Here is a video taken of Michael Woodhouse at a public forum at Otago University in July. He quite clearly states that he is opposed to the Bill in its current form (ie the form that it is in right now). Today, in the Third Reading Michael Woodhouse and other National MPs will vote to pass the Bill into law.
Michael also goes on to assure people that the Bill in its current form won’t pass into law this year. I have heard from other students that is the same commitment they got from other National MPs. This was misleading students and the National MPs should be ashamed of themselves. They heard the evidence at the Select Committee, and they know that tertiary institutions do not want the Bill, the vast majority of other submitters do not want the Bill, but they are still supporting the ideological crusade of their crumbling coalition partner.
Michael also suggests that Labour should promote the ‘opt out’ compromise solution. We did. It was rejected by ACT and National.
So the question for Michael Woodhouse (and other National MPs) is, why will he vote to pass a Bill today that he does not support and that he knows will destroy student services and advocacy?
About face? Collective responsibility?
I emailed Tau Henare in support of the so called anti smacking bill way back then. Tau replied in very down to earth language that I was an “idiot”. (Pleased that he did reply by the way.) The following day, Mr Key changed the National vote and supported the Bill so within 24 hours, Tau did a 180 degree turn. Politics! As for Mr Woodhouse……
Bahahahahahahahaha!
!
The question is Grant why do you support forcing students having money taken from them to made to join a student union, and even when they apply not to join they arent refunded the money! Are you able to point any other organisation where it is compulsory to join?
@Grant are you suggesting you will resign or cross the floor if you disagree with a party decision?? Be nice to get a clear statement of intention in a public domain from you on this.
Does anyone have the full video? I’d be interested in hearing his whole answer rather than just two pieces edited together…
As a recent prime minister would say
“DIDDUMS”
love how darrenw totally misses the point! The Nat MPs promised to do one thing then did another. Anyone else does that it’s called bad faith and you don’t trust them again. If an MP changes their mind due to new circumstances they should at least explain why.
Listening to the debate on VSM on Radio NZ this morning I could not believe how little the cost to each student is – and in return they get fantastic services! The pro-VSM lass said student unions could not represent students because they are so diverse – on that basis, Parliament would be out!
So this is what bottom of the barrel being scrapped sounds like
Well Ben, the barrel has some bad apples, being national MPs who are saying big fat lies.
It appears that the right side of his mouth didn’t know what his master’s voice was going to tell the left side of his mouth to say, or perhaps a forked tongue got in the way.
MASSIVE turnout of students opposed I see.
Ha! nice Jeff. My son goes to Otago and he says 90% couldn’t care less what happens, as they are adults and will make the choice that suits them best. If they want to join they will, if not they won’t. Choice, Labour people, is a beautiful thing. Don’t deny them the right to make it or assume that they don’t know what they want without being told.
Grant – wow an MP who might oppose a bill but votes for it regardless – strick me down with a feather. MPs collectively vote (and even make speeches in support of legislation they may be against)
I am sure this happened often under Helen Clark especially when controversal legislation was being passed. Especially such legislation such as Anti-smacking, the EFA, and I am sure there are many more that those close to the centre of power would have known about.
Not a big deal Grant – and you know it.
Exactly. That’s why Lady Helen didn’t dare allow a conscience vote on the issue because she knew she wouldn’t have been able to pay the ransom the Greens were demanding to keep her in power for another year.
Here is Michael Woodhouse’s response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqVMWVyGXbw
His quotes were entirely out of context. He points to things he said before and after that made it clear that he supported VSM.
He also tore into Labour for their filibuster.
> “Tertiary institutions do not want the Bill, the vast majority of other submitters do not want the Bill”
The only group you don’t mention are the students. I know of one who was hit for around $700 at the beginning of this year – the person involved is a part time student and this will not be easy money for her to find when it comes time to pay it back.
I know that in my student days, my student association wouldn’t have spat on me if I were on fire – and I can’t name one good thing they did to me, other than being a money pit and harassing me about elections.
I don’t want to re-litigate the issue re the submissions – but you and I both know full well why there were so many of them.
Can someone tell us what the typical student studying full time at University would pay in student Fees?
Do students in general feel that they have had value for money out of their student fees?
Ben: This is what the bottom of a barrel being scraped sounds and looks like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8xgvHMr9nE
In response to David Shearer’s points:
(i, 0:20) Who squandered the opportunity to improve the bill? I think the filibuster clearly shows which party were not acting in good faith and had no interest in constructive debate.
(ii, 2:50) (This is where he starts to get shrill.) He points out that students have the choice to hold a referendum to get VSM, which somehow justifies saying that voluntary membership reduces choice. Perhaps this is also a good argument against the US constitution—it removes the choice to elect a dictator. And our own bill of rights removes the choice to have an authoritarian government. This kind of argument is as flawed as it is disingenuous.
(iii, 3:00) Every year campuses are covered with “dimwit for prez” signs. Yet despite this huge effort, the unions can hardly muster 10% turnout for elections. So how does he expect students to force a referendum?
(iv, 5:42) (Now the scaremongering starts.) We know that VSM works in Auckland (NZ’s biggest and, arguably, best university) and we know that VSU works in Australia. His prophecy of doom and gloom is empty and baseless.
(v, 7:42) 98% of submissions… We know that number is meaningless. (Really loud barrel scraping at this point.) VSM is popular if you actually talk to students. It’s funny that student associations claim to represent their members, but have never bothered to investigate what they think of VSM.
There are really no good arguments coming from the anti-freedom crowd. They are trying to convince parliament that student associations are great, because they are afraid that they cannot convince students themselves. It’s a joke.
Thank you ACT. Thank you National. Thank you for standing up for what is right.
It is getting worse. The nonsense 98% spam figure keeps being used. The Greens claim that our universities will drop down international rankings, despite out top-ranked university being voluntary already! Now the Maori party claims that is has something with the waitangi tribunal.
Good grief!
Well the VSM just passed it’s third reading. now student unions better go and sort out how they will deliver value for money, sort out top priorities for spending other people’s money, and cut massively all un necessary spending.
Shane Jones supports VSM…
http://tvnz.co.nz/back-benches/video
Looks to be a heavily edited video between 22-23s. Who knows what was really said an in what context.
Do you take people as fools?
What’s there is enough!
!