key difference. I will absolutely defend the right of a party to filibuster a bill they strongly oppose. Such filibusters normally last a few days. But here Labour is filbustering every single local, private and members bill there is, in a year long filibuster. This is I think literally without precedent in New Zealand. They are for example going to spend two dozen hours of time, on a totally non controversial bill about the Royal Society of NZ.

Trevor Mallard has blogged that the marginal cost is zero, as they are not forcing any extra costs onto Parliament. This misses the point as it ignores the fact that during all this time, Parliament is not passing laws as it is meant to be – it is having Labour MPs stand up and talk screeds of nonsense for hours on end.  An analogy would be having staff members in a retailer refuse to actually sell any goods, yet claim they are not costing any money as they haven’t imposed extra costs on the shop.

I have pinged the Government on their use of urgency this year – something which pissed off quite a few people within National. But filibustering is the flip side of urgency. If an Opposition continues with mindless sustained filbustering, then they can expect no-one to take them seriously if they complain about use of urgency in the future. If you turn yourself into a roadblock, don’t be surpised when a bulldozer is used.

Labour is also being incredibly selfish. Backbench Mps get only one day a fortnight to have their bills heard. Dozens of MPs from the Greens, Maori and National parties have members bills they would like to have debated. Labour has decided that no other members bill can be allowed to pass this year, just so they can try and allow their future MPs to keep forcing students to fund their political activism.

So next time a Labour MP complains about urgency, the response should be to buy themselves a mirror so they can find someone to blame.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

An inquiry is under way at the troubled students’ association at the centre of fraud allegations over concerns that it owes up to $200,000 in unpaid tax.

Police are investigating after up to $1 million was drained from the bank accounts of the Porirua-based Whitireia Independent Students Association.

So WISA is acting just like UNITE – illegally keeping the PAYE from their employees. I imagine WISA has also campaigned on higher taxes to fund more student support. The irony.

It will be a great day when the VSM legislation is passed. Compulsory membership doesn’t provide any incentives for responsible management.

Just returned from making my third and fourth submission in the last fortnight to the Justice & Electoral Select Committee. As with the previous times, there was good questioning and discussion on the issue. Ths time it was about the name suppression clauses of the Criminal Procedure Bill.

As I was observing other submissions, I reflected it is a pity more people don’t get to see MPs at work like this. Unless the bill is a highly partisan one, they are genuinely engaging with submitters and looking for ways to improve the draft laws, before they are finalised. It’s an important part of our democracry, and one of the parts that works very very well. The absence of an upper house makes their role even more vital.

I hope that someday Parliament will broadcast (even just over the Internet) all public sessions of select committees, as well as the House itself.

Sadly this week we also saw Parliament at its worst. Labour wasted four hours of the House’s time filibustering the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land and Vesting Bill. This is a non controversial bill that is supported by all parties in Parliament and passed its 1st and 2nd readings without dissent.

Now I’m not against the Opposition being able to fillibuster. I blogged in 2009:

I do support the rights of the Opposition to filibuster – within reason. In fact I was the primary staffer who helped National delay the Employment Relations Act by a week in 2000.

But a filbuster is a blunt weapon for an Opposition to use, and if you get it wrong, it can hurt you.

I tend to think an Opposition should do a full filibuster only once per parliamentary term – it should be used against the piece of legislation that you think is most harmful to the country.

This was the test National used in 2000 with the then ERB. It gave all sorts of special favours to unions, and National decided it was the law they were most against.

Now some will say why filibuster at all? Well an Opposition can not defeat a law, so all they can do when it is a really really bad law, is delay it to show how bad they think it is.

But here Labour is filibustering a totally non-controversial bill. They wasted the entire four to four and a half hours allocated to local and private members bills on talking about how they like to go to the park.

Why? Well their real target is the next bill on the order paper – the VSM bill.

It is interesting that Labour have decided that the VSM bill is so bad, thet they are going to try and oppose it with ore vigour than any other issue before Parliament – even more so than tax cuts, privatisation etc.

Why are Labour willing to risk a public backlash with their fillbuster, in the hope they can stop VSM (voluntary membership of student associations) occuring? Someone on Twitter provided the best answer – because there are no limits to what a parent will do to protect their young!

Compulsory membership student associations have been a major source of training and employment for future Labour Party MPs. So there are no big issues of principle involved.

What is even rarer is that Labour is willing to fillibuster private members day. Only one in six sitting days is given over to private member bills. And the vast majority of those sitting in line are from Labour or the Greens. They’re willing to stop all of those being debate, so long as they can delay VSM.

Of course they will fail. Even with fillibusters the VSM bill should pass into law in April or May. And the Government could always adopt it, and pass it as a Government measure. There is no way it won’t pass before the election.

Ironically the longer they delay it, the less time universities will have time to prepare their enrolment software.

It will be interesting to see how many weeks or months of fillibustering will Labour inflict on private members day, in their fight against VSM. It would be good to see on TV some of the inane filibustering speeches that were made yesterday on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land and Vesting Bill.

If I was running NZUSA, I’d be focused on what changes are needed for student associations (and NZUSA) need to make, to prosper under VSM – rather than still fighting a battle which has been lost.

NZUSA has just had their January conference, and a number of people have been kind enough to send me their documents. Act on Campus have already blogged on these, including the $77,000 lost NZUSA made in 2009.

New Zealand has eight universities and 20 polytechnics/technology institutes.

Currently 14 of those 28 institutions have a student association that is a member of NZUSA, of which only 12 are full members. Those 12 full members represent only 84,000 EFTS. But even that low level, may get smaller.

No fewer than nine student associations have gien notice of withdrawal – they are OPSA, AS@U, SAWIT, WITSA, WSA, OUSA, ASA, EXMSS and MUSA. They represent almost 50,000 ETS, which would leave NZUSA representing – well basically Victoria, Lincoln and Waikato only (plus a couple of minors).

I hope NZUSA do survive, but if they do not, then it would create an opportunity for alternate representation to emerge nationally.

It occurs to me that a professionally run organisation that focused purely on lobbying the Government on behalf of students on core education and welfare issues, and communicated directly with students about its advocacy on their behalf could well get say 30% of students willing to tick a box at enrolment to join it for $5. That should be enough to have a budget of $300,000 or so. Rather than have the lobbying done by a succession of Labour student politicians, you’d actually have a professional executive director who could work with all Governments, and over time could build up a very high regard.

If you want a shocking example of a hideously biased article, try this one by Chris Barton in the NZ herald on VSM.

It does nothing but attack supporters of VSM, without even giving them a word in response, and uses propoganda exmaples from as many student associations as possible.

It paints the increase in the student services levy at Auckland university to $542 as due to VSM, and doesn’t even mention that on other campuses it has risen to $600 (plus a compulsory student association fee).

It lumps together National, ACT and the Business Roundtable together and ascribes motives to them – without again talking to a single person from them.

It fauls to mention the WSU vote to return to compulsion was scheduled by former UK Labour MP Bryan Gould to occur with no notice during study week, and hence a tiny number of students over-turned the results of three previous votes with much higher turnouts.

It quotes a legal opinion from former Labour PM Geoffrey Palmer that compulsory membership doesn’t breahc the international human right not to associate. It doesn’t mention the legal opinion submitted from a leading QC disagreeing with Palmer’s opinion.

The article would be fine as an op ed from NZUSA or the such – I have no problem with the media running anti-VSM views. But when it appears as a new story by an in house journalist, I’m amazed such a biased story appears.

Odddly the journalist is one I really rate – I just think this particular story is shiockingly bad.

Okay imagine you are NZUSA. Your source of income is about to be cut off. Your best hope of surivival is to appeal to National MPs not to continue their support for the VSM bill.

So after hours of brain-storming, what do you come up with as the best way to convince National they are wrong.

You get the Maritime Union to put out a press release stating their support for compulsory membership, and demand National drop the bill.

Yes that should do it.

I can’t think of anything more likely to convince any doubting MPs in National they should support the bill, than having the Maritime Union speak out on the virtues of compulsory membership.

It’s like getting Graeme Burton to come out against the three strikes law. Fail.

Oh this really is getting sad. NZUSA have spent some of their compulsory given fees on a poll, which they claim has 77% of NZers opposed to Heather Roy’s VSM bill.

NZUSA claim:

Public poll reveals overwhelming majority opposed to Act Party bill

It of course reveals no such thing

The New Zealand public has again overwhelmingly declared that students themselves should determine the method of students’ association membership, a week out from the committee stage of a Bill that attempts to remove this choice.

“Students are best placed to make their own decisions about the membership of their local students’ associations, and this public poll shows there is no appetite for Government involvement in such processes,” says NZUSA co-President David Do.

Mr Do is of course also the former Chair of the Princes St Labour Branch.

But turning to what he says, here is the hypocrisy. It is purely due to Government involvement that student associations are currently compulsory.

Without an Act of Parliament allowing them to be compulsory, student associations would have no more ability to be compulsory, that Neighbourhood Watch. Their compulsion comes from the Government.

An independent public opinion poll revealed 77% of respondents felt that students should decide the structure of membership of their associations, compared with just 17% that believed it was the Government’s decision, and 6% who were unsure.

George Orwell’s 1984 characters would be proud. Instead of asking the public whether student associations should have compulsory membership, or even asking whether students at a particular instistution should have the power to make their association compulsory, they asked a meaningless question about “decide the structure of membership”.

For NZUSA to claim this as demonstrating that there is an overwhelming majority opposed to Heather Roy’s bill, is desperate and ridiculous. Their remaining credibility is draining away even faster than student associations are withdrawing their memberships of NZUSA.

I am a 100% supporter of VSM. However if I was polled and asked “Do you think students should determine the structure of membership of their association” I would answer “yes”. In fact I am amazed that NZUSA did not get 100% of people answering yes.

Likewise if you asked who should determine the structure of membership of Federated Farmers – farmers or the Govt, I would answer farmers. If you asked me should a majority of farmers be able to make Federated Farmers compulsory, I would answer no.

The last vestige of compulsory unionism will die early in 2011. It is long overdue.

NZPA report:

Wellington students are having a party on Wednesday to highlight what could be lost if ACT’s Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill passes.

Oh this is too good to be true. They are going to spend compulsorily acquired money on a party to protest they will not be able to force students to fund their parties in the future.

On Wednesday student radio station the VBC 88.3FM would host a gig at the San Francisco Bath House to highlight concerns that the bill would gut funding to students’ associations and clubs like the VBC.

The gig was organised by the VBC, the Victoria University of Wellington Students’ Association (VUWSA) and the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations (NZUSA). Bands Glass Vaults, Jetsam Isles and Albert Mikoaj would play.

Oh how nice of NZUSA to help out.

VUWSA President Max Hardy said the bill would cripple the VBC.

“Wellingtonians have enjoyed the support VBC provides to local Wellington music culture through giving local bands air time and holding regular gigs. It’s important they know the student radio station could be at risk due to the government’s actions.”

A little history lesson is needed here. Radio Active is a very popular and successful radio station in Wellington. It has around 45,000 listeners. It was owned by VUWSA but they ran it so incompetently it mae huge losses and almost bankrupted them.

In 198993 it was sold to some of the staff, and it has been very successful ever since – and with no compulsory fees.

For some unknown reasons VUWSA decided it was competent to become a broadcaster again and in 20076 set up VBC, and both VUWSA and the university itself subsidise it. god knows why – it certainly shows that universities have too much money, if they use taxpayer money to fund a radio station.

If one did a survey of students, I suspect you would find far far more listen to Radio Active than VBC.

Just received this e-mail:

Amazing – I’ve been going to Vic since 2004 and never been asked to comment on the services VUWSA provides before. Amazing what VSM can achieve – they actually have to check that they’re relevant to students!

What she is referring to is a online survey VUWSA have commissioned from TNS. The survey says:

This survey is your chance to direct VUWSA about which services you think are important and how well you think they are performing.

It is great VUWSA are doing something they have never done before – asked students what they think on issues and on what VUWSA should be doing. This is exactly what VSM is about – giving an incentive for student associations to be responsive to their members.

Labour and Greens are 100% committed to repealing VSM, so that students will lose any choice over joining a student association, and so VUWSA can go back to ignoring students – rather than asking them their opinions.

I encourage all Vic students to take part of the VUWSA survey. If Labour win the next election, they may never ever again be asked their opinion – this may be your only chance.

I would also encourage all other associations to consisder doing such a survey also- it may help you survive. Asking your members what they think is the first step in a process towards becoming responsive, accountable and eventually valuable.

The VSM issue has got some students angry. They’re not angry about VSM. They support VSM. They’re angry that their names and e-mail addresses have been forged to send letters to MPs asking them to vote against VSM.

How?

Meet the Orwellian titled “Save our Services” site. I suspect it really should be “Save our Salaries”.

The first thing to note about the site is that it is anonymous. Nowhere on the site (that I could locate) was a page telling us who set it up. You are asked to join a mailing list and don’t even know a mailing list of whom.

The registrant for the domain is a Caleb Tutty. He is a Labour Party activist who used to work for Judith Tizard and is on the national executive of Young Labour.

I have no idea if Caleb has been paid to do this site for NZUSA, if he is doing it for the Labour Party or it is his own initiative. That is because nowhere on the site (unless I missed it) is there any “About Us” statement.

Anyway on the SOS site, you can use it to send a message to all 58 National MPs, and some other MPs I think.

Most sites of this nature will send a confirmation e-mail to the supplied e-mail address, and you have to click on a link to confirm the message and have it sent out under your name. This stops people forging an e-mail address they do not control.

But this site does not verify e-mail addresses. You can stick any name and e-mail address in there, and it will send a message on without verification.

Some MPs have an auto-reply go to those who e-mail them. So various unsuspecting students have received an auto-reply thanking them for their e-mail – and they have said “But I never sent an e-mail”.

This is a basic security failure and it means that MPs who receive these e-mails have no way of knowing if they really are from genuine students against VSM, or if some flunkie is just loading random names and e-mail addresses into the website.

How pissed off would you be as a student. Bad enough student associations are taking $150 off you against your will. Even worse that they spend it fighting against a law change that will give you freedom of association. And just to rub it in, your name and e-mail address get forged and used on a website to try and stop you getting a choice about whether to join or not.

The VSM bill should pass its second reading tonight. After that just two more steps towards freedom for 200,000+ students.

The Herald runs an op ed from some “student leaders” against VSM. It is no surprise that those running student associations like the status quo where you can get elected by 5% of students, and receive funding from 100%.

What is interesting is not the student leaders that signed the op ed, but the ones who did not – no one from OUSA, UCSA, LUSA, VUWSA, MUSA or VUWSA. It was only NZUSA, AUSA, MESS and ASA.

Anyway they claim:

It will put students’ services, representation and their education at major risk. Should it be passed, Act’s Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill will jeopardise the quality of the education environment and the student experience by removing the very mechanism that exists to provide these services.

It will end accountable and effective representation and destroy the student support, independent advocacy and welfare standards that students have. Every student will bear the brunt of this. Our politicians don’t seem to care that there will be a huge reduction in services and a loss of a student voice in universities and polytechnics throughout the country.

This is unmitigated crap. Why? Because they never ever talk specifics. The reality is only a small small proportion of compulsory fees go on so called student services. The vast majority of student services are already funded by the institutions. I’ve gone through decades of student association accounts, and their spending on true essential services is minimal. In the odd case where they do, the institution may pick it up.

The next issue is the so called loss of voice. Student who choose to join will still have a voice. But what the Presidents do not realise is that many students resent their compulsory voice. They do not wish the student association to speak for them. They disagree profoundly with what the student association advocates.

The committee received 4837 submissions on the bill, with an overwhelming 98 per cent opposed.

The vast majority were form submissions promoted and gathered by those on the payroll of compulsory associations. In terms of individual submissions there were only 300 or so. Also the last independent poll of students on the issue of VSM, showed a majority of students supported it.

If it is a decision made on the principle of freedom of association, it is flawed. Students have less choice; they will no longer be able to come together as a universal collective.

Oh fuck off with your communism. What sort of Orwellian weasel word is “universal collective”. There are legitimate arguments against VSM, but arguing that students will have less choice as they will no longer have the choice of being in a universal collective is insulting. It’s like saying someone who installs a burglar alarm no longer has the choice of being robbed.

UPDATE: A reader writes in how the claim it is already voluntary:

Popped into XUSA yesterday as I was going past and thought I’d stir the pot during the current debate.

I asked about conscientious objection, since I might be studying next year. They told me how, then I asked how many were granted. “Not many” was the answer – apparently it’s hard to get if you’re applying on the grounds of “opposition to the associations objectives”.

NZPA report:

Lincoln University says student associations are vital to campus life and it is condemning an ACT bill to make their membership voluntary. …

Lincoln University and its student association issued a joint statement today, condemning the bill.

This is no surprise, and we will see a number of universities come out and insist that compulsory membership must remain.

Why?

Well, simply because it makes life so much easier for the university. Rather than actually having to ever consult students on various issues, they can just talk to one person – the president of the compulsory student association, and claim that the studeny body has been consulted.

Vice-Chancellors view with horror the prospect of actually having to genuinely consult with students directly.

Association president Ivy Harper said it was shocking the MPs ignored the overwhelming number of submissions against the bill – nearly 5000 when less than 100 were in support.

This myth keeps getting repeated. Around 4,700 submissions were just names on a firm letter/petition. They were collected by staff and executive of compulsory associations. There were only around 300 genuine submissions. And polls in the past have shown that the majority of students do want voluntary membership. This will be extremely popular with the majority of students. It is only the privileged minority who are squealing with horror.