Freedom to choose is a fundamental right

Michael WoodhouseI have a high regard for the Otago University Students Association (OUSA) and Otago Polytechnic Students Association (OPSA). I think they generally provide a good service to students, represent value for money, and if I was an undergraduate student again, I would probably join. 

But that would be my choice. I see no rationale for being compelled to join, and support the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, a member's Bill at present being debated in Parliament.

I find the rhetoric by opponents of voluntary student membership (VSM) somewhat confusing - almost doublespeak. Opponents of VSM claim that choice would devastate services, silence students and actually curtail freedom.

Indeed, OUSA president Logan Edgar has spent two nights in a cage this week to make this very unusual point. VSM opponents also claim that compulsory membership gives students more freedom. It simply does not make sense.

We have long since dispensed with the idea of compulsory membership of unions and I fail to see why student unions should be treated any differently.

The question not answered by anti-VSM proponents is this: if student associations are so important, if they represent such good value for money, why the morbid fear that students will take flight when association membership is made optional?

This labels students, our brightest young and our future leaders, as lacking the simple skill of deciding for themselves whether joining an organisation is appropriate or valuable to them.

And if they do, associations should be more focused on why it is that students see such low value in membership than on maintaining compulsion.

One reason put up for the possible reduction in membership under VSM is of financial constraints - that students, otherwise keen to join, may not be able to afford the very reasonable OUSA or OPSA subscription.

Readers should consider this in the context of the very high spending behaviour of students during Orientation Week on events costing much more than the subscription to OUSA.

Another argument against VSM is that organisations such as OUSA and OPSA would need to spend a disproportionate amount of their resources on marketing. This would be quite unnecessary.

The best advertisement for membership of student associations is satisfied students. But if associations are worried that first-year students, in particular, do not understand the value of membership, all they need to do is continue to restrict attendance at orientation events to OUSA and OPSA members. Problem solved.

Some VSM opponents argue that student membership fees should be likened to rates paid by local ratepayers. I do not agree with the comparison.

Ratings authorities are subject to a number of constraining laws relating to consultation, planning and oversight, that are not imposed on student associations. Further, student associations are not apolitical.

They have clear political links.

Many students compelled to be members, are thoroughly sick and tired of some associations' behaviours, for example:

• The burning of the New Zealand flag by a VUWSA executive member in the grounds of Victoria University's Law Faculty on Anzac Day in 2007.

• The expenditure of $40,000 by an OUSA staffer to spend a year travelling the world researching student drinking habits - then delivering a four and a-half page report on her findings.

• Several high-profile financial misappropriations by student association executive members.

Students' associations claim to provide an important advocacy service by lobbying to the university council and the Government on issues such as interest-free loans, the fee maxima, and universal student allowances.

They do, but the problem with political advocacy of (in OUSA's case) 22,000 students is that it is just not possible to represent the common political interest of such a large and diverse membership.

A significant cohort of students with differing views to the executive is disenfranchised by the position taken. That is not acceptable in an organisation where membership is compulsory.

At the end of the day this comes down to a simple principle of freedom of association.

No New Zealander should be compelled to join an organisation of this nature against their will. On this principle alone, I support the change to voluntary student membership.

 

Incorrect

OUSA contributed $3000 to this research, not the $40,000 you claimed.

[Abridged]

 

And what about smaller associations?

In Australia smaller associations, like those at polytechnics, have been destroyed by VSM. Some literally destroyed. Others are now nothing more than gloried common rooms: no effective student advocacy, weak Orientations, etc.  There is no logical reason to think the same leglislation will not have exactly the same effects here.

Associations like Otago Polytechnic Students' Association that are smaller and have focused on simply providing student services instead of investing in cash bearing assets, will be in serious danger of being destroyed by VSM - just like similar associations in Australia.

The sadly unrealistic mantra that if students valued it they'd join, is no comfort to those that have seen the realities of VSM on smaller associations.

Personally I think advocacy is one of the most important things a students' associations does, and I'm utterly appalled at what some student advocacy services have become in Australia under VSM. At one Australian association I visited, the institution run "advocacy" service was nothing more that a risk assessment unit for the institution and as such they probably the last people you'd want to speak tol, let alone help you with, with your issues with the institution.

 

 

 

VSM won't stop you paying for those services

Except VSM won't stop you paying for those services. It'll just get you less say on how they're focused and run.

Australia's VSM experiment has lead to many students now paying greater compulsory service levues to their instutition (that they did to their students' association) for access to less services.  I'm no expert, but that makes no financial sense.  At most campuses in Australia institutions have taken over or contract out the services - so the charge is still compulsorily to students, but they no longer have any say over how its used (just try asking a university to have an SGM where students can argue and vote for the university to spend its money in a more student-friendly way).  

Perhaps the worst example of student services instutitions should not run is advocacy and support. At one Australian campus I visited the student advocacy centre is now probably the last people you want to tell your problems with the university, as it is essentially a risk-assessment unit for the university and not remotely a student advocacy service. 

And I might remind you that although an individual student may never need the advocacy service, all students benefit from its existence.  

If you want VSM, you change it

You have the power the make VUWSA a Voluntary Student Union. From what I hear about it, it needs it. You just need the support from students. Government should not interfere where it is not wanted.

Impractical

Going down the route of Michael's high-and-mighty theory will render the system impractical. It will be both the students and the university who will suffer for his misguided ideals.

VSM support

If the opt-out system currently in place allows for me to get my own money back so I can use it however I want, then that would be free. Under status quo, it is not. 

I agree with you that ideally, this issue should be debated and resolved by students alone. However, students are apathetic about student unions and student politics in general (ask VUWSA what their voting turnout percentage is every year, I'm pretty sure it's <5% of the student body). Consequently, most students don't really care about what goes on at VUWSA and never use enough services to get their ~$140's worth.

It is for this reason that VSM is a good idea; if you care about student unions and want to use all their services then you will happily pay to join. If you don't like the union and hardly/never use their services, then you shouldn't be obliged to join and pay the membership fee. If it so happens that you require the union's services and you aren't a member, then a user-pays system would work fine. 

More facts.

I agree with you on the money issue. If you don't recieve a service, you should not pay.

An opt-out system is just as free as an opt-in system, you have the right to choose where you want to be. With an opt-out system, you are not forced. 

Well, there is a solution to that as well. Get enough support to change VUWSA to a voluntary union. Good luck with getting enough signatures.  Auckland has done it, why not Victoria?


You may think I am pro-CSM. But really what I want is to get an informed discussion on this matter, and when misleading information is released into the media it is hard to do so. A truly democratic government would let those affected decide.

In support of VSM

You are correct that students can choose to opt out under grounds of conscientious objection according to the Education Act. But the student has no right to recuperate the money (under VUWSA rules) that they were forced to pay since they are obliged to donate it to a charity. While I donate to charity from time to time, I want to have the freedom to choose how I spend the ~$140 I am forced to give to VUWSA every year.

Secondly, an opt-out system is not free, since a student should have the basic human right to make an informed and sensible decision on which entities he or she would like to join. Opt-out systems do not exist in any other union in New Zealand; why should students be treated like second class citizens with lesser rights by being forced to join an organisation he or she may not necessarily support?

As a student at Vic, I am appalled that I am forced to pay membership fees to VUWSA because I never get my money's worth. If OUSA is an attractive union to join, then one would see a plethora of students signing up if VSM passes. 

Some facts you missed

Michael, let me insert some facts you have missed:

1) You do have the freedom to choose. You can opt out of being part of the Union.

2) 97% of submitters to the VSM bill were against it, including the University of Otago.

3) OUSA will not be able to speak for all students and so will be dropped from all University Committees it is represented on, leaving the University decision making process without student input.

Supporting this bill is the second fatal mistake you have made in the election campaign leading to Dunedin North falling to a Labour rookie. The first was Hillside Engineering. How many students live in your electorate?