studentchoice

Do anarchists support voluntary membership?

2008-04-20T04:29:00.000-07:00

On 13 April there was a very interesting programme about anarchy on Chris Laidlaw's 'Ideas' programme on National Radio. In an interview, Wellington anarchist Sam Buchanan described the principles behind anarchy,

"It starts from fairly simple principles….We have no right to be ruled unless we give consent to authority....Everything must be done by voluntary agreement…Let's work by voluntary agreement to finding out how can we make a society run without coercion, without authority, without violence."

So if everything must be done by voluntary agreement, would anarchists support voluntary membership of all incorporated societies?

Why is Young Labour Abusing VUWSA Resources? Better Question: Why Not?

2008-04-06T18:05:00.000-07:00

Last year during that infamous VUWSA election campaign, the candidates representing the Victoria branch of Young Labour put up a series of 'anonymous' posters decrying their opponents as secret agents for the ACT Party.
Now the (in)accuracy of this charge notwithstanding, the results of that election might have indicated that those who voted were opposed to party politics interfering with student politics. Therefore those Young Labour members who were elected could be trusted to not do what they accused the others of wanting to do. Right?

If you believe that, then you don't know Young Labour.

In the March 3 issue of Salient we got a glimpse of how neutral our Executive were going to be. Asked whether Helen or John was the guy for them, two of the Young Labour wing of VUWSA gave us these answers:

Sonny Thomas (Campaigns Officer):
Helen. She can stitch together a coalition better than anyone else. And she’s a better leader.

Katie de Roo (Clubs Officer):
Helen 100%. She is a true [New Zealand] leader that will continue to take New Zealand forward as she has done from 1999. John will take us back to the 90s, and who wants that?

One can give them some kudos for being honest, and after all it's not like these views are going to interfere with their work. Right?

If you believe that, you're not very good at this game yet.

The events of last week, as outlined on Mr Farrar's blog, clearly proves there are members of the VUWSA executive who are more than okay with using student resources for the benefit of the Labour Party.

Now there are many who say that stacking a poll on a blog in favour of one party is a trivial thing, and I would usually agree. Obviously the Young Labour wing of VUWSA do not share this view or they would never had done it. More to the point, they WOULD NOT ABUSE INTERNET BANDWIDTH THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN EXCEEDED to do it.
If the honour of the Labour Party was secondary to the reasons they had been elected, then I'm quite sure they could have performed this poll-stacking in their own time and at their own cost.

But this can be forgiven as this event was a one-off. Right?

Oh dear.

Now the name 'Sonny Thomas' should have rung some alarm bells earlier on. Considering he is the current Vice-President of Young Labour, and keeping in mind who the party in government is, on paper this could be just about the most biased person you could have as Campaigns Officer. The reality? Is much the same.
A most reliable source tells me that when appointing a campaigns coordinator to assist him, one of the questions in the interview was:

"How do you feel about working for someone who is partisan?"

If you were one of the 43 percent of young people who support National, the answer would be "somewhat uneasy".

But those crazy ideas of non-partisan representation of all students' interests cannot possibly compete with what the Labour Party can offer:

Members of VicLabour have gone on to higher levels of political activism within
the Labour Party, Victoria University and the wider community. Most
recently, New Zealand’s youngest MP, Darren Hughes, was a member of VicLabour.

If that wasn't enough motivation, Saturday's New Zealand Herald should put it over the top:

Other new faces likely to win safe Labour seats include Iain Lees-Galloway in Palmerston North, where Steve Maharey is retiring to become vice-chancellor of Massey University. Mr Lees-Galloway, 29, is a campaigns and media adviser with the Nurses Organisation and is a former students' association president at Massey.
Down the line, a former student president at Victoria University, Chris Hipkins, 29, will stand a good chance of replacing Paul Swain in Rimutaka. He is at present working in the office of Prime Minister Helen Clark and has been a political adviser to Trevor Mallard and Mr Maharey.

Many have used student politics as a stepping stone to get into the Labour caucus; this year's VUWSA intake is certainly no exception.

Of course, none of what these people do would matter if association membership wasn't compulsory. But you can bet that Young Labour will fight the voluntary movement tooth and nail to ensure students continue subsidising their political aspirations. Right?

Right.

Press Release: Finally, a Labour minister supports freedom of association

2008-03-19T00:52:00.000-07:00

Student Choice were very pleased to hear Clayton Cosgrove's firm support for freedom of association and voluntary membership of clubs, unions etc. So we thought we'd publicly congratulate him, and remind him - and the rest of Labour - that what's good enough for workers, footy players, real estate agents, the Law Society etc etc is plenty good enough for students too.

Finally, a Labour minister supports freedom of association

Media release: Student Choice, 19 March 2008

Voluntary membership lobbyists Student Choice are congratulating Clayton Cosgrove after he demonstrated his support for freedom of association and hopes he will now persuade his colleagues why compulsory membership of tertiary student associations is wrong.

Speaking on Morning Report last week about a bill to reform the real estate profession, Mr Cosgrove defended plans to make membership of the Real Estate Institute voluntary by arguing in favour of voluntary membership and freedom of association.

Mr Cosgrove said, "We haven't had compulsory unionism for 20 years. Why should I as a politician tell you or anybody else what you should belong to?....If you want to join the footy club, the workingmen's club, the institute - go for it. It's your choice and you should have that right."

It's great that Mr Cosgrove understands the importance of freedom of association and voluntary membership and recognises that politicians shouldn't be telling any New Zealanders they should have to join any organisation.

We hope Mr Cosgrove will turn his attention to New Zealand's tertiary institutions where over 200,000 tertiary students are forced to join compulsory student associations as a result of the Education Act. New Zealanders cannot study unless they join and pay money to compulsory student associations. Compulsory student associations take over $20 million a year from New Zealand students.

If Mr Cosgrove looks at the tertiary student associations he'd see gross political misrepresentation, widespread waste, inefficiency and fraud - all caused by compulsory membership.

Unfortunately many of Mr Cosgrove's colleagues are prepared to tolerate the violation of students' right to freedom of association because of the benefits compulsory membership delivers to the Labour Party.

We encourage Mr Cosgrove to extend his support of voluntary membership to New Zealand's tertiary institutions.

Ends

Australian compulsory membership dead and buried

2007-12-19T02:19:00.000-08:00

Fascinating developments in Australia and great news for voluntary membership supporters in New Zealand.

In the lead up-up to Australia's November 24 election, then Opposition spokesman Stephen Smith ruled out repealing the Liberal's voluntary membership law, saying, "We will allow students to voluntarily organise themselves."

Australian Labor uphold freedom of association while Labour in this country continue to trash it.

And this weekend just gone, NUS, the National Union of Students, (equivalent to NZUSA) has abandoned any attempt to reinstate compulsory membership.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that, "Angus McFarland, who is the president-elect of the National Union of Students, said students now recognised that the old system was imperfect and it was difficult for the union to argue on the one hand that students should be paying for their services and on the other that the cost of tuition was too high."

"A lot of students started university resenting their student organisations - now that's completely not in our best interests," Mr McFarland said."

If National introduces voluntary membership in New Zealand, would Labour and NZUSA give up on it so quickly? I doubt it. Compulsory membership is too important to Labour. Just look at the backgrounds of many of their new candidates.

Hollow victory for Vuwsa compulsion jockeys

2007-11-20T19:47:00.000-08:00

Now that the dust has settled following the elections at the compulsory Victoria University of Wellington Students Association (Vuwsa) a couple of months back, enough time has passed to draw some conclusions from the result.

1. The outcome was not a victory for the left over the right.
Despite the attacks on the supposedly ‘right wing’ A Team and the presence of a Workers Party presidential candidate, the election wasn’t a struggle of left versus right. Traditional left issues such as free education, universal allowances and opposition to loans barely got a mention.

Instead the election was a battle of insiders versus outsiders. The insiders regard Vuwsa as their own personal association – there to serve their interests. Insiders regard all students’ monies as rightfully belonging to the insiders and they should be free to use it as they wish.

As outsiders, the A Team posed a real threat to the insiders’ control of Vuwsa. The A Team’s refund policy threatened the insiders’ most important asset – the unearned funds provided by compulsory membership. In order to protect this asset, the insiders turned not to the left for support but to other insiders who stood to lose their Vuwsa-supplied privileges should the A Team get elected. The main group of insiders were club members. Other insiders, such as the people around Salient and Vuwsa staff members bolstered them; both these groups beat the drums against the A Team and successfully whipped up fear among part of the wider student body and motivated them to vote.

The insiders’ main message was “if the A Team get elected you’ll lose your privileges”.

2. Vuwsa’s claim to represent all students is totally shot to hell.
In their attack on the A Team – and by extension, the students who voted for them - the insiders vilified them as a group of right wingers intent on destroying Vuwsa. It’s obvious from the respective positions of the insiders and outsiders, that they have incompatible views. Given this, how can the president and executive-elect claim to represent the views of all students including the outsiders? And if an organisation can’t or won’t represent these students why should they be forced to join it?

3. When it comes to a choice between protecting their privilege and fair reporting, ‘student media’ will always choose to protect its privilege.
As pre-eminent insiders, the prospect of a budget-cutting executive scares the crap out of so-called student media. Budget cuts potentially mean that the ‘student media’ will no longer receive its unearned subsidy from student politicians and might have to make up for the shortfall by doing unimaginably horrid stuff like selling ads.

That’s why Salient swung in behind the other insiders to vilify the A Team. Any pretence of objectivity rapidly went out the window. Salient’s main goal was to scare students out of voting for the outsiders.

But once again the 2007 Vuwsa election has been useful. It reminds us yet again that ‘student media’ are not the fearless, independent champions of truth they keep telling each other they are. Instead they’re merely another group of insiders out to keep their hands in students’ pockets.

Anybody proposing to upset the insiders’ privilege should forget about getting a fair hearing from ‘student media’.

4. National-voting students will be increasingly misrepresented by Vuwsa in 2008.
Vuwsa has misrepresented national and centre-right voting students for years, and this is only set to intensify in 2008. Here’s why.

As a Workers Party member, 2008 president Joel Cosgrove sees Vuwsa as a vehicle in which socialists can gain positions of leadership that can then be used “to fight against the capitalist system that is the root of student and workers oppression.”

There’s a lot of bad blood between the Workers Party and Young Labour. Nick Kelly, the last Workers Party Vuwsa president, failed to gain re-election for 2007 and held Young Labour partially responsible. In addition Cosgrove will be under pressure from his Workers Party buddies to put the heat on Labour who they see as a bourgeoisie non-socialist party little better than National. Kelly described the Labour government as one that was “actively attacking students”.

On the other hand you have a number of Young Labour executive members who will primarily be focused on assisting their party in election year by attacking National.

Although Cosgrove’s Workers Party background will lead him to want to attack Labour, he will minimise attacks on Labour as to do so might aid National. And a National government threatening to introduce voluntary membership poses a far greater threat to the Workers Party and other insiders. Cosgrove will have little choice but to tone down any criticism of Labour which, in his eyes, will be the lesser of two evils.

So expect to see extensive attacks on National in 2008 by Vuwsa and other student associations. The orchestrated reaction to John Key’s recent comments about tuition fees as an indication of things to come.

5. Vuwsa will not undertake reform as insiders believe they have ‘won’.
The most significant aspect of the 2007 election is that the insiders will take their victory as a sign that they have defeated their opponents and can therefore carry on with business as usual.

Agree with them or not, the A-Team raised serious questions about the way Vuwsa operates and whether or not it does so in the interests of the people it claims to represent. Having defeated the A-Team the insiders will assume that they can safely ignore the A-Team’s criticism. The insiders will not examine Vuwsa and ask the tough questions about its legitimacy.

With compulsory membership secure in the short term, insiders will be happy to see the money keep rolling in and with unsatisfied students unable to remove their funding Vuwsa leadership can carry on through 2008 pursuing the insiders’ agenda. Goal number one for 2008 will be to aid a National defeat.

This failure to reform will mean that Vuwsa will be unprepared if it is in a position where it has to attract members and persuade people of the value of membership.

If Vuwsa finds itself in a position where it has to attract members, it will experience a massive drop in income and will not be able to continue in its current form. If this happens, the insiders will blame the government that introduces voluntary membership rather than taking responsibility for their own failure to reform a terminally flawed system of membership.

Press Release: Student Choice Welcomes New Tertiary Education Minister

2007-11-01T23:15:00.000-07:00

Sent out yesterday evening, and placed on Scoop earlier this afternoon. For extra credit, compare the behaviour I warn about below to what NZUSA, OUSA and OPSA talk about in their press releases. Cheers guys!

Student Choice Welcomes New Tertiary Education Minister

31 October 2007
Press Release - Student Choice

Student Choice congratulates Pete Hodgson on becoming the new Minister of Tertiary Education after today's Cabinet reshuffle, and challenges him to allow students the right to freedom of association by introducing voluntary membership for all student associations.

Spokesman Mike Heine said today, "tertiary education is a tough portfolio. One achievement of this Government has been to acknowledge the existence of multiple stakeholders, all with varying viewpoints, and recognising their views when formulating tertiary education policy.

"What previous Ministers and Governments have failed to realise is that students are no different; our opinions are just as varied as any other part of society.

"The current laws on compulsory student membership do not reflect this. Instead, student associations and NZUSA claim to speak for all students when they lobby for causes such as 'free education'. The reality, as they know, is very different.

"Student Choice hopes Mr Hodgson will remember this next time these groups attack his Government.

The only way Mr Hodgson can have an honest dialogue with students is to accept that students do not speak with one voice, and allow us the same freedom of association other groups in society enjoy," concluded Mr Heine.

Student Choice is a student-run, national organisation promoting voluntary student association membership on the grounds of freedom of association.

ENDS

EXCLUSIVE: VUWSA membership still compulsory

2007-10-17T01:49:00.000-07:00

The Salient gang on the trail of another hot scoop

Well it has to be said, Salient are full of super sleuths.
Take this excerpt from Laura McQuillan's year in review article:

Salient also found out that VUWSA membership can be voluntary upon application to the VUWSA President, and suggests pro-VSM students sort that out for next year so we don’t have to hear about freedom of association anymore (by the way, to the guy in INTP363 who said in the first lecture that VUWSA membership violates his human rights – you’re a dick, and your voice sounds like Mickey Mouse).

First of all, to INTP363 guy, you're absolutely correct. No one should have to join an association that misrepresents their views.
But wait a minute - according to Salient we don't have to! Association membership is in fact voluntary after all!

But before I tell Student Choice to disband and go home, it might pay to have a closer look at the issue than Salient did.
The 'discoveries' they referred to in their September 17 article were taken from 229(A) from the Education Amendment Act 2000:

(5) A students association may, on the grounds of hardship, exempt any student from the obligation to pay the membership fee of the association; and a student so exempted may nonetheless be a member of the association.

(6) A students association may exempt any student from membership of the association on the grounds of conscientious objection; and, if exempted, the association must pay the student's membership fee to a charity of its choice.

(7) Every students association must ensure that information about the rights in subsections (5) and (6) is available to students before enrolment, and must make rules for dealing in a fair, timely, and consistent way with applications for exemption under either subsection.

Colour me confused, because I see nothing in there that provides for voluntary membership. What it does say is:

* If you're too poor you can beg the association to let them waive the levy - but you still have to join.

* If you have serious philosophical objections to joining a student association you can beg the association to let you not join, and if you're lucky (not everyone was granted such freedom this year) they'll agree - but you don't get your money back.

I would like to publicly congratulate Salient on 'discovering' a clause seven years after it was passed into law, and then totally misinterpreting it. That takes some remarkable skill to pull off.
There is also the issue of VUWSA violating subsection (7) in not making these 'exemptions' known to the student populace - a crime I suspect occurs on campuses nationwide.

The bigger point than that, even, is that freedom of association is not something anyone should ever have to ask permission for. To quote fellow Student Choice member Peter McCaffrey from the 17/9 article:

"The line of argument negates the notion of a right. It asks us to accept the violation of a right because a process exists whereby that right can be won through an appeal… rather than as something which is the natural entitlement of each citizen."

Student Choice advocates for a law change that will give all students this natural entitlement, without exception.
Until we get this, Salient - and everyone else - will be hearing plenty about it.

Fisking Joel Cosgrove

2007-07-25T03:19:00.001-07:00

Back in May, Vuwsa education vice-president and Workers Party member Joel Cosgrove wrote an article ‘Freedom from what?’ in Salient. Joel’s piece was in response to an earlier article by Lukas Schroeter and Peter McCaffrey in which they argued in favour of voluntary membership.

Here at the international headquarters of Student Choice, we’ve been rather busy so we’ve only just got round to reading Joel’s article. Let’s take a look at his argument:

In last week’s Salient, resident right wing witches Lukas Schroeter and co. looked at the issue of VSM.

First sentence and Cosgrove has already resorted to ad hominen attack.

They say that VUWSA asks no one if it does a good job. Yet 3500 students gave up on average 30 minutes last year answering an in-depth survey ABOUT VUWSA concerning what VUWSA does well, what it doesn’t do well and what it could do better at and we’ve been implementing that this year.

Cosgrove misconstrues Lukas’s argument. Compulsory membership means that Vuwsa gets income without any effort. This means the association doesn’t need to prove its value to students and never needs to ask if it is doing a good job. This question would take the form of “do you want to join Vuwsa?” Compulsory membership means Vuwsa never needs to ask this question.

I don’t know the obviously lofty standards Student Choice have in terms of consultation, but maybe they can take some time to inform us of them in this year’s survey…

The main question Vuwsa needs to ask is not a survey question directed at forced members. Instead it’s simply ‘do you want to join Vuwsa’. Why is Cosgrove so terrified of this simple question?

The key point of their piece and one they drone on to anyone they come in contact with is the thorny concept of freedom of representation. They tot it out as one of personal choice! Your rights! Freedom! Yet what options exist? Quite simply it is VUWSA or the University in this debate. Nothing else…

The idea that there are only two forms of representation – Vuwsa or VUW - is total and utter rubbish. People are represented when they give others permission to speak on their behalf; this permission can create models which take numerous forms, including voluntary organisations such as political parties, charities or unions.

There is no fantastical marketplace of freedom. This is ignored; they purposefully don’t deal with the outcomes of this supposed freedom.

Hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders enjoy voluntary representation. How does Cosgrove explain this and why can’t tertiary students enjoy this same right?

Go back to the 1999 VSM referendum in which over 70% of Vic students who voted, voted for compulsory unionism.

Red herring. The membership referenda were simply a mechanism which allowed activist students to get everybody else to pay for their hobbies and interests. And if the level of support for Vuwsa is as high as Cosgrove implies, why does the association need compulsory membership?

You’ll see the reports from the Vice-Chancellors Committee backing the status quo i.e. universal student membership.

Of course the vice-chancellors support compulsory membership – it makes their lives easier and they have a tame lobby group on tap which conveniently kicks up a fuss for more government funding of tertiary education.

Why keep it the status quo? Because otherwise it will COST YOU MORE. That is what happened at AUSA. Yes there is no direct AUSA levy as our friendly Student Choicers pointed out, but they forgot to mention that instead the university charges students and it increased the amount charged compared to that of AUSA. They didn’t mention this in their article and yet I have brought this up every time they try and badger me about “voluntary”students’ associations.

The argument that under voluntary membership institutions would simply charge students for the same price as compulsory membership is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the price charged by compulsory associations.

The price of compulsory membership is not a market price; it’s not set by supply and demand. Instead the price of compulsory membership is a political price; it’s set by a vote.

In turn, a compulsory association’s income is spent on priorities that are determined through a political process. Why would an institution decide to take an arbitrary price – set through a political process and spent on items of unknown value – and add it to the already substantial cost of enrolling at university?

Because students DO have a say. Presidents and Exec members have been rolled for their actions, that is accountability. I mean, if you’re pissed off at a decision made by VUWSA then you can attempt to roll Geoff or me or whom ever you feel is responsible.

The ability to roll a student politician is one level of accountability but it’s a far weaker form than that provided by voluntary membership. Under compulsory membership you can roll a student politician but they’re merely replaced by another student politician. However under voluntary membership, student politicians have to persuade people of the value of membership and provide value on an ongoing basis. If Joel is truly interested in accountability he should support voluntary membership.

VUWSA provides strong support for students. Through clubs support, through Ori and through the staunch representation of the Education Office.

Joel has made the mistake of thinking that things he values are of value to all students. He has no way of knowing this. The only way to determine if the things he’s listed are valued by enough students to make them viable, is to allow students to choose whether or not they fund them.

This could not be provided by the university at the quality and cost that the Students’ Association does.

Of course it couldn’t; the two entities provide, or are supposed to provide, entirely different things. The university’s role is deliver education through tuition. An association’s role is protect and advance the interests of its members. Part of the current mess is caused by associations failing to understand their role and becoming involved in areas where they have no license to operate – such as trying to defend the integrity of the Palestinian elections.

Not happy with how we do things? Stand for election! Come in and make a difference!

Joel seems to forget that students are already ‘in’ – they’re already members. The problem is not with the lack of students’ participation but rather it’s caused by a membership structure that doesn’t need to take account of individual student’s interests.

The only thing that will change with VSM is VUWSA’s independence.

Vuwsa’s independence is a myth. This seen most clearly in its total dependence on the university to collect its income. If Vuwsa wants to be independent it should try collecting its own income without relying on the university.

I’d much rather rely on students than on the university.

Joel the trouble is that Vuwsa does not rely on students. It relies on a law that enables compulsory membership and it relies on the university to collect Vuwsa’s income. If you actually wanted a regime where Vuwsa truly relied on its members you’d support voluntary membership.

For if the world of Lukas and Peter comes about, we’ll only be poorer for it, they will have hijacked the one part of university you do have some control over.

Note the language: votes in the current regime are legitimate, but if students or New Zealanders in general vote for voluntary membership then things have been “highjacked”.

If we’re up shit-creek at the moment, with ever higher student loans, decreasing availability of student allowances as well as higher rents, what they’re talking about only pushes us further up shit-creek, with no paddle in sight.

Hang on Joel, get your story straight. Earlier on you said “VUWSA provides strong support for students” but now you’re saying “we’re up shit creek”. Well, which is it Joel?
________________________________________

Well, so much for Joel’s argument.

You might be asking why Joel would support compulsory membership. In September last year we identified reasons why some people support compulsory membership. One group we identified was “activists who use student money to push their political agenda”.

As mentioned above, Joel is a member of the Workers Party, and items like this make his political agenda quite transparent.

Joel’s poorly argued piece shows he’s more than happy to use compulsory membership and students’ money to promote his own agenda.

press release - OUSA Takes Steps Towards Voluntary Membership

2007-07-08T03:48:00.000-07:00

Press Release - Student Choice

6 July 2007

Student Choice would like to congratulate the Otago University Students' Association on moving towards becoming an organisation that students would want to join voluntarily.

OUSA's recent announcement that it's preparing for a future under voluntary membership shows an acceptance that the days of compulsory are numbered, Student Choice spokesman Mike Heine said.

"Student associations have never had any incentive to serve students properly under compulsory membership. The result has been decades of misrepresentation and misuse of student money. OUSA's announcement that it is actually going to try representing students is long overdue, and sadly all too rare," Heine said.

"While OUSA are to be commended for their change in attitude, there is much more that needs to be done. No association can ever be fully relevant to every individual. OUSA - and every other student association - should test their relevance by giving students the freedom not to join.

"Only by introducing freedom of association will OUSA achieve their aim of becoming truly relevant," Mike Heine concluded.

Student Choice is a student-run, national organisation promoting voluntary student association membership on the grounds of freedom of association.

ENDS

The myth of ‘forced representation’

2007-06-19T04:52:00.000-07:00

Another justification for compulsory membership that is regularly trotted out involves representation. Apologists argue that all students must be members of an association so that all students are represented.

This argument is flawed in many ways. It assumes that a person will automatically be represented if they’re simply forced to become a member of an organisation. This of course is wrong; would all students automatically be represented if all students were forced to join the National Party?

It also ignores the fact that students are a diverse group with a wide range of opinions. Instead of all students being represented, the views that compulsory associations promote tend to mirror the views of the people in control of the association. In most cases these people hold left wing views, and in most cases the students most obviously misrepresented are those who hold conservative, centre-right or pro-market viewpoints.

Students who support voluntary membership are also misrepresented and side-lined. To illustrate this, look at what happened to the vice-president of the Auckland Institute of Technology.

On 13 June 1994, the New Zealand Herald reported that the executive of a compulsory association sacked a fellow student politician who supported a vote on voluntary membership. The Herald said,

The executive of the Auckland Institute of Technology students’ association has sacked a vice-president who succeeded in calling a special general meeting about compulsory membership.

The association’s Akoranga campus vice-president, Miss Melanie Davis, had raised almost double the number of student signatures required to force such a meeting…

Miss Davis said last night that the executive of the association passed a vote of no confidence in her late last week after asking whether she supported its views against voluntary membership.”

The message here is simple. At its heart, support for compulsory membership means support for a system that enables associations to receive money without earning it. Compulsory associations’ fundamental objective therefore is protecting their source of unearned income. Voluntary membership means an end to unearned income; therefore voluntary membership must be opposed even if that means misrepresenting members who support voluntary membership.

Compulsory associations continually put their own financial interests above the values and opinions of some of their members.

Deconstructing Nicola Kean

2007-05-16T03:10:00.000-07:00

Nicola Kean’s 7 May article in Salient on voluntary student association membership has attracted a number of comments on the Salient site, including a complaint from Ms Kean that voluntary membership supporters “haven’t made any substantive criticism of the piece - which doesn’t really aid your argument. You can’t just call me biased because I don’t agree with you.”

So in the interests of fairness and balance – two elements missing from Nicola’s original article – we’d like to review her article.

Nicola writes: The debate over Voluntary Student Membership (VSM) sends a shiver down the spine of most students’ association presidents and exec members across the country.

Voluntary membership does indeed scare the pants off student politicians because vm means the end of ‘money for nothing’. Voluntary associations would have to earn their income rather than having it collected by institutions and delivered on a plate. Currently compulsory associations receive unearned income.

Having wrestled with voluntary student unionism – and for the most part won – in the mid-1990s, a law change in Australia last year and the possibility of a National Government being elected in 2008 means the VSM ghost has returned to haunt students’ associations.

More and more people are realising that there’s something fundamentally wrong with compulsory membership. The Ngai Tauira fraud, the Vuwsa fee increase and the $6000 phone call are manifestations of this fundamental problem. More people now understand that voluntary membership will change the relationship between students and associations and will remove guaranteed funding which leads to so many problems. These people aren’t necessarily anti-student associations; they simply realise that although compulsory membership delivers ship loads of money, it ultimately works against the interests of students. Voluntary associations won’t be perfect but they’ll be a darn sight better than current compulsory ones.

Here’s how it works: every university and polytech in New Zealand has a students’ association – by law only one is recognised on each campus.

Really, what about Maori student associations? Or are they only nominally independent?

With the exception of students at Auckland University, you will automatically become a member when you enrol. And the charge – at Vic $120 per year – is coat-tailed on to your student loan along with the money you pay in course fees.

Now this is true, but it’s funny that when you hear student politicians complaining about the student loan scheme you never hear them complaining about students being able to pay their compulsory association levies through the scheme.

For this you are represented by VUWSA on various committees, and entitled to other services – such as advocacy, orientation and welfare.

This is the most telling line in Nicola’s story. Rather than presenting an objective examination of the issues involved, Nicola has regurgitated the pro-compulsory side’s two main arguments without question. The claim that compulsory associations provide ‘representation’ and ‘services’ is highly contentious and is regularly challenged by voluntary supporters. By blandly repeating the compulsory side’s argument Nicola shows she either doesn’t understand the key issues of the debate or is deliberately attempting to portray compulsion in its best possible light. Either way it undermines her article. If she’d bothered to talk to Student Choice for her article she would have heard this point of view, but maybe that’s why she didn’t want to talk to us.

For Nicola’s benefit, here’s the counter to her claim that compulsory associations provide representation and services.

Just because a person has been forced to join a group it doesn’t mean that they are represented. As we’ve said before – true representation requires permission. You give your permission for a group to represent you by joining that group. No such agreement takes place under compulsory membership therefore there is no legitimate representation.

Nicola, ask yourself two questions:
- if you were forced to join the National Party, would the National Party automatically represent you?

- how does Vuwsa, when it’s promoting policies identical to the Greens, represent the views of students who vote National?

The second claim about ‘services’ brushes a number of issues under the carpet. First, advocacy is a merely a form of representation so see above. Second, you may not want or need any of these ‘services’ but under compulsory membership you’ve been forced to pay for them. If you’re forced to pay for something you don’t want your money has been wasted. How can wasting students’ money be classified as a ‘service’?

In 1997 a bill championed by former MP Michael Laws was passed through Parliament…

Greg has already pointed out that it was Tony Steel and not Michael Laws. Was this an honest mistake or an attempt to link voluntary membership with the terminally uncool Wanganui mayor? Dunno.

Waikato – which was already voluntary – remained so and it has since come back into the compulsory fold.

There’s a huge untold story here, namely that between 1996 and 1999 Waikato students voted for voluntary in three referenda and elected four pro-voluntary executives. The return to compulsory membership came as a result of an extensive campaign by non-Waikato associations including NZUSA and a shonky 11th hour referenda.

The Labour Party is opposed to voluntary association membership…

Even though membership of the Labour Party itself is voluntary. Well avoided Nicola.

Nicola’s not responsible for the following points from NZUSA but while we’re here let’s look at Joey Randall’s arguments.

New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations Co-President, Joey Randall, naturally, disagrees…”Our argument very much is that [the current law] is working, it’s not broken.”

Of course it’s not broken from NZUSA’s perspective; the law means student associations get millions of dollars without lifting a finger.

“Our [NZUSA’s] argument is that a National government would and should have greater priorities in tertiary education than this.”

That’s really useful advice from an organisation that is deeply anti-National and has been for years.

"We [NZUSA] haven’t seen [referenda on the issue]”, he continues, “so there isn’t necessarily the support with students at the moment, as no one has actively tried to get that number of signatures. I would suggest that the majority of students would think that it’s probably working.”

Randall knows that any student who tries to organise a referendum is on a hiding to nothing. They’re immediately up against the local association and NZUSA. That’s how the law is designed. It presents a façade of fairness – if you don’t like compulsory membership then organise a referendum – when in fact the odds are stacked against anyone who goes up against the power of an association. Students realise it’s an uneven playing field so don’t even waste their time trying.

But for Roy, it’s an ideological issue of choice and freedom of association.

Back to Nicola. As others have pointed out, it’s funny how only the voluntary side is motivated by ‘ideology’. Apparently the compulsory side must be operating their agenda without the benefit of ideas.

However, in its current form, the bill would still enable students to switch back to voluntary by referenda.

No it won’t Nicola. Heather’s bill is based on the principle of individual choice, not a majority of people who choose to vote being able to force something onto others.

“I think it’s very interesting when you paint choice as a stark black and white thing,” Randall says. “The reality is students don’t have the amount of choice that they do have under voluntary that they do have under compulsory.”

And the winner of the 2007 Orwell prize for Doublespeak is Joey Randall.

He argues that student unions are different from other unions because of the advocacy services they provide.

What??? Trade unions don’t provide advocacy? And does the provision of advocacy justify compulsion somehow? Hundreds of other incorporated societies provide advocacy but none of them are compulsory. And student associations are not trade unions; associations are merely incorporated societies.

Under a voluntary regime, for example, it may be more difficult for students’ associations to retain seats or choose who will represent their members on committees such as the University Council – as Roy’s bill would seek to repeal the section of the Education Act that rules that Councils must recognise one association per campus.

Utter rubbish Joey. Other groups – staff, alumni, employers – manage to have representatives on councils without compulsory membership. Why can’t that same principle apply to students? When WSU was voluntary Waikato students elected a representative for council in a process that was separate from WSU.

Furthermore, the experience of voluntary membership in New Zealand and Australia thus far has placed students’ associations at the mercy of their institutions.

Compulsory associations are currently totally dependent on institutions because institutions collect fees from students and pass the money to associations. If associations had to collect their own fees how many people do you think would pay? Voluntary associations would have a direct relationship with their members and would be truly independent of institutions.

“From what we’ve seen in Australia”, says Randall, “a lot of unions are folding, a lot of their functions have been dramatically cut down – so a lot of staff have been reduced. Where those staff have been reduced are in the areas that are less likely to make money: advocacy and representation.” In other words, staff that are employed to make sure students aren’t getting a tough deal, investigating academic grievances and providing welfare services are the first to go when the belt is tightened.

If that’s true how does Joey account for the ongoing existence of hundreds of voluntary groups that provide advocacy? Take the Automobile Association for example – they provide direct benefits that attract members and can still provide the sporadic services that members only use occasionally plus they deliver non-specific representation. It’s a matter of getting the balance right.

In some universities in Australia where student unions have survived intact, it has been partially because the university has been providing the associations with money. Auckland has a similar agreement with university management, which Randall says from his experience as a former vice-president limited the ability of the association to stand up to the university. “Each year, the students’ association has a service agreement that they have to renew with the university, and there was always a bit of worry around what that would mean for their ability to advocate for students.”

I don’t necessarily disagree with this. A service agreement can compromise a voluntary association’s independence but what’s more important is that institutions aren’t allowed to use agreements as a backdoor method of funding associations. A voluntary bill needs to make provision for this.

“[AUSA] spends a huge amount of its money signing up members and trying to be attractive to students. What I think is more important is, are they able to deliver for students? Because while during Orientation it might seem great that you’re getting all this free stuff, what I think is more important is, are you getting effective advocacy and support?”

At least AUSA has to consider what students want. Under voluntary, if members feel they’re not getting “effective advocacy and support” they can always leave or not rejoin.

But while in public VUWSA seems like a bunch of morons, in the background academic grievances are sorted out, clubs operate, free bread is distributed, and our athletes didn’t do too badly at the recent Uni Games.

If this is true then Vuwsa could go voluntary and market these benefits to potential members.

Roy is right when she says the VSM issue is about choice. But choice should be made by students, not by right wing politicians in the debating chamber who want to make students’ associations voluntary for almost purely ideological reasons.

More doublespeak. The voluntary view is motivated by ideology as much as the compulsory view. They’re both based on ideology; it’s the quality of the ideas that matters. And our current legislation is based on the ideology of left wing politicians – Nicola doesn’t seem worried about that.

I agree that the “choice should be made by students” but the big issue is what do you mean by “students”? Nicola means a majority of those who vote in referenda and elections and are then able to force their views on others.

Student Choice believes that “students” should mean the individual student. The individual should decide whether or not to join a group. That’s how membership of all other incorporated societies is decided. Membership shouldn’t be forced on an individual as a result of someone else’s vote.

Overall, Nicola demonstrated a bias towards compulsory membership. That’s her right – but students shouldn’t be forced to subsidise the magazine which gives her a platform.

Finally it should be remembered that Nicola is not an impartial reporter attempting to give both sides of the story. As she says herself, “if VSM is voted in, students are going to lose certain things that students’ associations provide. Fullstop.”

Fullstop indeed.

Vuwsa: how much money????

2007-05-02T04:30:00.000-07:00

With all the coverage of the $4000 phone bill, it’s worth looking at how much money Vuwsa gets through compulsory membership each year.

So how much money do you think Vuwsa took from students this year?
- $250,000?
- $500,000?
- Surely not $750,000???

Well try $1.8 million. That’s right, $1.8 million of students’ money. That’s the same amount that it costs to run a medium sized primary school.

And what has Vuwsa done to earn $1.8 million? Absolutely nothing. As soon as you enroll to study at Vic you have to pay money to Vuwsa. The association never has to sell itself to you or convince you that it’s worth $120 a year. You can see why some exec members develop an entitlement mentality.

And what does Vuwsa do with this $1.8 million? Does it provide:
- the Student Union facility? No
- the Rec Centre? No
- the student health service? No
- Student Learning Support? No
- Disability support? No
- Crèches? No
- Career development? No

So where does the money go?
- Over $1 million on administration
- $158,000 to Ngai Tauira
- $142,000 to clubs
- $122,000 on publications
- $98,000 on activities
- $22,000 on welfare
- $10,900 on education
- $61,000 on ‘other’

Do you think you’re getting value for your $120? Would you like the freedom to choose whether or not you pay Vuwsa?

Vuwsa’s student politicians don’t think you should have the freedom to choose. Student Choice thinks you should – that’s why we support voluntary membership.

Shooting yourself in the foot Vuwsa-style

2007-04-25T03:22:00.000-07:00

Some of the people doing the most to increase support for voluntary membership at Victoria University are Vuwsa executive members and supporters of compulsory membership.

First we had Kerry Tankard’s destruction of a voluntary membership petition. Then a Vuwsa exec member went on what Salient described as “an alcohol –fuelled rampage around the Vuwsa office and stairwell with a permanent marker”. Now a Vuwsa executive member has been sprung using association phone lines to rack up $4000 worth of phone calls to a psychic hotline.

This sort of stuff is not new. Compulsory associations have always attracted people who want to force their views on others or use the organisations to play out their own power trips or personal issues.

Every time an association burns an effigy, blows money on some crazy scheme or generally acts like morons, support for voluntary membership increases. Since the late 1990s some student politicians have come to understand this and have become very risk averse and conservative. But there are always a few who think the power and proximity to large amounts of money entitles them to act like jerks.

Behaviour like this further devalues Vuwsa’s reputation and causes more and more students to ask why on earth they’re forced to fund and join the association. “Bring on vsm” will only be heard more often.

The only way to rescue Vuwsa is to remove its guaranteed funding. Vuwsa needs to demonstrate it can provide value to potential members; that means membership has to be voluntary.

Law society to become voluntary

2007-04-22T05:33:00.000-07:00

Congrats to The Law Society, who are on the verge of becoming a voluntary organisation. David Farrar has written a very good post on the topic and how it relates to VSM. Have a read as he outlines the similarities more articulately than I could.

I have heard many times the argument "the Law Society is compulsory so why can't Student Associations stay that way too?" Now they can no longer use that, a far better question would be "why does every other sector in society have voluntary membership EXCEPT for students?"

The compulsory apologia: no 2 - fees 'just like tax'

2007-04-18T04:02:00.000-07:00

One regularly heard apology for compulsory membership is that compulsory student association fees are 'just like tax' and are therefore justified.

But this week, no less an authority than Russell Brown has given us a handy definition of tax. Writing about the proposed artists' resale royalty, Brown argued the levy is not a tax because, "taxes are rendered to the government."

Got that? Taxes are rendered to the government. Not to incorporated societies. Not to the government and incorporated societies. Just to the government.

So apologists, please remove the 'just like tax' excuse from your apologia. Russell has spoken.

Compulsory AUSA pays student's explosive fine

2007-04-10T02:56:00.000-07:00

From the archives - The Press, 18 March 1994

"Fined Auck student has costs paid by association

An Auckland University student fined for possession of explosives during a protest last year has had his costs paid by the Students' Association, an anti-student union group said yesterday.

The Auckland University Students' Association was forced to reverse its decision to pay $191.25 to the National Party and $244.20 to the police for damage caused by a student during a Budget day demonstration last year.

A legal opinion found that the payments had been unconstitutional.

The Freedom on Campus Network, set up by a member of the Young Nationals to seek the abolition of compulsory student unionism, released details of the arrest of a student, Mr John Hutton, for possession of an explosive (a flare) and intentional damage during a protest march.

Mr Hutton is the former chairman of AUSA's student representation committee and a former member of the association's executive....

Police records show Mr Hutton was dealt with under the police diversion scheme, after agreeing to apologise to the National Party for throwing paint at the party headquarters and on police uniforms, make reparation, and do 75 hours community service.

The Auckland student president, Mr Cyrus Richardson, said the association felt partly responsible for Mr Hutton's actions since it had organised the march, which got "a little bit out of hand"....

A spokesman for the Freedom on Campus Network, which has backed a private member's Bill from National MP Mr Michael Laws to have compulsory students' association membership abolished, said students should be outraged.

"Students do not pay fees on the understanding that they will be used to pay fines for people admitting guilt of criminal activity," Mr Nick Langley said."

A classic example of compulsory student association abuse - National-voting students forced to pay money to an organisation that defends people who break the law protesting against the party they support.

Fees for me but not for thee

2007-04-03T04:51:00.000-07:00

Most research at universities is carried out by academics and scientists, but at Victoria University student politicians have made a remarkable breakthrough. Student politicians have just discovered two types of fee increases – bad fee increases and good fee increases.

A bad fee increase is when an institution wants to charge students more for their education.

A good fee increase is when a compulsory student association wants to charge students more for….err, well, for things like quiz nights, cheap bands, and err…car parking.

You can recognise a bad fee increase by student politicians’ rhetoric. Bad fee increases treat students like ‘cash cows’ they say. Student politicians like VUWSA president Geoff Hayward say bad fee increases show a severe and systemic lack of leadership, and “every time fees are raised, the University are literally passing the buck to students.” NZUSA co-pres Joey Randall says Vic council, by wanting to impose a bad fee increase, had “taken the easy road out and focused solely on students in order to increase revenue.” People who vote for bad fee increases are ignoring student opinion and abusing the democratic process.

However a good fee increase is different. When a compulsory student association wants to increase its fee it’s an absolute necessity. Without a good fee increase life as we know it will come to an end. Opponents of good fee increases are greedy and selfish. People who vote for a good fee increase have listened to the overwhelming weight of student opinion and exercised their democratic rights.

So be on the lookout for bad fee increases and good fee increases. If in doubt, remember this simple rule of thumb: students paying more for education is bad, students paying more for compulsory student association membership is good.

Self-delusion continues at NZUSA

2007-03-25T03:39:00.000-07:00

You've probably seen one of those old cartoons about the crazy guy who thinks he's Napoleon. Well in Wellington there's a group which thinks it's the representative body for all New Zealand's tertiary students.

The 9 March edition of The New Zealand Education Review carried a story about how NZUSA has gained two new member associations since the demise of the Aotearoa Tertiary Students Association (ATSA). ATSA collapsed and was liquidated following a series of financial disasters. The article said some former ATSA members had not wanted to commit to membership of NZUSA because of questions about their financial liability for ATSA's debts.

NZUSA currently has 16 members. The article said the organisation was in the process of "making other changes to ensure it was addressing all students' needs." NZUSA co-president Joey Randall said the point of national representation " is about ensuring all students have a voice nationally".

So let's see, NZUSA claims to be the "voice" of all students yet it's an organisation:
- which individual students cannot join on an individual basis
- has leaders who are not elected on the basis of 'one member, one vote'
- is based on compulsory membership; students are forced to belong to member associations and through this are forced to pay the costs of NZUSA
- supports policies and takes positions which many individual students oppose
- students can't disassociate themselves from

If NZUSA wants to have any legitimacy it should allow students the freedom to join on an individual basis. Of course this would mean selling the benefits of the organisation. It's much easier to tap into the money provided by compulsory membership.

Geoff misses the boat again

2007-03-23T16:38:00.000-07:00

In his second column on the role and function of Vuwsa, president Geoff Hayward attempts to explain the 'representation' provided by the association.

Unfortunately all we get is a description of the various meetings Vuwsa holds. Geoff doesn't attempt to examine the actual nature of representation and doesn't question the legitimacy of the representation Vuwsa claims to provide.

Representation is a simple concept. It's where a person or group gives their permission to another person or group to speak on their behalf. The key word here is permission. Somebody can't speak on your behalf unless you have authorised them to do so.

As Vuwsa membership is compulsory, no individual student has given their permission to Vuwsa to speak on their behalf. For this reason Vuwsa, and all other compulsory associations, are fundamentally illegitimate as representative organisations.

Perhaps this explains why Geoff prefers to talk about meetings. It's a lot safer than asking whether Vuwsa actually has any mandate to claim to legitimately represent its 18,000 compulsory members.

Geoff - look at a VUW fees invoice....

2007-03-16T04:08:00.000-07:00

In his latest Salient column, Vuwsa president Geoff Hayward attempts to explain 'What Vuwsa is and isn't'. Among other things, Geoff claims Vuwsa is "not responsible for the level of fees that students have to pay".

Trouble is that's only partially true. Vuwsa is not responsible for the level of tuition fees students pay but Vuwsa is totally responsible for the level of student association fees which students have to pay. In fact last year Vuwsa student politicians were successful in achieving an increase in the level of the compulsory Vuwsa student association levy.

Perhaps in his next column Geoff could explain why Vuwsa's student politicians think increases in tutition fees are bad but increases in student association fees are acceptable.

Clubs day - 28 February

2007-02-27T00:16:00.000-08:00

Student Choice will be at Victoria University's Clubs day (in the Quad) this Wednesday, 11am-2pm. This is the first time in a long time, if ever, that we have had a stall there.

Unlike the other clubs there, we won't be asking for any of your money, nor will we be receiving any subsidy from VUWSA via your compulsory fees. But if you want to help achieve freedom of association for all University students, come say hi and sign our petition. We are always looking for any new members also, so don't be shy.

Who protects students from student associations?

2007-02-16T03:54:00.000-08:00

Help the police – beat yourself up.
- graffiti

Another reason put forward by apologists of compulsory membership is the claim that compulsory associations protect students from the ravages of unsympathetic or hostile institutional employees, policies and processes. The compulsory association is portrayed as the protector of students, wrapping them up in big cosy blanket of collectivism.

However for many individual students the reality has been quite different. Students who have refused to toe an association’s line or have got offside with student politicians have found themselves subject to abuses from the leaders of the very organisations which claim to protect and represent the interests of the individual students.

These abuses include:

physical violence, threatened and actual
harassment and intimidation
threats of legal action
verbal abuse
charges of racism or some other form of incorrect thinking, and
campaigns of abuse and ridicule conducted through student media.

Although some of these abuses are difficult (but not impossible) to document, one case from Waikato University in 2003 provides an insight into what happened when one student at Waikato University discovered that rather than the university, the compulsory Waikato Students Union (WSU) had become a major source of stress and humiliation in her life.

In May 2006 the Employment Relations Authority released a report on its investigation into the employment relationship between former WSU employee Jackie de Souza and the Waikato Students’ Union. The hearing arose over conflict between de Souza and her employer, 2003 WSU president Daniel Philpott, dating back to de Souza’s employment and subsequent dismissal as WSU advocacy coordinator in 2003. Ms de Souza also served as WSU vice president from January to February 2003.

The ERA found that Philpott, as de Souza’s employer, had failed to provide her with a safe workplace. The Authority said Philpott had taken actions which caused de Souza “distress and humiliation which was both predictable and unnecessary.” Philpott’s actions stemmed from what the Authority surmised was his “deeply held personal conviction that members of the Executive should not also be employees of the WSU.”

The ERA found that there was evidence to suggest Philpott’s behaviour towards de Souza was a “deliberate and sustained attempt to cause her stress and humiliation.” The Authority found that de Souza had a personal grievance against WSU, and the ERA official commented that “the level of stress suffered by Ms de Souza was at a level more serious than most I have seen”. For that reason he set compensation to de Souza at $10,000, which was at the high end of the range usually awarded by the Authority.

Compulsory membership itself did not cause de Souza’s situation; her treatment after all resulted from the actions of an individual, and bad decisions can occur in voluntary organisations. But compulsory membership did facilitate the environment in which these abuses could take place.

Without compulsory membership WSU would not have had a pool of almost $750,000 which supported a bureaucracy of such a size that fulltime student politicians were required to govern it. These student politicians are often people in their twenties with no experience as managers or employers. They find themselves in charge of large organisations with numerous employees and inevitably mistakes occur.

Some student politicians muddle through without doing too much damage while behind the scenes the fulltime employees run the show. Others get bogged down in organisational issues which can rarely be solved within a single 12 month term. And others make bad decisions which end up costing students thousands of dollars. Given the reporting times the actual costs of bad decisions only emerge years later by which time those responsible and those who knew the details have moved on. Everybody forgets, and next year the association gets another truckload of unearned income.

Compulsory membership puts huge amounts of money is in the hands of people who haven’t earned it and have no experience as employers or in managing organisations as politically-charged as student associations. If they stuff up, the organisation does not suffer any drop in income from dissatisfied members withdrawing or not joining.

Politicians and tertiary governors need to be asked how they can defend a regime which forces students to fund a system which, as the de Souza case illustrates, wastes so much money and damages people in the process.

Attention WSU pot, kettle calling, line 2

2007-01-05T02:03:00.000-08:00

In November last year, Waikato Students Union (WSU) president Sehai Orgad spoke about the need for Waikato University to deliver value for money. Speaking in This Week she said, "I think the university needs to identify what really gives value for money and concentrate on promoting and enhancing that."

Sorry? WSU is an organisation which takes money from students without their consent and spends it on things which many students don't want or value. By spending students' money on unwanted and poor quality items WSU wastes hundreds of thousands of dollars of Waikato students' money each year.

It's rich for the president of compulsory WSU to tell another organisation that it needs to deliver value for money when WSU itself has wasted millions of dollars from Waikato students through the course of its existence and has no capacity whatsoever to provide value for money.

The compulsory apologia: no 1 – conscientious objection

2006-11-29T02:39:00.000-08:00

Although it’s not usually the first argument to be used, one frequently heard apology is the defence of conscientious objection (CO).

Realising that compulsory membership violates the principles of freedom of association, the drafters of the section 229A of the Education Act 1989 built an escape clause into the section which says:

A students association may exempt any student from membership of the association on the grounds of conscientious objection; and, if exempted, the association must pay the student’s membership fee to a charity of its choice.

So the CO defence goes like this: compulsory membership (cm) is not a problem, and in fact NZ does not even have compulsory membership, because anyone who objects to cm can apply to be exempted from membership through a process of conscientious objection.

There are a number of serious problems with this argument.

The first concerns the principle of a right. The right to freedom of association is defined as a civil and political right – something which New Zealanders should be able to exercise, without hindrance and as of right, through our status as citizens.

The CO defence implicitly acknowledges that cm violates freedom of association, but maintains that this is acceptable because CO exists as a possible remedy.

This line of argument negates the notion of a right. It asks us to accept the violation of a right because a process exists whereby that right can be won through an appeal to a committee, rather than as something which is the natural entitlement of each citizen.

The second problem concerns the nature of conscientious objection. In the past, CO has been an option to exempt people from a role or from a form of membership deemed to be sufficiently important to the national interest to justify a level of compulsion. For example, compulsory military service or, 30 or so years ago in the context of the planned economy, compulsory trade union membership.

Membership of a private (non government) association – in the case of student associations, an incorporated society – is not of sufficient national importance to justify compulsion.

We don’t have laws allowing people to conscientiously object from the Automobile Association or the Red Cross.

The third problem concerns the mechanics of the CO process. These are represented by a number of barriers which any student wanting to CO must cross.

Barrier 1
Despite a requirement to do so in the Act, the CO option is not widely publicised. Most students don’t even know it exists.

Barrier 2
Any student who discovers the CO option soon understands it is bureaucratic, time consuming, confrontational, and ultimately futile. A plaintiff has to make his case before a committee which may partially or entirely comprise representatives from the very student association he is attempting to gain exemption from.

Barrier 3
His exemption is not automatic. He has to plead his case and demonstrate to the tribunal that his objection is genuinely one of conscience and not frivolous or an attempt to merely save money or score a cheap political point.

Some CO processes have imposed their own definition of what constitutes an objection of conscience, declining to hear objections based on opposition to forced membership, claiming these are political and ideological rather than conscientious grounds.

In other cases students appealing for a CO have been subject to cross examination and humiliation by the CO tribunal, who argue that by merely bringing a claim for exemption a student is guilty of greed by attempting to undermine the collective enterprise.

Barrier 4
In the event that a plaintiff successfully argues his case and is granted a CO, the student does not get his money back. The student’s money is paid to a charity of the association’s choosing. So if your objection is that you don’t like having your money taken away from you to purchase things you don’t want or need then CO provides no solution and your objection is void before you start.

Conclusion
CO presents no solution to the problem of compulsory membership. The civil right of freedom of association should be the inherent entitlement of every citizen, not something that can be granted or denied at the whim of a committee.

Hey man, that’s just a lie: the compulsory apologia

2006-11-23T03:40:00.000-08:00

Deep in the night, when they’re alone with their consciences, if they’re really being honest with themselves, most intelligent supporters of compulsory membership know that compulsory membership is wrong.

The case for voluntary membership – on the grounds of freedom of association alone – is overwhelming. Yet for various reasons – political, ideological, career advancement, or pure hostility to anything perceived as ‘right wing’ – compulsion supporters just can’t bring themselves to abandon their position and admit compulsory membership is wrong.

In order to defend something which they know is morally indefensible, compulsion supporters have developed a number of myths they tell themselves. These myths are so ingrained in compulsion supporters’ rhetorical armoury that they’re able to trot them out without examining the validity of their argument. The myths have become a form of political catechism which compulsion supporters habitually chant whenever voluntary membership is raised.

All of the arguments made in defence of compulsory membership are seriously flawed. The pro-compulsory argument is often surrounded by lofty or legalistic sounding words – such as universal and democratic - and is made quickly, so the compulsory advocate can scurry off without having to stop and think about what they’re saying or have their ideas examined.

Compulsion supporters rarely stick around to defend their arguments. When challenged they inevitably change tack and resort to a second line of defence consisting of ‘time to move on’ lines such as:
- voluntary membership is a non-issue so I can’t be bothered discussing it
- students have already voted so the issue is over
- the people promoting voluntary membership are not cool
- there are more important issues such as student debt, loans, climate change etc

Over the next few posts we’ll be looking at the most common components of the compulsory apologia.

not in our name: NZUSA backs Green bill

2006-11-06T02:40:00.000-08:00

Ever heard of the Tertiary Women's Focus Group (TWFG)? No? You're not alone then.

TWFG is a collection of women's rights officers from NZUSA member associations. Under this banner, TWFG have signed up to support a member's bill on flexible working hours put forward by Green MP Sue Kedgley.

Predictably the media have failed to draw any distinction between TWFG and NZUSA itself and are now reporting that "students" have joined a coalition to support Kedgley's bill.

Once again a significant number of students have to stand by and watch as their so-called representatives at NZUSA use their institutional clout - funded by compulsory membership - to illegitimately conscript all tertiary students into supporting a particular political initiative. Students who don't support this initiative are misrepresented by NZUSA yet again.

If Jennifer Jones and the rest of the TWFG gang want to support the Kedgley bill that's fine. Just don't do it with other people's money, and don't claim that you're representing all students. Speaking on behalf of someone without their permission is misrepresentation pure and simple.

You'd think TFWG, supposedly being concerned with imbalances of power, would understand this.

Anatomy of a compulsion supporter: Nick Kelly

2006-10-17T05:15:00.000-07:00

Earlier on we talked about the types of people who support compulsory membership because they derive benefits from the existing system. One category of people we identified was “student politicians using associations to promote their worldview”.

Since his loss in the Vuwsa presidential election, Nick Kelly has exemplified this category of person. His written comments since his loss have further eroded any pretence of legitimacy which compulsory associations might still attempt to make.

Nick’s comments on his loss revealed his view of his role. Compulsory associations and compulsory presidents claim to represent all students. This is an impossible task but Nick was content to play along with this charade up until the point he lost. In his first president’s column after his defeat Nick revealed that he saw his role not as attempting to represent all students but rather as initiating some sort of student revolution. When voters turfed him out he reverted to Marxist analysis and interpreted his defeat as a conspiracy by the forces of capitalist reactionaries represented, oddly, by a combination of Young Labour, National and Act.

So ultimately Vuwsa for Nick Kelly was never some sort of diverse patchwork of student interests but instead it was a vehicle to be driven towards a socialist utopia. When voters said they didn’t want to come along for the ride, Nick spat the dummy.

Now he’d have you believe that Vuwsa in 2007 won’t represent all students because it’s been captured by Helen-hugging Young Labourites. And on this point he’s correct. A Labour friendly Vuwsa in 2007 will not be representative of all students. But then neither was an embryonic revolutionary Vuwsa in 2006. And nor by the same token would a raving pro-capitalist Vuwsa at some point in the future be representative of all Vic students.

Tertiary students have diverse political views and it’s impossible for one organisation to simultaneously represent the views of all students. If a compulsory association says ‘A’ it’s misrepresenting all the students who believe ‘B’.

The only way to achieve accurate representation is to make membership optional and allow individual students to join or not join an association based on whether or not the organisation reflects their views, values and interests.

PS Nick's latest column lays into Salient but the free speech champions at Salient have neglected to post it on their site. You can find it here though.

misrepresentation is theft

2006-10-10T01:55:00.000-07:00

This year we were blessed with a VUWSA President who doubled as a member of the Workers Party - a socialist group who believes in revolution to bring about an end to the capitalist system that is so holding us all down. This helps explain the huge deficit VUWSA incurred, a situation that led to the outrageously undemocratic levy increase a few weeks ago.

But the revolution will not be happening on our watch. Nick Kelly lost the recent VUWSA election for 2007 to Geoff Hayward, current VicLabour President (standing down next year). Just like the deficit, this wasn't his fault either. Apparently it was the unholy capitalist alliance between Labour, National and Act that removed him from office.
Maybe it was more to do with the fact that even Labour sounds normal compared to this rant found in the comments section:

"The reality is that for most of us things are going to continue to get worse under capitalism. Since the end of the post war boom students and workers have continued to be squeezed harder and harder to maintain the levels of profit. Wages continue to be driven down, the 40 hour working week is now a distant memory for many workers.

"A lifetime of debt for graduates isn't now seriously challenged by any party in parliament. We need stop looking to lobby politicians to bring about change; we need to stop thinking that the next select committee submission is actually going to do jack shit. Historically any significant political or social change has come from a mass movement of the people. It has come from people breaking the rules.

"The only way the human race can bring about any real change in the future is to get rid of the capitalist system. As long as people are exploited for their labour power in return for profit people's living standard won't improve. Capitalism cannot be reformed, what the last century has proved is that social democracy and attempts to make capitalism nicer just don't work in the end. The destruction of the Alliance after they supported the invasion of Afghanistan proved where this sort of politics leads."

So the Communist has been voted out and replaced with a President from the ranks of Labour. It is an improvement, yet it does nothing to address the fundamental flaws of compulsory student membership.

Those students who are not extreme/centre-left look at the student association and feel completely disenfranchised. Yet through VUWSA we are all required to pay money towards causes we do not believe in.

My Act membership is no secret - I choose to pay $10 a year to them as I believe in their values and policies. But despite my political leanings, VUWSA forcibly takes 12 times this amount off me and channels much of it into values and policies I consider detrimental to our nation's progress.

It's not merely a financial issue either - student associations claim to represent the entire student population when they write their submissions and hold their sparsely-attended protests.
Look at the ravings of Nick Kelly and tell me if he was able to represent every student.
Look at Labour's policies and tell me if Geoff Hayward can represent every student.

Such are the joys of a compulsory system. Associations take money from everyone regardless of their political persuasion - or lack thereof - and use it in ways many disagree with. Worse than that, they do the same with something even more precious - our voice.
VSM would give all students the chance to regain control over both.

Compulsory student associations are illegitimate

2006-10-09T03:31:00.000-07:00

Ask any student politician why compulsory student associations exist and you’re bound to be told that they exist to provide representation and services.

Yet supporters of compulsory membership don’t want to debate representation. It’s the issue which dare not speak its name. For example in the recent debate about the Vuwsa fee increase, the Vuwsa executive focused entirely on the so-called services which they claimed were under threat if the fee was not increased.

Compulsion supporters don’t want to touch representation because they know it’s an issue where they have absolutely no credibility. This is because by its very nature compulsory membership is the equivalent of misrepresentation.

An organisation’s form of membership is key to the organisation’s legitimacy particularly where representative (as opposed to service) organisations are concerned.

Representative organisations exist to stand on behalf of their members. People indicate their willingness to have an organisation represent them by consenting to become a member of the organisation. By doing so a person is saying, “I agree with the goals, values and policies of this organisation. I agree to join this group and give my consent to have this group act and say things on my behalf”. This is what happens when people agree to join trade unions, political parties, charities, pressure groups etc.

An organisation is illegitimate if it does not have an individual’s consent yet claims to speak on behalf of that individual.

Compulsory student associations do not receive permission from individual students to speak on their behalf. Instead students join an association so they can gain access to tertiary education. Yet compulsory associations continually claim to represent all students. In fact compulsory associations misrepresent the students who don’t agree with the things associations do and say in their name.

Imagine you wanted to buy a house and, without your permission, someone presented themselves to the vendor as your agent. Imagine if this pseudo agent then negotiated the purchase on terms which were not acceptable to you. You’d be outraged that someone had claimed to represent you without your permission and had said things which you don’t agree with. Thousands of tertiary students face this same situation every day.

Misrepresentation should be an issue of great ethical concern to student politicians yet they don’t want to address it as they realise it would expose the illegitimacy of all compulsory student associations.

Student politicians tolerate the misrepresentation caused by compulsory membership because compulsion also delivers big money. And the most important thing to supporters of compulsory membership is their free and unfettered access to other people’s money.

Vuwsa admits: we are irrelevant

2006-09-15T05:54:00.000-07:00

This Wednesday 20 September Nick Kelly and the other advocates of free education on the Vuwsa executive are going to have a second attempt at raising the compulsory Vuwsa levy by 20%.

In an attempt to justify this, Vuwsa have produced a poster detailing ten so-called services which the association claims will be under threat if the fee increase is not approved.

This poster is very informative. First, thanks in no small part to information circulated by student choice, Vuwsa has not claimed credit for providing numerous non-academic services at VUW such as the creche and the student health service.

Second, the list of 'services' says a lot about the executive's perception of the role of Vuwsa.

Of the ten 'services' selected, six can be categorised as relating to entertainment and leisure: funding for sports clubs; quiz nights; quad activities; student balls; Orientation fun; cheap bands.

Six are activities which require additional individual payment from the individual student so tend to be consumed by students who are already relatively well off: car parking; sports clubs; quiz nights; student balls; Orientation; cheap bands.

Six are activities which could be (and in the wider community are) provided on a commercial, user-pays basis: car parking; quiz nights; student balls; free bus (transport); Orientation; cheap bands.

One, SJS, is partially funded by Vuwsa but receives the bulk of its funding from taxpayers.

Only one, quad activities (and in some circumstances orientation and cheap bands), is an activity where it's not possible to exclude non-members.

All ten are services which VUW could provide, if it so chose, through the non-academic student levy. Whether or not VUW would wish to do this would depend upon the value VUW placed upon each service in contributing to the university's goals and objectives.

None of the 'services' relate to or even mention quality assurance, value for money, students' interests as tuition-fee paying customers, education or learning.

None of the 'services' relate to Vuwsa's primary goals, namely "promoting the interests" and "representing the views" of students.

Finally the political strategy behind the poster becomes clear when you realise that nine of the ten services involve activities which are funded by all students but are able to be accessed or required by a far fewer number. (I've included SJS in this definition but consider it to be a different case to the others).

With this poster, and other communications such as emails to clubs, Vuwsa is attempting generate support for the fee increase by communicating with the students who have some of their activities subsidised by others. Vuwsa message to them is: if you don't want to lose your subsidy and benefit, vote for the fee increase.

However Vuwsa hasn't answered the question: is it fair that students who
- are on lower incomes
- have no interest in or time for Vuwsa's leisure activities
- fully fund their own transport and food
should be made to subsidise the leisure, transport and food costs of others in order to obtain a tertiary education?

This poster confirms Vuwsa irrelevancy for most students. No wonder so few vote or turn up to meetings.

OUSA strikes hypocrisy mother lode

2006-09-13T04:18:00.000-07:00

If you're a student politician in a compulsory association, one of the first political skills you need to master is the ability to take highly hypocritical stances with a straight face.

This means you need to be able to:

simultaneously oppose and support fee increases
complain about the student loan scheme while deriving half of your income from it
and get all self righteous about freedom, choice and diversity while supporting compulsory membership

The Otago University Students Association (OUSA) is working itself into a lather about a university-drafted code of conduct. All of a sudden OUSA is concerned about students' rights and is claiming the proposed code falls outside the provisions of the Bill of Rights Act.

OUSA have hired constitutional lawyer Mai Chen to provide legal advice. I nearly choked on my cornflakes this morning when I heard Ms Chen on Morning Report saying,

"Just because you're a student at Otago University you don't relinquish your general rights as a human being which all human beings have under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act - the freedom of movement, freedom of association, the freedom to express oneself, the freedom from double jeopardy."

What a relief - a leading constitutional lawyer has confirmed what student choice has being saying for years: just because you're a student you don't give up your right to freedom of association.

OUSA, an organisation with a membership regime which directly violates freedom of association, must be extremely embarrased that their lawyer even raised the freedom of association issue. Now they're going to have to pay her to go back through the filing cabinets and find the late 1990s legal opinion produced by Chen and Palmer and paid for by NZUSA which claimed compulsory membership doesn't violate freedom of association.

But we can thank Ms Chen for restating student choice's position to the nation's media.

Salient gives up on impartiality

2006-09-12T01:46:00.000-07:00

One of the many flawed reasons used to justify compulsory membership is that compulsory funds subsidise student media. Student politicians tell us student media is important because it's an independent voice on campus which holds institutions and student associations to account. Students need an independent student media, we're told, so they know what's really going on.

Well, that's what we're told.

In recent days Salient, the magazine owned by the Victoria University Students Association, has killed the myth of independent student media stone dead.

The Vuwsa executive want to increase the compulsory Vuwsa levy. Has Salient taken an independent stance on this, weighing up the pros and cons and treating both sides evenly? Has it hell.

Salient editor James Robinson has been outspoken in his support of an increase of the levy. Salient is owned by Vuwsa and would be a possible beneficiary of any fee increase. Robinson has a vested interest in seeing the fee go up. At the SGM he spoke in favour of a fee increase and has also shown himself to be a less-than-impartial supporter of Vuwsa and compulsory membership saying:

A rise in the levy is the best way to preserve VUWSA at its current level.
In my heart of hearts I can’t help but implore you to vote for an increase in the levy.
You...think you are being ripped off and your money misspent. But that’s just not true.
You get so much more used (sic) out of a levy than you actually think.
VSM, will lead to higher student fees.

Now you could argue that an editor has as much right to freedom of speech of the next guy. Notwithstanding the complications of compulsory membership, I'd be willing to accept that but Robinson and news editor Nicola Keen have taken their support for a fee increase to another level.

They've used their positions within the magazine to launch personal attacks on students who've spoken out against the fee increase. This has a purpose. If you want to shut down your opponents one tactic is to ridicule them in print or online. This sends a clear signal to other students: don't oppose us or you'll end up being ridiculed by Salient. An old Chinese proverb says "kill one, frighten ten thousand." Robinson and Keen have adapted this rule to "ridicule one, silence ten thousand."

Again it all comes back to compulsory membership. The students targeted by Robinson and Keen have been forced to pay money to an organisation which claims to represent them. Some of that money has been given to Salient which then launches personal attacks on the same students. The students singled out by Salient are effectively being forced to fund an attempt to humiliate them in public.

Vuwsa's constitution says its primary goal is "promoting the interests" and "representing the views" of students. How does the forced funding of journalists who decide they want to ridicule you fit with the reason Vuwsa supposedly exists - that is to promote the interests of students and represent their views?

And given Robinson's and Keen's obvious bias against voluntary membership, students should be aware that Salient is totally incapable of providing fair and impartial coverage of the compulsory membership issue.

Again it all comes back to money and compulsory supporters' determination to keep the cash rolling in.

you know we're making an impact when...

2006-09-10T01:03:00.000-07:00

You open your economics test and find this:

It's a good sign people are beginning to pay more attention to the funding and focus of student associations.
For the record I suggest b. is a far more sensible answer for question 23 - and after the VUWSA meeting earlier in the week I daresay I'm not alone in thinking that.

compulsory membership: it's all about money

2006-09-04T04:19:00.000-07:00

If you're involved in a compulsory student association, there are two rules you must always remember.

1. Compulsory membership is all about money. In particular, it's all about you being able to stick your hand into students' pockets and take their money without their consent.
2. Regardless of what else happens, always think about how it affects rule number one.

Forget about fees, loans and allowances. Forget about social justice, gender equality, globalisation and all that nonsense; your absolute number one priority is to protect your stream of unearned income. This means defending compulsory membership at all costs.

The massive increase student numbers in recent years has caused compulsory student associations to become large wealthy organisations. A lot of people now have a lot at stake with compulsory associations be it as:
- student politicians using associations to promote their worldview or gain experience before they move onto 'real' politics or jobs in the trade union movement
- employees in highly protected positions who have to stuff up really, really badly before they get fired
- activists who use student money to push their political agenda
- student media types who get to play at running their own magazine or radio station
- student sport types who can't believe their luck that there's a system which means other students have to subsidise their hobbies.

All of these people have a very strong vested interest in seeing compulsory membership continue to deliver a free flow of money.

That's why, as a compulsory membership supporter, you must do everything to ensure you continue to receive unearned income. Even if you've publicly opposed university fee increases you must be prepared to support student association fee increases.

Remember - it's all about money.

what is freedom of association?

2006-08-28T04:49:00.000-07:00

Freedom of association is a fundamental civil and political right.

It's prescribed in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Freedom of association has two elements.
1. You should be free to associate with whomsoever you wish for legal purposes.
2. You should not be forced to associate with others.

Compulsory membership of tertiary student associations violates clause number 2.

In New Zealand people who go to a tertiary institution to study are told they first have to associate with others. This takes the form of forcing people to join and fund an incorporated society, namely a tertiary student association.

There is no equivalent in New Zealand society. Hospital patients don't have to join a patients' society. Old age pensioners don't have to join Grey Power. Motorists don't have to join the Automobile Association. Warehouse customers don't have to join the Consumers' Institute.

True freedom of association would allow individual tertiary students to decide whether or not they join a student association.

voluntary membership in a nutshell

2006-08-27T21:09:00.000-07:00

So what's this all about?

In short, this blog and student choice promote voluntary membership of tertiary students associations in New Zealand.

student choice believes in freedom of association and don't believe anyone should be forced to join a student association before they can enrol in a New Zealand tertiary institution.

We'll put forward the arguments in favour of voluntary membership and challenge the reasons put forward for compulsory membership.

We'll also highlight the flaws and problems - both past and present - of compulsory membership.

And we intend to have a bit of fun along the way.