Today National and Act passed a law to reduce the effectiveness of student unions.
Earlier this year they passed a law that took student reps off polytechnic councils.
Seems they dont want students to have a strong voice when it comes to tertiary education. I wonder what they have in store for them?
Would you consider this to be more or less important than your bill to extend paid parental leave?
Draco: I assume by return to dictatorship you mean there will no longer be free and fair elections? When do you think this will happen by (i.e. do you think that there will be no election in 2014)?
I’d just like to know how insane a character we are dealing with here.
Ben: The VSM bill does not remove student representation. Students will still have exactly the same level of input into the university’s decisions. It makes no changes whatsoever to the amount of student representation on university councils. (Although they are elected directly through the university, rather than through the association.)
I repeat: VSM does not remove student representation.
Read the bill for yourself if you don’t believe me:
http://legislation.govt.nz/bill/member/2009/0075/latest/whole.html?search=ts_all%40act%40bill%40regulation_freedom+of+association_resel&p=1#DLM3256906 (I hope this link works. If not, go to legislation.govt.nz and search for “freedom of association”.)
So, please, let’s put this myth to rest.
mickrodge doesnt know that Auckland University is allready VSM
And the AUSA is ‘free to join’ !!
Saving money – think again
heres the university list of fees
Note the one for Student Services Levy $4.84 per point.
Goodbye student association fees , hello student service levy
Today ( dec 2010), a full-time undergraduate student can expect to pay $542 in compulsory levies, which are used in part to contract AUSA to provide services such as catering, advocacy, representation, support for sports, cultural clubs and societies, plus events and entertainment.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/auckland-university-students-association/news/article.cfm?o_id=392&objectid=10695053
Ben,
I concede you may raise some valid concerns but it remains that the majority of students don’t want compulsory student union membership.
It isn’t being denied students it is simply becoming voluntary. There will still be a voice for students because there will always be those willing/wanting/choosing to be a voice for students.
Hopefully VSM brings some integrity back to student unions.
Thomas, Mick,
Firstly I don’t think you can argue the majority actually support this, especially if they are fully aware of the consequences.
The issue I have with this sort of reform is quite simple; incoming students are apathetic and generally unwilling to look beyond the ‘good times’ atmosphere of o-week, which is organised and run by these associations. When you think about the time and effort that goes in to these events alone, most of it by volunteers, you can see why the ‘opt-in’ option really is a good idea. If these associations start to crumble, who will pay to run these events? How much more will they cost to run?
Students will look at the options, they’ll see the opportunity to pay $100 ish upfront and struggle to understand what they get in return (as is quite obvious even from the discussion on this blog), chances are they’d rather spend that $100 on booze. How can student associations retain the level of membership necessary to maintain a sense of collective representation when only a few students sign up?
The thing is, compulsory sign up helps to maintain a good structure for maintaining a high level of services, representation, and welfare to all students. I agree that opting out was too difficult and that should have been what this law was about, but now it’s just going to cripple various associations and inevitably end up with students having to pay more to the institutions they attend while losing the ability to have full time representatives acting on their behalf.
We all benefit from these associations in so many ways, even if sometimes we struggle to see the benefits right in front of us, as we’re accustomed to in this world.
This is the sort of thing that should really frighten people about Left wing activists.
The view of the zealot that even when the majority hold a contrary position, and in massive numbers, it’s dismissable because they don’t really understand the issue/implications etc. Therefore we, with hardly any popular support, are right and must therefore impose our will.
We’ve seen what this attitude led to in Eastern Europe, China, etc.
Perhaps someone from the Labour Party should make an official statement that their view of democracy differs radically from young Ben’s.
Ben 2.26pm 29/9.
As I am 65 I am hardly young and I do not consider myself an ACT Troll – more a realist.
ironic really …VSM will be good for the Labour Party over time …voluntary communities of interest will lead to stronger student associations and we will get better quality Labour MPs as they would have seen that organisations that don’t meet the needs of their clients disappear and are replaced by those that do…
Ben you are grasping at straws. Where VSM all ready operates the students get whacked for a levy by the university. Who then contracts the SA the run all the usual stuff.
Repeat there will be NO MONEY SAVED. – how long ago were you a student, the levy would be $300- $600
@ ghost
Is it possible that while SA fees will essentially be zeroed out a rise in levies, that both the services available may be better and the spending more transparent?
I think that is the key issue for most people, not the fact that some form of expense is incurrent to support student services.
Ben, ghost: The AUSA complaining that it doesn’t have enough money is not news. I would like more money too!
The AUSA (Auckland) and the UCSA (Canterbury) are funded by the university through a levy. So what are they complaining about? VSM does not cut off their income.
I’ll tell you why they are complaining: The institution decides how much money to give to the association. Under compulsory membership, the association decides how much money it gets. So, under VSM, the institution can scrutinise association expenditure and ensure that it gets value for money.
If the university or polytechnic steps in to provide services, students will be no worse off.
So, please, let’s put this myth to rest as well.
GW, you are grasping at straws. maybe better?
At least now we know you are clueless
The university will give more information ??? Yeah right.
At least you could have voted for someone to spend your money how you wanted.
Now if the university is happy its out of the SA hands. Contract baby, cant tell you about that. Just pay your $500 and build a bridge and get over it
“The view of the zealot that even when the majority hold a contrary position, and in massive numbers, it’s dismissable because they don’t really understand the issue/implications etc. ” Hardly the bastion only of left wing activists. Mrs Thatcher, Mr Douglas, and the ACT party think similarly about all kind of things, and a fair number in the National Party…
Fair comment – there are zealots on both ends of the spectrum who exhibit this kind of attitude.
But I do believe it’s more prevalent on the Left than the Right – evidenced by the all the moaning here, for example, at the way that people are “manipulated by the MSM” whenever a sizeable majority (per the polls) decide to kick a Labour policy into touch.
george the pollsters dont ask if voters want to have their living standards reduced ( true under national) or inflation rise to the highest for 20 years ( true under national) or borrowing to massively increase but the unemployment to rise and tax cuts benefit the rich ( true under national)
It seem the VSM passed with a slim majority and a knife to the throat of a few national list MPs
Tracey:
ACT and National are saying “Let the students choose whether or not they want to join the association. They are intelligent enough to decide whether or not the association is worthwhile.”
Labour and the Greens are saying “Students should join associations for their own good. They are not well-informed enough to know what’s best for them.”
Admittedly ACT and National are dismissing Labour’s and the Greens’ views. But you can’t compare that to what Labour and the Greens are doing.
@ghost
A bit disturbing how disagreeing with you or positioning a counter arguement results in an ad hominem.
Instructive I would say of your weirdly axiomatic world-view and capacity for sensible discourse.
George, you should go to kiwiblog and look at the archives when Labour was Govt, you’ll find similar moaning. I’m just generally suspicious about political parties (all of them) using marketing and PR people to help them make speeches and formulate policy because I have a smidgeon of understanding of hwo the advertising/marketing/PR models work, and part of it is to get us to think we have made a decision, unfettered or un-influenced when in fact we’ve been manipulated and influenced all the way along. Not just talking about National here, but all parties.
For example one poster here states that people like Key because he is honest, one day after he was caught in a lie over the role of the SAS. I am not suggesting the PM is evil or a bad person, but he has shown dishonesty, and flip flops . Is he likeable, clearly as you say the polls are clear on that. I, for one, will not confuse a poll showing people like someone as being the same as they are leading their nation well. Life is not so black and white. For example the former PM was faced with vitriol and personal abuses directly and indirectly online and otherwise, as cold and arrogant, yet for most of her reign the majority thought she was doing a very good job as a leader. So, arguably, not liked but seen as a good leader. Politicans are fickle but so is the public that are polled.
I know who will be Government in November so am not saying this to drum up support.
“results in an ad hominem…weirdly axiomatic world-view” being deliberately hypocritical Gregor W??
Thomas I don’t know if that comment was really meant for me because my comment was on generalisations
@Tracey
Just so you know, ad hominem is calling someone ‘clueless’ in an attempt to negate their position – it’s a personal slight on their character as a cheap and unsophisticated way of denigrating an arguement.
Saying someone has a strange worldview is not about their character. It’s about their ideas.
Hopefully that clears that that up for you.