Kiwiblog

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.

Labour have pledged to make student associations compulsory again, if they win the next election.

Good.

I can just imagine the horror this will cause students, especially at campuses like Victoria, when they realise a vote for Labour means a vote for a compulsory VUWSA.

The Education & Science Select Committee has reported back on the VSM Bill.

The Education and Science Committee has examined the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and recommends by majority that it be passed with the amendments shown.

Yay yay yay. This has been a long time coming. A very good day for freedom and choice, and a bad day for compulsion.

There are a number of changes to the bill. I am pleased to see that they have adopted my suggestion that institutions will still be required to collect fees on behalf of a student association – on a voluntary basis. It would have been impractical for an association to try and solicit memberships itself. This should allow student associations that have a modest fee and provides good services, to still persuade people to join.

The implementation date has changed to be 1 January 2012 – also a change I supported. This give institutions time to modify their enrolment processes and software, and gives associations time to prepare.

My offer at the select committee to work with NZUSA to get a culture and systems change within student associations, so they can maximise membership stands.  I have a number of ideas about how associations, and also student media, can attract income, even without compulsory fees.

Congrats to Heather Roy and Roger Douglas for getting select committee agreement.

There may be some fish hooks in the detailed provisions. If so, I’ll blog some possible changes to be considered at Committee of the Whole stage.

Kapi-Mana News reports:

Whitireia Independent Students’ Association is in danger of being liquidated after one of its members appointed himself “liquidation acting president” to fast-track his own high court injunction.

Part-time student Graham McCready sought an injunction last month to shut down the organisation following allegations of fraud against former WISA president Loretta Ryder and vice president Tai Te Karu. An audit last month discovered more than $1 million in cash and assets missing from the association’s books.

WISA and Whitireia Community Polytechnic discredited Mr McCready’s moves because he was found guilty of tax fraud in 2008 and sentenced to six months’ home detention, but that case has since been appealed.

Mr McCready last week applied to New Zealand Incorporated Societies, via a petition signed by 15 students, and gained the authority to terminate the lease on WISA’s offices at Whitireia, close its bank accounts, cut telephone services and file a tax return claiming the association owed Inland Revenue $336,189.

Throughout the week WISA executive committee members were unable to access accounts to pay urgent expenses and have not received mail, because it had been collected by Mr McCready.

Acting student president Tim Manu says the association has become the victim of an imposter.

“I just don’t take him seriously. He’s going about [fixing the associations financial problems] in a destructive and malicious way. Those are not the qualities students want in a president. I don’t appreciate the fact he’s impersonating my role [as acting president] and I’ll make sure he’s held to account for that.”

Mr McCready, a retired accountant, insists he is using his “God-given talents” to help the students’ association.

“They can deny it all they want, but it’s happening. I’m going to have it shut down and start a new one … I have decided I will run for student president of the new students’ association.”

And under the current law, students will still be forced to join.

No matter how dysfunctional, how incompetent, a student association is – students are generally forced to join them.

The current law is a farce, and we only have it because Labour gain such immense benefits from compulsory membership.

National has a once in a generation opportunity to give students actual choice, and allow them to make up their own minds whether or not they join a student association. The process should be simply – when you enrol, you get told how much it costs to join the student association (or associations), what services they provide and you tick a box if you wish to join and pay.

If National fails to pass a law which gives students free choice, then they will be the ones to blame for all the future abuses of compulosry associations. The status quo is quite simply unacceptable.

The Dom Post editorial:

Whitireia Independent Students’ Association is not the first student association to have trouble administering the fees it collects.

However, with $1 million missing from the association’s funds, it will add impetus to the campaign to make students’ associations truly voluntary.

Good. There needs to be a good reason to take money from people compulsorily – and when it is, the money must be managed to the highest of standards. At Whitireia neither has been the case.

And I hold Parliament responsible. They have given the powers of compulsion, without any requirements for accountability.

Students attending Whitireia do not have to be members of their association, but the system is set up to make it hard for them not to be. They automatically join when they enrol but, according to the association website, “should you not want to be a member and require a full refund, you must opt out within 20 days from the commencement of your course of study”. So few do that the association has an income of about $350,000 a year, income that it and Whitireia Community Polytechnic, which handed over money despite doubts, have proved unable to administer satisfactorily.

This is better than at most institutions, but still no substitute for a proper voluntary opt in regime.

Most students could no doubt find a better use for the $135 that fulltime students pay than providing an involuntary subsidy for pool players.

And even if the services it was offering were essential, it is clear that the association, like others before it, lacks the professionalism needed to manage the funds it is given, and the delivery. No organisation is exempt from fraud, but there have been too many instances in students’ associations of mismanagement of funds.

There are some associations, such as OUSA and UCSA, which have a history of good management and value for money. But the overall prevalence of fraud in student associations seems massively higher than most other sectors. There are less than 50 such associations, and the number which have had fraud is in the range of 10% to 20% I would say.

Students attending tertiary institutions do need non-academic services such as health clinics and cafeterias. It makes more sense for those essential services to be provided through a student services levy administered by the institution. That would leave student associations to provide optional extras, such as student newspapers and wall planners – and students to decide whether they want those things enough to join up, and pay up.

Exactly. If a service is “essential” then the institution should provide it.

Hopefully Parliament will recognise the status quo is indefensible, and vote (with appropriate modifications) for student associations to become voluntary.

The Dom Post reports:

Whitireia Polytechnic chief executive Don Campbell said students should be able to opt out of paying the $135 a year compulsory subscription to student associations. “I’m quite concerned about what’s happened.”

In fact they should be allowed to decide whether or not they opt in. It’s very simple. At enrolment they get to tick a box to choose whether or not they wish to join, based on the services being provided for the membership fee.

More than $72,000 was paid out in unauthorised “hardship” grants. However, it appears not all that money went to poverty-stricken students. …

The statements, for the year 2009, show $72,259 was doled out to students who were said to be struggling financially. But Stuff.co.nz has learned of one student who was paid $350 but was recorded as receiving $1170. She received two envelopes stuffed with $150 and $200.

When she demanded to see records, she saw she was noted as receiving $1170. There were five other names on the list who had received up to $1800 each.

Student Association actually boast about how much money they give away in hardship grants, citing them as proof of why they must remain compulsory. My response is that it is unsurprising that if you offer students free money, more and more students will take it up – and that it is the job of WINZ, not student associations, to provide welfare payments.

But the culture of corruption goes deeper, and I do link it to compulsion. I don’t blame the student associations though – I blame Parliament.

The power of compulsory membership and funding is one that should be granted rarely, and with strict controls. Take for example local government – in exchange for the power to impose compulsory rates, they are subject to the Local Government Act, the Local Electoral Act, the Ombudsman, the Auditor-General, the OIA, the Local Government Commission and statutory requirements around consultation, public plans etc etc.

Student associations have been granted the power of compulsion, with absolutely no safeguards. They are not even required to have democratic elections. There is no oversight and no scrutiny. The tales of abuse are legion – and that is because Parliament has given them the power of compulsion, with no safeguards.

The Dom Post reports:

A police investigation has begun after more than $750,000 was drained from Whitireia Polytechnic students’ association funds over a year. …

Angry students – who learned their funds had dwindled to just $6000 – demanded the executive step down during the tense meeting. After heated discussions, one committee member broke down in tears as she told students to “have faith” in the new executive, which, except for one member, was elected after the misappropriation took place.

Fulltime students must have $135 deducted automatically from their student loans to pay subs for the Whitireia Independent Students Association. There are about 6000 students at the polytech, half of whom are fulltime.

Yet not a single one of them can quit. They can’t say I do not wish to belong to an association that is so lacking in basic financial controls, that $750,000 gets wasted or stolen.

VSM will attract different people to student associations. Not so much those who want to spend money, but those who want to provide a good enough service that students will want to join. Don’t think that the high level of fraud in student associations is a coincidence. It is a consequence of compulsory membership.

Act on Campus have blogged about a survey by Student Job Search which asks people to rate the most valuable “student association” services funded by your student levy, listing:

• Accom Services
• Career Development
• Student Counselling
• Disability Support
• Early childhood
• Financial Advice
• Student Health
• IT Services
• Learning Support
• New Student Orientation and Transition
• Rec and Social Services
• Cultural Mentoring
• SJS

Now this is a great example of the many lies spread to defend compulsory membership. The vast majority of the above services have absolutely nothing to do with student associations. Student associations do not fund the careers services, student health, student counselling, IT services etc.

Even Student Job Search receives just a miniscule amount of money from student associations. 95% of its funding comes from the taxpayer.

My advice to MPs is to ignore all and every claim made by student associations about the so called services they fund, and instead just look at their financial accounts. That will expose how little they spend on services.

But we do have an example of one recent spending decision, in Otago:

A Student Association staffer received more than $40,000 funding to spend a year travelling the world researching student drinking habits – then delivered a four-and-a-half page report on her findings.

One of her key recommendations was that the university schedule more Friday morning lectures, to dissuade students from getting boozed on Thursdays.

Otago University Students Association events manager Vanessa Reddy spent most of 2009 on her tour of dozens of US universities, to develop a 40-point drinking plan.

A 40 point plan that took up four and a half pages? I guess there were not a lot of footnotes!

Prompted by high-profile problems with student drunkenness in Dunedin, the university, city council and students’ association all chipped in towards Reddy’s costs, according to student magazine Critic. The association also paid Reddy five hours’ wages a week so she could help her temporary replacement from afar.

What was the contribution from each I wonder,and did any of them bother to do a contract specifying what the deliverables should be in return for the funding?

I note all three funders were speending other people’s money, not their own.

Also back home, Salient reports on an amusing spat at VUWSA (of course) where an executive member has been sanctioned for slagging off Weir House residents as “rich kids” who see staying at Weir as a “status boost”.

Now this is a pretty silly issue, but it does raise a good example of why student associations will do better under VSM, due to the culture change.

Under VSM student associations will be focused on persuading students to join them, not slagging them off. If Weir House students had the ability to resign as members, or decline joining VUWSA, you can be damn sure an executive member won’t be slagging them off (unles they are exceptionally stupid).

Just returned from Parliament where I made an oral submission on the voluntary student membership bill to the Education & Science Select Committee. Had 20 minutes, which is quite good for an individual submission and most of it spent on Q&A which is the best part. The seven MPs seemed well engaged on the issues, with some good questions.

I told a story about the student association president in 1985 who slipped into a lengthy constitutional reform paper, which was unanimously adopted, a clause naming him President for Life of the association, declaring the post to fall to his eldest heirs and successors, granting him a title of 10% of the association’s gross income, and naming him King.

The point of the amusing story, was to highlight that this rule change was legal – there is no requirement for SAs to be democratic, let alone any of the other safeguards Parliament normally insists on when granting the power of compulsion. I contrasted this with local government, whose power of compulsion is tempered by the Local Electoral Act, the Local Govt Act, strict consultation requirements, the OIA, the Auditor-General and even as a last resort the Government’s ability to sack them and appoint a Commissioner – as they did with ECan. In fact I suggested that if the Government thinks Ecan needs a Commissioner, then VUWSA is well overdue for intervention and appointment of a Commissioner, with their legacy of dysfunctionality.

The other point I made, which is also in my written submission (after the break) is that I think compulsory membership is actually bad for student associations as it has robbed them of all incentive to be effective, accountable and responsive. I outlined a model of post-compulsory student associations that I think can thrive. I even foolishly offered my time free of change to student associations, to help them with the transition to voluntary (if the bill passes).

I look forward to seeing the Committee’s report. I don’t regard the status quo as acceptable.

My written submission is over the break, including a couple of proposed amendments to the bill.

(more…)

If you want to advocate for the removal of the last bastion of compulsory unionism, submissions close tomorrow on the bill to have voluntary membership for tertiary student associations.

The Free Me website has a handy submission guide.

If you are a current or former student. I suggest you talk from personal experience.

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.