Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Last week, the UoA Tramping Club realised it’s either going to raise its member fees, run less long form South Island trips or stop maintaining its club hunt/shelter out West Auckland because of the lost funding from AUSA. We are now in the process of turning down trips from international student that have extra costs (i.e. snow-based footware, specialiased tents) because we have no longer have means to fund them. Imagine telling an American student who flew here for the outdoor experience that he/she can’t go to Cook Strait because the club can’t fund the extra costs.
It's interesting to place this against argument that Students' Associations are like local government or actual government.
The overall principle isn't about the money, but this is still an interesting matter for discussion: it's sad for you and all, but is it really right that money is taken from students just as poor as you are to pay for your holiday excursions? Should my taxes or rates fund private tramping excursions? I guess I can see a role for a compulsory students' association in organising trips, or administering the assets of something like the UoA tramping club, but there's no way they should be regularly funding excursions.
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to Hilary Stace,
The universities will now require of students an increased student services levy and the university management will decide how and what services will be provided from that fee
1. Parliament just recently adopted an amendment to the Education Act to give the government some control of the substantial increases in student service type levies over recent years.
2. It's really not about the money.
Any assets students’ associations own that have been built up by their members over many decades will be privatised, so this is just another way to force asset sales.
The assets of students' associations are already privatised. What seems more likely is that the assets like a privately owned student union building (if there are any?) will be nationalised, and overseen by the publicly owned institutions.
So the whole thing is just about privatisation, less democracy and fewer services.
Then fight to make it about more democracy. Student Government through private trusts, incorporated societies and companies (which most students' associations will be a mix of) are a very limited form of student government. If you want real student democracy, don't fight to reinstate compulsion in membership of VUWSA, fight for greater student body control of VUW itself.
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Why not make all university fees optional:
Because here, at least, the fees are largely irrelevant. The fee does not affect the human rights argument.
-
Given that the public owns these universities, why shouldn’t it be able to make these conditions?
Because it is the state and the state can't legitimately do that. We live in a society where the government has promised not to do certain things: like torture people, or discriminate, or force religion on people, or diminish their free speech.
Universities were historically religious institutions. You had to be Christian, or you couldn't study/work there. Could the public legitimately decide: VUW is going to be an Anglican institution, and if you want to go there, you have to agree to abide by Anglican orthodoxy?
I say no it couldn't.
Private organisation? Sure. Whatever. But this isn't. When it's the state it can't discriminate. When it's the state, it can't force religion on people as a pre-requisite for anything. When it's the state, it can't make it a condition of entry that you agree not to protest against government policy. Private organisations can do this (perhaps within limits: some forms of discrimination will be appropriately banned), but the state cannot.
And the state especially cannot when it bans others from offering the same services in the market.
You're argument "don't want to be a member of a students' association, then don't go that university" is pretty stark, when, for example, a lot of people may only be able to attend one university for any number of reasons (family, financial, etc.); the only New Zealand university where you can study veterinary science is Massey. So you have to be member of MUSA, who cares? Again, what if it was religion? If you want to be a vet, you have to convert to Catholicism.
Yes, VSM is saying that an individual's rights exceed those of an institution, and of the people as a whole. Damn straight. The ban on unreasonable limitations on the freedom of expression undermines the ability of the government/people expressed via elections to say "you're on the dole, that means you can't protest against government policy." That's precisely the point of bill of rights and individual freedoms: some things are so sacrosanct that there is no legitimate democratic veto.
The fact that these services are administered by the student association rather than the university itself is neither here nor there. If the university administered these services/contracted them out, does it actually make a difference?
Yes, but it's got nothing to do with administration. And for me, anyway, it's not about money. It's about forced membership of an organisation that you might not want to be a member of.
Would it matter if the government organised food parcels for the hungry? No.
Would it matter if the government gave taxes to the salvation army to organise food parcels for the hungry? No. (well, not to me, anyway).
Would it matter if getting a government-funded food parcel meant one had to be a member of the Salvation Army (even if you didn't have to pay it any money, or ever attend a service)? Yes.Would I care (from a rights perspective), if VUW gave 5% of its student fee income (essentially a per point levy) to a group fairly elected from within and by the student body to spend on services for students? No. It's just a different way of the university spending its money.
But when someone is forced to be a member of a separate organisation, I care. From a human rights perspective, the distinction matters. -
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to Keith Ng,
Yes yes, Graeme, I’m getting to you! Just give me a sec.
Which isn't to say I don't agree with most of your points. It's just that the inaccuracies detract from the argument for anyone aware of them.
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to Keith Ng,
But their ideological argument (freedom of association) is deeply flawed.
What is it that is inherent about being a student at a university that means there should be a law that allows other students at that university to force you to be a member of a students' association entirely distinct from the university?
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to Danyl Mclauchlan,
It won’t be replaced by the institutions, but I predict we’ll see pretty much the same people advocating on behalf of students after VSM as we do now.
There's advocating and advocating.
We'll have the same people agitating on behalf of students collectively, but without someone picking up the tab, you're not going to have the same people advocating on behalf of students individually (e.g. the salaried VUWSA education co-coordinator, who assists students seeking help with academic grievances).
-
ACToids, if you really don’t want to be a member of a compulsory students’ association, they have opt-out clauses.
They really don't.
Not only do you not get the money back (a big deal for some, but not a particularly big deal from a freedom of association perspective), but they frequently say "no, we're not letting you out, because your reason for reason isn't good enough."
What you’re really arguing is that a university should not be able to set its own condition of entry (e.g. “You have to be a member of our students’ association”).
Some of them may be arguing this, but given it isn't the situation, it's not particularly relevant. Membership of a students' association is not a matter of contract between the university and the students (if it was, the libertarians might be okay with it, although they'd probably want the state monopoly on universities to go too). A student cannot go up to VUW and say "hey VUW, I'd like to come to your university, and bring my fee income your way, but you have a requirement that I join VUWSA; I'm not okay with that and will stay away, with my fee income, if you don't change your mind, or at least give me an exemption." It's a mandate in the Education Act, it has nothing to do with the institution, or the individual student.
-
In general, I think it is assumed that parties don't have uniform support, and that, on the whole, things mostly work out, if the electorates are reasonably-sized. The Royal Commission on the Electoral System recommended that if we were to have STV that 80% of the electorates should elect 5 MPs.
-
Legal Beagle: Now it's up to you, in reply to George Darroch,
(However, given NZ’s political environment, and those driving for change, I think we’d almost certainly get single member electorates).
We wouldn't get single member electorates. Preferential Voting in single member electorates is a separate option in the referendum (preferential voting (PV)).
If it's single transferable vote (STV) that tops the second question, it will be with multi-member seats. The size of those multi-member seats just hasn't been determined yet.