Tag Archives: Students’ Association

Voluntary Students’ Association Membership Bill Reported Back – The good, the bad and the missing

Posted on by Brad Heap

Yesterday, the Education & Science Select Committee reported back on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill.

The full report from the Select Committee is here.

So firstly the bad: It seems inevitable that students’ associations in New Zealand will become voluntary. Unless a Labour government is elected next year and a repeal is rushed through, in 15 months time compulsory students’ associations will be no more. Once they are voluntary I doubt that any future government will return them to being compulsory.

And the good: The bill is nowhere near as bad or as nasty as Australia, the bill allows for universities to collect fees at enrolment, it sets out clear mechanisms for complaints, and while changing the structure of associations will not kill them (if associations are smart and work with the changes).

And the missing: The bill repeals the current definition of a students’ association and fails to replace it. This is a minor technicality but should be fixed.

The actual details of the bill:

The bill repeals the following sections of the Education Act 1989:

  • Section 171(2)(e) which defines student membership of university councils. However, it is replaced with a requirement that the university council conducts an election for up to three student representatives. This is much better than repealing all student representation on councils. This means that no longer will the students’ association President be guaranteed a seat at the council. Although they are likely to be elected by the students to the council as those who are involved in students’ associations will also be most likely to vote in council elections.
  • Section 229A, 229B, and 229C. These sections currently lay out what constitutes a students’ association (missing from the new bill), how membership fees are collected, how to object, how to vote to change from compulsory to voluntary.

The bill inserts new sections covering:

  • Undue influence, a person cannot pressure a student into becoming a member of the association, not becoming a member, or leaving the association. This clause is good because it sets out clear requirements for both sides. The following section details how a complaint about undue influence is handled by the university council. Furthermore the council has powers to dismiss a complaint if it is not on reasonable grounds. This will stop time wasting and political grandstanding by those who hate students’ associations altogether.
  • Membership fees, students’ associations can continue to collect membership fees. Furthermore universities can collect membership fees on behalf of associations at enrolment. Students’ associations can also charge fees to non-members for services they use. All of this is simple, straightforward and a good working model.
    However, one issue I have with this is the ability in the bill for councils to withhold funds if they believe that a students’ association is not complying with its constitution. This could end up in a massive spat between the university and the association if someone accuses it of not following its constitution on political grounds rather than actual problems. There needs to be some form of dispute resolution if a council withholds fees and the students’ association disagrees with the reasoning of the council in doing so.

I think this version of the bill is workable and while not something that any students’ association wants it is fair to both sides of the political argument. The only major technical flaw in the bill is the missing definition of a students’ association. The current bill has clause 229A(b)

The students association that, at the commencement of this section, is recognised by the council of the institution as being the institution’s students association for the purpose of representation on the council, is the students association at that institution for the purposes of section 171(2)(e), this section, and sections 229B and 229C.

This bill needs a similar clause maybe reading:

The students association that, at the commencement of this section, is recognised by the council of the institution as being the institution’s students association for the purposes of section 171(2)(e), this section, and sections 229B and 229C.

This prevents multiple students’ associations or rouge groups claiming to be an institution’s students’ association and rather has the council spell it out.

—
Footnote: I have used compulsory rather than universal in describing current membership of students’ associations as this is the same word as used in the current Education Act.

SUBMISSION on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill

Posted on by Brad Heap

Submissions on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill closed earlier today. This is the full text of my submission and why I do not support the introduction of Voluntary Students’ Association Membership.

To the Education and Science Committee

Introduction

This submission is from Bradford Heap. I am a PhD student at the School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. From 2005 – 2007 and 2009 I was a student at Massey University’s Albany Campus. During 2006 – 2008 I was on the Executive Committee of the Albany Students’ Association Inc. In 2008 I served as the President of the Association and as the internal students’ association representative on Massey University’s Council.

I do not wish to appear before the committee to speak to my submission.

I can be contacted at:

Summary

I oppose the intent of this bill because:

  • Freedom of Association is already secured through section 229A clause 5 – 7 of the current Education Act 1989. There is no need to remove compulsory automatic membership of students’ associations when there is already a working and effective mechanism for students to object to membership.
  • This bill will result in the loss of student representation on both a local and national level. Currently at a local level many students’ associations organise and run independent student representation through such mechanisms as class/paper representatives, college boards, university committees and ultimately the Council. On a national level students’ associations work together through the likes of the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations Inc., University Sport New Zealand Inc. and Student Job Search Inc. to provide representation and lobbying for students in a unified manner.

If compulsory membership of students’ associations is removed this unified and centralised organisation of representation will be lost. At this point there is no guarantee that the university will have an independent body of students to consult with. In lieu of this there are two outcomes:

1)                        Universities will no longer consult students. The outcomes of this would be very bad for good decision making, or

2)                        Universities will consult focus groups of students. However, there is no guarantee that these students will not be handpicked by the university to represent the views that the university wants to hear.

Most importantly there will be a loss of an independent student voice. If tertiary institutions have to start directly funding student representation groups there will be a perception of collusion over the outcomes of that representation and engagement that is not currently present.

  • There will be a loss of advocacy. Not all problems faced by students are representative of all students or need to be dealt with at a university committee level. Many issues faced by students are at relatively small scale and can be resolved through speaking to a particular lecturer or head of department. Unfortunately most students do not know the correct means for raising an issue, or if any issue is raised and there is not a satisfactory response how to take the issue to a higher level. Independent advocacy services provided by students’ associations help to deal with these issues and ensure that issues are resolved as quickly and effectively as possible, student advocates both employed and volunteers are trained in problem resolution and know the processes of the university and who to deal with to resolve problems. If Voluntary Student Membership is introduced the loss of funding from a decrease in student levy income will put these vital services under threat.
  • The most important service that students’ associations provide is clubs. Student Clubs are the lifeblood of student life and culture in New Zealand. There are many established clubs within universities that have stretched back many decades. However, these clubs are under threat with the introduction of Voluntary Student Membership. The primary source of funding for the continued running of these clubs is through the allocation of club grants provided by the students’ associations. Without funding many of these clubs would become the realm of the rich who can afford high membership and equipment fees while ordinary students will be locked out of the true university experience.
  • Most importantly I oppose this bill because of the direct effects it will have on all students as already seen through the introduction of Voluntary Student Unionism in Australia. It is this last point that I would like to address in detail.

The Current Australian Situation

In 2010 I have begun my PhD and have been studying on the University of New South Wales Kensington Campus in Sydney for the previous two months. During this time I have become a member of the students’ union, a number of clubs, and been elected a postgraduate student representative for Computer Science and Engineering.

I should state clearly that the sky has not fallen in through the introduction of Voluntary Student Unionism in Australia. However, it is clear that there has been a dramatic loss of representation, advocacy, and services provided by the student union.

The only representation provided by the student union is through the Student Representative Council, effectively the same as the Executive Committee at most New Zealand students’ associations. This committee is democratically elected each year and each member of the committee has a portfolio role – e.g. women’s rights, environmental issues, etc. This committee liaises with the University over issues, but there is no legal or guaranteed framework for any representation or dialog.

Furthermore any representation at a college/faculty level is not organised by the students’ union. Within the School of Computer Science and Engineering, where I am studying, there is a committee of student representatives, this committee while voted for by students, is organised by the university, and operates on an ad hoc basis advocating for students by bringing issues to the attention of the school but there is no framework in place for how issues are dealt with.

On the student services side of the union there are not many services that are provided free to students. The big events held like bands, dance parties, and other student night type stuff are all user pays and run on a competitive basis against other local venues. But more importantly it is the student clubs that have suffered. All clubs charge a membership fee and in the past where a lot of funding has come from students’ associations, instead there are heavy membership fees upfront and additional funding is provided to some clubs by university faculties. Again the biggest problem with university funding of student bodies is that they are at the whim of the university for continuation of this funding from year to year and for the most part there is little in the way of set policy or openness surrounding the allocation of these funds.

Conclusion

At the end of the day the issue of voluntary verses compulsory membership of students’ associations comes down to two components, money and ideology. One ideology says that students’ associations should be entirely voluntary and user pays, the other is those who see the benefits of a compulsory system where the collective greater good is advanced. The largest problem with a user pays argument in students’ associations is what about those who get up against the wall with their finances at university and are not able to pay the bills and face the prospect of being forced out of university or their accommodation, when they go to their students’ association for financial or food help; is it expected that they be asked to pay for that help up front when they can’t afford to pay anything more?

BREAKING NEWS: VSM back on Agenda

Posted on by Brad Heap

No right turn is reporting that Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill (Roger Douglas) has been drawn from the ballot this morning:

http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2009/08/drawn_20.html

10 months. That is how long National has been in power for before this issue came up again. I sure as hell hope National do not support it. Everything they have said so far is that they support the current law. So leave it as it is.

More to follow later.

Be afraid, very afraid

Posted on by Brad Heap

I have been very busy over the last few weeks and haven’t had much time to blog or do anything much online. But I have been trying to follow the Police Spying Scandal because as the days role on it is getting deeper and much murkier.

Okay for those who haven’t been following the news recently here is a quick update: Last Sunday the Sunday Star Times (Newspaper) revealed that an key political activist was actually a police spy who had infutrated a number of left wing groups. He was reporting to the SIG a group set up after the 9/11 attacks in America to combat terrorism. The Police immediately claimed that the SIG was acting within its boundaries protecting NZ and not spying on activist groups. Since then it has been revealed that the Police through its SIG Counter-Terrorism Spying Taskforce has been spying on a number of political action groups, climate change groups, Greenpeace, the Green Party (yes the political party in parliament), a number of major workers Unions incluing UNITE, and the NDU, and students’ associations especially VUWSA.

Now this is nuts. There is a clear boundary between what is terrorism, what is a terrorist action, what is a threat to national security and the actions of small political lobby groups. I personally believe that if you have done nothing wrong then you should have nothing to hide. But that is not the issue here, the issue is police used a counter terrorism unit to spy on many harmless, democratic and legal political lobby groups.

There are two columns in today’s HoS which add more to this story (and be sure to read the other articles as well there are heaps of them – google is showing over 100 stories written already (http://news.google.co.nz/news?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&nolr=1&hl=en&q=police+spying&btnG=Search+News)

The first is Bill Ralston who calls for an inquiry into the issue:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10549093

Initially John Key, sensibly, said only those who “present a real or credible risk to the safety and security of communities” should be the subject of such investigations. He then passed the issue on to Judith Collins to sort out.

She spoke to Broad and promptly ruled out any need for an inquiry, saying Broad had assured her police were “meeting their responsibilities”. Hiding behind the old “Governments can’t interfere in police operations” line, Collins blithely accepted Broad’s assurance they were not targeting groups but individuals who might commit criminal acts.

Wrong. Emails from their spy show the SIG was targeting the activities of entire unions, including the EPMU, the CTU, the Maritime Union, and the Unite union.

Its spy also infiltrated the Green Party and reported on the plans of Greenpeace, conservation groups, climate change organisations, animal rights groups, and anti-war protesters.

Oh yes, police also used SIG surveillance to protect its own vested interests, targeting anti-Taser protests and investigating a man who is trying to take action against the police after he was pepper-sprayed.

The SIG was set up and received funding after 9/11 to combat the threat of terrorism. None of the groups listed even remotely come near that description. The SIG seems oblivious to the fact that peace groups are, by their very nature, largely peaceful in intent and, ironically, one of its targets, Greenpeace, is the only victim of terrorism in New Zealand.

You have to watch those dangerous unions. In emails to the SIG, its spy breathlessly reports that the NDU and EPMU were having a day of action and locked-out workers would be planning pickets and making banners. Shocking criminal acts that surely imperilled the safety and security of the community.

What has happened is that, in the hysteria after 9/11, the police got a big budget to set up the SIG which then found it had no real terrorism to combat. To protect its budget and its reason for being, the SIG and police then busied themselves with trivia.

Collins has more than enough evidence to show the SIG was acting outside its brief. She should set up a ministerial inquiry, with a QC or someone like the Ombudsman, verify the facts and get serious about cutting costs by axing the unit.

Yes that is right. The police are spying on the only group ever in NZ to have been targeted by terrorism! (and for those with poor knowledge of NZ history it is a reference to the 1986 bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour by the French Secret Service.

The second column is by Matt McCarten head of the Unite Union and a victim of the police spying:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10549080

These groups which were being spied on are incorporated societies carrying out legitimate work on behalf of their members and supporters. They are democratic and transparent. No one has ever accused them of criminal behaviour, let alone terrorism.

…

Gilchrist started collecting information on our union three years ago. At that time we were running our SupersizeMyPay campaign, set up to abolish youth wages and raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour.

Through a combination of employer negotiations, community demonstrations and parliamentary lobbying, we won. Tens of thousands of workers have since had their wages lifted by more than $3 an hour, in large part because of this campaign, and youth wages were scrapped.

Are our spies seriously suggesting minimum wage workers and school kids working in fast-food restaurants were part of a budding al Qaeda network?

The actions of this spy unit go to the heart of our democracy. Frankly, their actions are worse than the so-called danger they claim to want to protect us from. What could be more of a threat to our society than a secret police force paying undercover “Walter Mitty-type” informants to infiltrate and secretly report on civil and political groups? Isn’t that what totalitarian governments do?

…

A meat worker who ran as a communist candidate in the last election was detained at Auckland Airport for four hours after returning from Australia. She was subjected to a humiliating strip search. Nothing was found. But what was disturbing is the Customs officers spent the whole time grilling her on her political activity and were well aware of her history.

The only way you can explain this is that a file has been compiled on her and given to other state agencies. If this doesn’t worry New Zealanders, we’re in real trouble.

…

The new Prime Minister, John Key, should agree to the request by the targeted unions for a full inquiry. If the unit has been spying on organisations carrying out lawful work, it should be disbanded and the Police Commissioner sacked.

In future, when our political leaders tell us we need greater police power to fight terrorism, just be aware it has little to do with keeping us safe and everything to do with keeping us under control.

And so we end up back with a scene from V For Vendetta.

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Student Debt Debated In The House

Posted on by Brad Heap

Go the Greens and New Zealand First! Good on you for standing up for students!

Tomorrow is going to be huge. Student Debt hitting 10 Billion is already in TV3 News as the third story, New Zealand Herald, Stuff, Scoop. And probably lots more.

http://tinyurl.com/3mw9zc

9. Debt, Student-Increases

[Uncorrected transcript-subject to correction and further editing.]

9. METIRIA TUREI (Green) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: Has he received any reports that student debt will reach the milestone of $10 billion this week; if so, what, if anything, does he plan to do about it?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Tertiary Education) : Yes, I have. Next month’s Budget will contain some measures to further increase student support, just like each of our first eight Budgets have already done. I acknowledge in passing the Green Party’s consistent support for progress in this area, and I also acknowledge that the National Party has consistently voted against such progress.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister stand by this statement, which he made in January of this year: “Each year under Labour-led governments student support has strengthened,”; if so, how does he reconcile that comment with the fact that the latest figures show that fewer students received a student allowance in 2006 than when Labour came to power in 1999?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The proportion of eligible students who are receiving the allowance now is well over half-it is about 57 percent-about three-quarters of whom are receiving the full allowance and one-quarter of whom are on the cusp, if the member might see what I mean. That is a great many more students than when we first came into office. I cannot express the difference in a percentage, however, because I do not have the figures with me.

Hon Mark Burton: In the light of the Minister’s response to the primary question, does he expect that total student debt will go on to reach $11 billion or even $12 billion; if so, why is the total debt still rising?

Hon PETE HODGSON: It is a very good question. The total debt continues to rise because, apart from inflation, there are more students, and more students are studying to a higher level. That is a good thing. It is a good thing. The question is what is happening in the life of an individual student, and what is happening there is that conditions continue to improve. They would say “too slowly”, but conditions do improve. The average debt is now rising more slowly than the average wage, with the average wage being the way that one pays the debt off. For that reason the average repayment of the debt has reduced from where it was in 2001, at 9½ years, to where it is now, at less than 6 years. So there is an improvement for students. The Greens have assisted with that improvement. We need to make more improvement.

Dail Jones: Does the Minister accept that the problem associated with student debt, with or without interest, can be substantially reduced by the introduction of New Zealand First’s policy, which for many elections has stated that New Zealand First will introduce a universal student allowance that does not require repayment?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Having a universal student allowance is the policy of a number of parties in this House. For my part, we are happy in our party to move towards, but not to, a universal student allowance, and this is why: I have other priorities. I need to pay attention to the quality of tertiary education. I need to ensure that the completion rates continue to rise. I need to ensure that the access-especially for Māori and Pacific Islanders, which is well below par-must be increased. These things all cost money and I happen to place them above the move to a universal student allowance. On the other hand, we make progress towards that universality in most years, and I hope we may do so again next month.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister disagree, however, that his inadequate student support policy, which includes interest-free student loans, has actually led to a 9 percent decline in the enrolment of students from poor backgrounds; and will he then make a real commitment to fulfilling the policy of the Green Party, the New Zealand University Students Association, and, obviously, New Zealand First, for having a universal student allowance, which would ensure that today’s students are able to have the same opportunity to learn, to buy homes, to choose when to have families, and to take control of their financial destiny, as he and most of the Labour Party leadership have also been able to do?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The short answer is no. I have no advice to the effect of a 9 percent reduction in whatever the member suggested might be occurring for New Zealanders who are from more modest backgrounds. On the contrary, there is documented evidence of higher access for Māori and Pacific Islanders, but not high enough, and of higher completion rates at level 7 and above, but not high enough. We have had some dramatic, outstanding improvements in education amongst Māori and Pacific Islanders in the tertiary sector in this country-especially in the years 2002 to 2006, which is the latest data available-but I would be the first to say, along with all of my colleagues, that progress is not yet sufficient.

Dail Jones: Is the Minister aware that student debt can begin to be decreased by increasing the current parental income maximum for a student allowance from $71,000 before tax, if one lives in a parental home to study, and just over $77,000 before tax, if one lives away from a parental home-the current rate-to, say, $100,000 before tax, if one lives in a parental home to study, and $105,000 before tax, if one lives away from a parental home, which would cost an estimated, and I emphasise “estimated”, additional expenditure of about $300 million to the Government, and surely this would be a good investment in education and in the future of New Zealand and it would encourage qualified people to stay in New Zealand?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, I am aware of that, which is why, although the member was not able to be with us, this Government shifted parental thresholds three times in each of the last three Budgets-by 20 percent, 10 percent, and 10 percent-and we do not rule out the possibility in the future of a further shift in the thresholds.

Metiria Turei: Is the Minister aware that the Minister of Finance recently told the TaxAgents’ Institute: “We have real ambition for New Zealand and our economy. And we know that by refusing to burden our children and grandchildren with a legacy of debt, we are removing one of the biggest obstacles to realising that ambition.”; if so, does it worry him that the Minister of Finance is so ignorant of the $10 billion legacy of student debt left by this and previous Governments, which has a proven, disproportionate exclusionary impact on women, Māori, and the least well-off New Zealanders?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Just a couple of comments in response: first, the level of participation of, say, New Zealand Māori in our universities is still below that of, say, New Zealand Europeans, but it is getting better, not worse. The member shakes her head-she needs to go back and look at the statistics. Second, I did not have the pleasure of being in the room when the Minister of Finance made his quoted remarks, which is a shame, of course, but I would not mind betting he was talking about KiwiSaver, and that is a magnificent policy that will change the face of this country.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table a chart showing that the numbers of students receiving an allowance in 2006 are 5,000 fewer than in 1999.

* Leave granted.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table an article describing how the under-35s are now effectively shut out permanently from financial security.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table “Freedom from debt, freedom to prosper”-the Minister’s speech to the TaxAgents’ Institute of New Zealand given in March this year.

* Leave granted.

Dail Jones: I seek leave to table a document to introduce a universal student allowance, being New Zealand First’s election policy.

* Leave granted.