Kiwiblog

This is why fewer and fewer people are trusting the media – they don’t tell the full story.

Read this story in the Dominion Post about VUWSA and VSM. Nowhere at all do they even cover the proposed illegal meeting on Friday, and the huge controversy over the retrospective declaring of the Wednesday meeting as invalid.

On the blogs you have been given first hand accounts of what happened, and even video coverage so people can make their minds up. In the traditional newspaper, you get just this:

Victoria University student president Jasmine Freemantle said the motion had since been declared void by VUWSA’s lawyer.

And this is reported without giving their readers any hint of the c0ntroversy involved in what they did.

And here is the irony – the Dom Post reports that the meeting was attended by a large group of students, yet doesn’t record any scepticism about the fact it was also declared inquorate.

Maybe it was in the original story, and a sub-editor took it out. But the story as published is woefully lacking in covering what is a very controversial situation. It doesn’t give both sides of the story – it just repeats the assertion by the VUWSA President as fact.

Certain people at VUWSA are so aghast that their official policy is now to support VSM, they are planning to illegally overturn the result? How do you do that? Well Salient reports:

It has been brought to Salient’s attention that VUWSA will hold another SRC meeting this Friday at 11am in the Mount Street Bar.

Notification of the SRC meeting was placed on the VUWSA noticeboard on Wednesday afternoon. [Photographic evidence to the right. JJW]

The notice says that the meeting will be held “pursuant to part IV s. 2 (3-4) of the VUWSA Constitution.”

However, part IV s. 2 (4) of the VUWSA Constitution says that “such special meeting shall be held no sooner than three (3) office days and not later than ten (10) office days after the date of receipt of a requisition [for a meeting], or resolution by the executive.”

Fewer than 48 hours will have passed between the notification of the SRC, and the meeting actually being held, directly contravening the procedures outlined in the constitution.

So an illegal meeting, in breach of their own constitution, held in a bar at 11 am on a Friday (when all good students are hungover) is the first response of the compulsion lovers.

But it gets even better. After forceful representations about the illegality of the proposed Friday meeting (not that the forces of compulsion did the same thing at WSU – hold a vote with only a day or two’s notice) including a potential injunction, the compulsionaters have come up with an even better plan.

They have simply declared the Wednesday meeting void  on the grounds two VUWSA people declare a quorum count of 45, less than the required 50. Now note the resolution was passed with 80 people voting and a later quorum count (with one independent person) found there to be over 60 people present, and this count was done within the 30 minutes allowed in the constitution.

This is a prime example of how unaccountable some associations are. VUWSA never questioned the legitimacy of the Wednesday meeting, until after they realised they could not legally hold a repeal meeting on Friday.

UPDATE: A student captured the meeting on video, which is now on You Tube.  It is in Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. You can easily see there are way way more than 50 people there. In fact I am told it was one of the most well attended SRCs in recent years.

I understand also that signatures are being gathered from around 60 people who will testify they attended the SRC at all times, and put their hand up for all quorum counts.

At the final SRC of 2009, the good students of Victoria University voted 45 – 35 that VUWSA actively support Sir Roger Douglas’ Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill.

This means VUWSA is now obliged to put in a submission in support of the Bill, which will make student associations voluntary.

Jenna Raeburn was at the SRC and live blogged the multiple tactics used to try and prevent a vote – multiple quorum counts, competing motions etc.

There are going to be some very upset student politicians tonight.

Congratulations to those 45 students who took the time to turn up and vote, and most of all for being subtle enough about it, to pull off a superb tactical assault.

Clint Heine blogs:

WELLINGTON: Slavery should be rebranded as an ‘opt-out labour arrangement’, the New Zealand University Students Association (NZUSA) said today.

“Let’s face it, slavery has a bad name,” a NZUSA representative said. “For thousands of years slavery has been associated with force, compulsion and the negation of civil rights,” he said, “however we think slavery needs a new image”.

After exhaustive research conducted over two and half days NZUSA has suggested that slavery should be thought of as an ‘opt-out labour arrangement’.

“After all, even though slaves were forced into labour against their will, they could always leave—or opt-out—if they wanted to. They could run away or buy their freedom,” NZUSA said. “If slaves were really unhappy about servitude all they needed to do was make a bit of an effort. If they didn’t make the effort we can only assume they were happy.”

“The ability of any slave to opt-out if he or she chooses means that slavery doesn’t breach civil rights,” NZUSA said.

Hilarious. Especially the part about how a slave can opt out of slavery by running away.

NZUSA said their work on slavery was the first in a series. Future reports include: ‘Compulsory military service – opt-out warriors’ and ‘Prisoners – opt-out guests of Her Majesty’.

The reference to compulsory military service is very apt. For proponents argued this was not compulsory due to conscientious objection – the exact same argument used by compulsory student associations.

The Hansard of the first reading of the VSM bill is now online. If I have the time, I want to respond to all the MPs who spoke out in favour of compulsory membership, but for now will just respond to Jacinda Ardern’s speech, as the version of history painted is now one I or my colleagues remember.

Jacinda said:

Unlike the member who is in charge of this bill, I can speak from some experience, having attended a university that looked at voluntary student union membership. I was at Waikato University in the 1990s. I was not a student politician—I want to make that clear—I was a student. I was an observer of what happened, and I voted in the election that eventually led to that university being the first in 70 years, I believe, to go voluntary. I inform members of this House that it was the first university to go back to universal membership, because it learnt that it was a disaster to move to a voluntary system.

Now Jacinda has one thing right. WSU was voluntary, and now is compulsory. But far from VSM being a disaster that students rejected, the return to compulsory membership happened due to the machinations of the then Vice-Chancellor – former British Labour MP Bryan Gould.

You see what Jacinda doesn’t tell you is that Waikato students voted to go voluntary in 1996 by 63% to 37% in a referendum . The supporters of compulsion tried to overturn that the following year with another referendum, which VSM also won easily.

Undeterred they tried again in 1999 in a referendum (triggered by the current law) and got thrashed. VSM won 78% of the vote, in a turnout of around 30%.

So what happened? In 2000 the University, headed by former British Labour MP Bryan Gould, scheduled a further referendum upon receiving a petition late in the year. They scheduled it for a short three day period at the beginning of study week for exams. And they only gave students one days notice of the vote. Their own staff advised against this, and said there should be two weeks notice.

Turnout fell from 30% to around 10%, and compulsion won on its fourth attempt in an election that Iran or Afghanistan would be proud of. I mean at least they get more than one days notice of a vote!

Jacinda’s claim that Waikato students rejected VSM, in fact reminds us of how flawed the referendum model is. Apart from the philosophical objections to having 51% being able to force 40% to join something, you can’t get a fair vote on most campuses. Even if your Labour mate the VC doesn’t schedule the vote to favour the forces of compulsion, you generally have the students association having 100 times the resources of those supporting VSM. More on that another day.

Anyway for those who want more info on what really happened at Waikato, a colleague of mine has put together a summary which is below:

One favourite myth of opponents of voluntary membership concerns the voluntary era at the Waikato Student Union (1998-2000) and the impact of three years of voluntary membership on the association. Labour MP Jacinda Ardern referred to WSU during her speech on the first reading of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment bill last week. Let’s have a look at her claims.

But first some history and background.

Jacinda claims that Sir Roger’s bill follows previous voluntary membership bills from, in her order, Tony Steel, Donna Awatere-Huata, and then Michael Laws. She has the order wrong. Michael Laws introduced his members’ bill in 1994. It went to select committee in 1995 but lapsed in 1996. The Steel and Awatere-Huata bills were two separate members’ bills that were simultaneously drawn in May 1997. The Awatere-Huata bill did not receive a second reading. The Steel bill was passed in August 1998, but only after a compromise, promoted by some New Zealand First MPs, led to the introduction of referenda as the means to determine whether membership would be compulsory or voluntary.

WSU’s move to voluntary membership happened prior to the passage of the Steel bill. In September 1996, following two years of campaigning by voluntary supporters, WSU members voted 987 to 591 to make membership of WSU voluntary from 1 January 1998. In August 1997 compulsory supporters called another referendum in an attempt to overturn the 1996 decision. This was unsuccessful and students voted to confirm the introduction of voluntary membership. In 1999 there was another referendum, this one triggered by the Steel bill. This time 1984 students voted voluntary, 561 voted compulsory, from a total turnout of 3051. So much for NZUSA’s claim that students don’t want voluntary membership.

Voluntary membership at WSU ended in questionable circumstances. By 2000 WSU had a pro-compulsory president. His executive collected signatures for another referendum but waited until October and the final meeting of the academic year before presenting the petition to council. The referendum was held on 16-18 October. At the time, David Penney, a former president of APSU, the national polytechnic student association and then a university employee, pointed out the problems with the timing of the referendum saying,

the University will have less than one day to officially notify students of the vote, normal practice two weeks; maximum voter turnout may be undermined by the timing of the vote, which is recommended to take place on the first three days of study week when on-campus numbers are low; the integrity of the process may be undermined given the short lead-in time.

Jacinda also claimed that WSU’s return to compulsory membership “happened only after all of the services that (Waikato) students had benefitted from had collapsed.” According to Jacinda the collapsed “services” were foodbanks, emergency housing and a hardship fund. Trouble is WSU never provided any of these things. Waikato students paid (and still pay) separate levies for health and counseling, student buildings, and food, bars and the recreation centre. The university collected levies for these three areas and none of them were affected by voluntary membership.

WSU owned half a dozen rental properties but these weren’t emergency housing. Prior to 1996 they were, however, rented out at below market rates and often to executive members and their mates. In 1995 WSU attempted to justify the use of student money to buy houses by claiming that if they owned enough properties they could eventually force down Hamilton rental prices. I doubt if WSU members were aware they were funding a Waikato version of a Polish shipyard.

Jacinda’s in good company when it comes to making false claims about WSU. In 2000 Steve Maharey complained about the “million the voluntary purists at Waikato fiddled away”. However an examination of WSU’s balance sheets shows WSU’s equity during the three voluntary years fell by $4000; from $578,000 (1998) to $574,000 (2000). I hope Steve’s not using the same calculator at Massey.

Over the next few weeks I’ll be looking at more of these myths.

There is a VSM Public Debate in Wellington tonight.

The details are:

Date: Monday, September 28, 2009
Time: 6:30pm – 8:30pm
Location: Old Government Buildings Lecture Theatre One
Street: Pipitea Campus

Speakers are:

Affirmative
David Garrett MP
Stephen Whittington (student debater)
Peter McCaffrey (ACT on Campus Vice President)

Negative
Helen Kelly (President, New Zealand Council of Trade Unions)
Seb Templeton (student debater)
Max Hardy (vic Labour President)

A snap of Sir Roger with Salient Editor Jackson Wood, showing off one of the badges funded out of compulsory student association fees that say “Leave us alone Roger”.

The irony is that it is fact the compulsory student associations that won’t leave students alone. And that they spend their compulsory funds on stupid badges.

I doubt anyone actually believes the press releases from various student unions, but just in case. First of all OPSA:

ACT’s bill differs from previous attempts at voluntary membership. It will not only force voluntary membership on all campuses irrespective; but it is essentially the same as the “full-blown” type tried in recently in Australia, where institutions are not allowed to charge a compulsory services levy and use this to buy services from students’ associations.

The bill is in fact very much in line with the three previous bills in the 1990s. They all allowed individual students to decide whether or not to join. The current law was a last minute compromise by NZ First.

The issue of service levies has arisen, because it has become de facto compulsory membership in some areas with an institution funding an association through this back door.

Then Te Mana Ākonga:

“The National government have expressed previously that they would like better outcomes for Māori in education. TMA questions how this view is possible if they take the reliable tools we have, this being our voice and the right to express our autonomy” said Poutu

Except Maori students do not have autonomy. They are forced to join the compulsory student associations. Post VSM, Maori student associations could actually compete for members with the main student associations. Students should have a choice as to whether to join any or all of the main campus association, their faculty association, a Maori association if they are Maori.

Then Albany Students Association:

The Albany Students’ Association, a not-for-profit incorporated society that currently serves over 7,000 Massey University Albany campus students, relies heavily on student membership levies and, without them, would be economically crippled. “Contrary to what the ACT Party is suggesting, students are able to opt out of membership if they do not want to be a part of their students’ association, but most of them appreciate and support the fact that we provide student-focused services such as Orientation; student publications, independent advocacy advisors, and welfare services.

They contradict themselves in the same paragraph. They claim with compulsion they would be crippled, yet also claim students can opt out and the fact most don’t is because they do such a good job.

NZUSA do the same:

“Independent representation, advocacy and support, sporting and cultural clubs and social events such as Orientation would all be under threat in the unlikely event that this Bill succeeds, and all in the name of choice – which already exists!” said Blair.  …

New Zealand would do well to heed the lessons from the disaster that recently unfolded in Australia, which saw associations collapse nationwide under a voluntary system, …

I think the SAs must think MPs are morons. They keep claiming there already is choice, yet also claim that voluntary membership will see associations collapse.

What they really mean is that students have choice, in the Cuban sense of choice. A Claytons choice.

NZUSA vows to fight to keep students in the driving seat and interfering politicians out, and to win the battle to protect universal membership and retain quality advocacy and representation for New Zealand students. They deserve nothing less.

Oh really NZUSA should feature in a George Orwell novel. Their fight to stop students being able to decide whether or not to join a student assocaition they label as fighting to keep students in the driving seat.

It sounds like apartheid era South Africa’s defence of the “homelands” on the basis of keeping Black South Africans in the driving seat.

And then they use the Orwellian term universal membership and call it something to be protected. This is like calling armed forces conscription “universal service” and pledging to fight for the right fo young people to be conscripted!

Finally they push the myth they represent New Zealand students. They do not. No one body can represent NZ students. Students have diverse views on issues, and students should be able to decide to fund the views they agree with.

The CTU also joins the fray. Yes the Council of Trade Unions. Their members lost the right to have compulsory membership in the 1980s but they battle for student unions to remain the last hold out

CTU president Helen Kelly said the bill guaranteed the loss of essential student support services.

“Student associations provide critical services such as student loan advice, welfare support, advocacy services, sporting and cultural clubs and facilities that are all essential for student welfare,” she said.

“The loss of these services would be incalculable.”

What a load of nonsense. Student Loan advice?? VUWSA (for example) couldn’t even balance its own budget for most of the decade. Their history of financial mismanagement would make them as suitable to be student loan advisors, as it would be Charlie Sheen to give monogamy advice.

Advocacy services, means advocating for Labour and the Greens – not an essential service. Students should get to choose their advocates.

And is the CTU really claiming that sporting and cultural club are “essential” for student welfare? Oh my God what would we do without the chess club.

Of course that also assumes these clubs would disappear under VSM. They won’t. They just won’t get grants to subsidise (generally) their travel. But the vast majority of clubs will carry on – with students deciding to join and participate in them – as they do now.

A reader e-mails:

We learned a couple of things about the Greens, yesterday… They don’t support human rights and they don’t care about climate change.

First, they wouldn’t support the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill – even just as far as select committee.

And secondly, when Parliament ran out of members’ bills to debate, and started debating the various reports on the order paper that they almost never get to, the Greens wouldn’t even take one call to discuss the Select Committee Review of the Emissions Trading Scheme. Every Green MP could have taken a 10-minute speech to lay out the Greens’ vision for combating climate change, they could have controlled Parliament’s agenda and presented a unified and united view on what they think we must do. But I guess they don’t have one. Like everyone else, they preferred to take the evening off. Human rights and climate change just aren’t that important…

Ouch. What does Frog say in defence?

Obviously delighted the VSM Bill passed its first reading last night. I’ll blog some of the speeches once they are on Hansard (or a helpful staffer could send me the advance copy!).

As I understand it National, ACT and United Future voted in favour which would be 64 votes, and Labour, Labour pretending to be a separate party, Maori and Greens voted against with 58 votes.

As 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.

The Dom Post reports:

Labour has chosen unionist Chris Flatt as its new general secretary in a move seen as a win for the party and its union wing over the parliamentary leadership. …

The other front runner was Progressive leader Jim Anderton’s long-time adviser John Pagani, who it is understood was favoured by Labour leader Phil Goff.

WIth no disrespect to Chris Flatt, I’m somewhat relieved. Pagani is a cunning sod who could have been quite dangerous in the role.

The appointment also reflects the student association backgrounds of both the Labour President and General Secretary.

Andrew Little was VUWSA President and NZUSA President in the late 1980s and Chris Flatt was involved in Waikato Students Union in the late 1990s.

He was on the WSU Executive in 1995 and 1996 and stood for WSU President in 1997 on a pro compulsory membership platform, He lost to a Student Choice candidate. I think he was also a Labour Youth President in 1997.

Anyway congratulaions to Platt on gaining the job at the young age of 36.

Superb news. Heather Roy’s voluntary student association membership bill (now in the name of Roger Douglas) got drawn from the ballot today.

I’ll be doing a lot of posts on this topic as I have 15 – 20 years worth of research on the pros and cons of VSM.

The Young Nationals and ACT on Campus are excited about the bill being drawn, and no doubt will be campaigning hard for it to be passed.

Very appropriate that the man who gave New Zealand so many of our economic freedoms, may end up also being the person who give students the freedom to choose as individuals whether or not to join a student association.

Heather 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.

It is time for National to live up to its core principles and make a commitment to voluntary membership of student associations. VUWSA gives us two good reminders of why students should have the choice about whether or not they hand over millions of dollars every year.

First have a look at this story and comments at Salient about the VUWSA Exec refusing to lay a wreath for ANZAC Day. Scores of angry students – but you know not one of them is legally allowed to quit as a member and get his or her fee back – or refuse to join up and spend the fee joining a group they do wish to belong to.

The other going on is at Salient itself. I’m not going to cover the full story, as it is on Ethical Martini, but Salient (which is funded by VUWSA compulsory fees) threatened Dave at Big News with a defamation suit over a very trivial issue (involving someone from the Salient office spamming his site). Now student media of all groups should be the last to be trying to use defamation laws aggressively against people. Again – if they actually had to earn their money – not get given it by statute – this silliness would largely disappear. Fortunately Salient have withdrawn their threat of legal action.

If you want to give 200,000+ students a choice, then e-mail Minister of Education Anne Tolley and ask her to stick it on the agenda for 2009 or 2010.

The Otago Daily Times has a story on how Jo Moore has been disqualified, after winning the OUSA 2009 Presidential election.

Moore won in mid August, with a 122 vote margin over her closest rival.

The Scene has details of the complaints – she had a keg party the day before voting closed, and around 15 people voted at the keg party on a couple of laptops there. The rules say a candidate can not be within 20 metres of a polling booth, and it seems this now includes laptops!

This is not the first time an incumbent executive has disqualified a sucessful Presidential candidate. VUWSA did the same a few years ago. There is no natural justice process involved – and in the case of Moore she does not get a re-election – the losing candidate is now declared the winner – very different to electoral law where a sucessful candidate who breaks the rules triggers a by-election not an automatic victory to the loser.

Miss Moore said she understood a complaint that she had been within 20m of a polling facility during voting had been upheld, and it had also been suggested she had overspent the $1000 limit for election campaigning.

She disputed the findings and said she had receipts for all her election spending.

The latest appeals process had breached the principles of natural justice because she had not been advised about it and had been given no chance to provide any evidence on her own behalf, she said.

A lot of people do not realise there is no requirement for a compulsory student association to act democratically. In fact OUSA once abolished presidential elections, and replaced the President with a King. It was a joke – but a totally legal joke that lasted around six weeks.

It is almost irresponsible of Pariament to have given powers of compulsory membership to student associations but no obligations to be democratic or accountable.

Salient has an open letter to VUWSA – the organisation that all Vic studenrs are forced to fund. Salient normally goes soft on VUWSA as they fund them, so they have to be pretty peeved to do this:

As you failed to hold an Initial General Meeting this year, and have so far failed to hold an Annual General Meeting to pass last year’s budget, students have not been afforded the forums they need to discuss your structural issues.

Pah – democrarcy – who needs it.

We’re cool with you pulling pranks, like offering $10,000 to whoever arrests Condoleezza Rice, but you have to earn the right to pull these pranks by otherwise running your organisation well, and often you don’t.

I’m never cool with compulsory fees going on such pranks.

Although we don’t write about every little problem you encounter, given the lack of any general meeting this year, it’s worth discussing some of these issues now.

Here are two examples. At the end of last year, former President Geoff Hayward decided to spend over $22,222.22 (which is a much less funny number when it is students funds) to upgrade VUWSA’s van, with the support of current Education Vice-President Paul Brown. Although they did this without the proper authority, the payment could not be reversed and VUWSA was stuck with the bill.

Similarly, at the snow games party in late 2007, VUWSA held a competition in which they gave away a snowboard. However they failed to give the snowboard to the person who won it, and the winner subsequently took VUWSA to court at the beginning of this year. Hayward’s successor as President, Joel Cosgrove, then failed to turn up on the appointed court date. Good one guys.

This is what happens when you don’t have to work for your money.

Almost every single student at Victoria is forced to fund VUWSA, and the salary of its President – this year Joel Cosgrove.

If you do not approve of the jobs VUWSA does, you can not resign. If you are disgusted with the President – you can not resign. The President andor Exec members can treat students with absolute contempt because their funding is guaranteed.

And we see this in a story on the Salient blog (photos by Sean Gillespie), about the capping ceremony at Victoria. Capping is a big day for most students. They have worked three to five years or more to get their degree. It means a lot to them, and their families. It is not about the Professors or the people on stage – it is for the students – the very ones who fund VUWSA against their will often.

Now this photo is of the stage, and the one standing out is VUWSA President Joel Cosgrove. Now the issue isn’t actually being scruffy, even though I think that is a bit disrespectful. I had the privilege of serving on the Otago University Council and even though I hated suits would wear them when it was appropriate. Also as a Council member I was eligible to wear academic regalia even though I had no degree. I remember having a very cool purple hood. I never actually got around to finishing my degrees so my only graduation ceremonies was as a Council member. Anyway the not wearing regalia is not the issue. Salient notes:

At the parade on Thursday Cosgrove was wearing a suit. So why did he feel the need to wear the t-shirt on Friday’s ceremony? He could have chosen something more appropriate to the occasion, but the university should not have allowed him to sit on the stage at all.

This is a prime example of the complete lack of respect he holds for students.

This is the issue. That is just 100% inappropriate. Graduating students walking along the stage should not be confronted with a “I love my penis” t-shirt. The fact the t-shirt is part of a campaign for a good cause – sexual health checks – is irrelevant. It is about what is appropriate for the occasion. Cosgrove was not there as “Joel Cosgrove”. He was there as President of VUWSA.

Now some may say this is an issue over someone being a dickhead, not about VSM (Voluntary Student Membership). That you get dickheads everywhere. And yes that is true. You get dickheads everywhere and sometimes they get elected as President of VUWSA.

But the nature of compulsory membership does make the problem worse. It increases the chances of getting a student President who, like Joel seemingly, has a contempt for students. When they have no ability to resign in protest or even not join because they think everyone involved is a dickhead – well it is little surprise you get a student president who thinks it is appropriate to wear a penis t-shirt on stage at Capping.

Imagine how pissed off the graduating students are – this is one of the biggest days in their lives – they are walking across the stage receiving their degree and the person who is meant to be their representative, who they have been forced to fund paying him a full-time salary, is sitting them with a “I love my penis” t-shirt on.

It’s a bit of a pity that one of the graduating students didn’t have the presence of mind to grab the microphone as he walked past and say something like “On behalf of most of the students here today, I’d like to just say our President is a douche and we wish he wasn’t here being a douche”. They would have got a standing ovation I reckon.