Salient feature writer Paul Comrie-Thomson looks at the select committee report on the so-called VSM bill and has a chat to a couple of the people who are concerned about the devastating impact it could have on students’ associations.
The acronyms VSM (voluntary student membership) and CSM (compulsory student membership) have filled the pages of Salient throughout 2010, with analysis of the pros and cons, as well as the possible and intended repercussions of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill that is currently working its way through Parliament. In case you have been living under a rock for the majority of the year, here is a brief explanation: Roger Douglas’ member’s bill, now sponsored by Heather Roy, essentially aims to remove the right for a student body to decide whether it should be compulsory or voluntary for students to join their institution’s students’ association. The bill would make joining a students’ association entirely voluntary.
As reported by Salient last week, the Education and Science Select Committee recently recommended the bill be passed into law, with a few amendments. This recommendation came in the face of an overwhelming 4837 submissions, of which 98 per cent were opposed to the bill. While the proposed legislation’s passage is by no means guaranteed, the select committee report, as well as indications from the National Party that they will support the Act Party bill, points toward the end of CSM in all likelihood.
The report
The Education and Science Committee report has recommended that the legislation provides that neither current nor prospective students at tertiary institutions be required to become a member of that institution’s students’ association. Moreover, it outlines that the legislation should “prohibit a person from exerting undue influence on any student or prospective student to become or remain a member of a students’ association, cease to become a member of a students’ association, or not become a member of a students’ association.” The report also recommends a complaints procedure to be instituted to deal with such undue influence.
The committee’s report also attempts to deal with the problem of freeloaders: students who take advantage of the services provided by a students’ association without paying fees. The recommendation outlines that “a person who is not a member of a students’ association may not be required to pay a representation fee to the association for any services that the association provides generally to the institution’s student body.” But, this does not prevent a students’ association from “either charging a person who is not a member of the association for the provision of a specific service to that person, at that person’s request; or being contracted by an institution or any other person to provide services to students of an institutions.”
The Committee has set 1 January 2012 as the commencement date for the legislation, in order to “give students’ associations about a year to prepare for the change to voluntary student membership”.
Gareth Hughes, one of the members of the committee, and tertiary spokesperson for the Greens, joined Labour in dissenting from the majority opinion. The report outlines that he could “see no justification for this legislation and agrees with the majority of submitters that the likely outcomes will be damaging to the tertiary education sector”.
In an interview with Salient, Hughes points out that there were a couple of key factors behind the select committee’s recommendation that the bill be passed, despite the overwhelming opposition. Firstly, he speculates that “the message was coming from [Tertiary Education Minister] Steven Joyce’s office, and for the National party, it is just really convenient to weaken students’ voice. They’ve been the thorn in the side of the Government for all the negative things they have done over the past couple of years, as well as under the past Labour government, and it is a way of disenfranchising students’ voice.”
In addition to this, Hughes comments, “the Whitireia corruption scandal happened at the worst possible time”. Police are investigating the Whitireia Independent Students’ Association, where $1 million of the association’s funds are largely unaccounted for. While students at Whitireia are not required to join the students’ association, the system is set up so it is difficult for a student not to be a member. Hughes adds, “I think the members of the committee heard really compelling and strong evidence from all the submitters, and I think they were changing their mind over the course of the submissions, but that [Whitireia scandal] happened when [the National] caucus was considering what to do on the bill.”
Hughes also mentions that the Education and Science Committee was heading towards recommending a system that largely supported the status quo with some minor adjustments, “but unfortunately, the National party have thrown it out.”
“The thing to stress is that what we have at the moment is a compromise, which gives students the right to choose. Some universities have gone VSM, like Waikato and Auckland and some have gone back to CSM, like Waikato. But, it is up to students to choose. What we found was that there is a vast degree of interpretation on the opt-on provisions. Some make it easier, and advertise and promote the ability to opt-out, and some don’t. Some allow donations to go back to a charity of the students’ choice versus a charity of the students’ association’s choice. So that could have all been cleaned up and made explicit. At the moment there is freedom of association and this is consistent with human rights, it could just be a little it clearer for students. But, what the National party has done is gone the hard ideological right-wing route. They won’t let Roger Douglas in cabinet, but they’ll let him pass laws.”
Summing up his reflections, Hughes comments, “I think this is just a good opportunity for the National party to do what they want to do, and that is to weaken student unions, remove students voice and disenfranchise their democratic role. And, it’s convenient because they can blame it on their right-wing coalition partner. But I believe that this is what they wanted.”
Where to from here?
While the legislation still has to pass through two further readings in Parliament, it is likely that the legislation will see passage through the House. In a show of absolute determination, VUWSA President Max Hardy has said that the “focus at the moment remains with defeating the bill. We’re trying to convince National that they don’t want to support this kind of ideological Act party attempt at destroying student representation on campuses. Because that is our focus, we’re not therefore focused on contingencies, on what we would do under VSM.”
Regardless, Hardy concedes that while their primary focus remains with defeating the bill, “it would be irresponsible not to start thinking about what VUWSA will look like under VSM.” As a result, VUWSA are in the middle of considering a number of different international VSM models, as well as engaging in negotiations with the university. While refusing to offer any indication of what VUWSA might look like in a VSM environment, Hardy assures that “any final decision will be put to students either by referendum, or by a general meeting of VUWSA. It will obviously be a democratic decision, because it is about how your students’ association will be structured in the future.”
From the perspective of opposition within Parliament, Hughes comments that he intends to “introduce some amendments to make the bill a bit more palatable. I am investigating extending the time limit for when it comes into effect and I am investigating whether we can bring back a referendum.”
He continues pointing out that a referendum would be an appropriate vehicle, simply because of “the irony of the bill. In the name of student choice, and freedom of association, the septuagenarian Roger Douglas is telling students how they must organise themselves. I want to give students the opportunity to vote on which system works for them.”
The needle and the damage done
While the possible effects of the bill have been well documented, Hughes points out that from his perspective “the really big worry is that student assets are going to get sold. This is what happened to Waikato. They flogged off assets that had been built up over decades, and this is going to happen all across the country. This is going to be the major outcome.
“In some cases, a hundred years of student diligence; of putting away a small amount of money and purchasing some assets is all going to go, which is a massive tragedy. So then, what most student unions are going to have to do to survive is reduce their fees to zero, and then sign a contract agreement with the institution like the situation at Auckland University. In their submission, they basically say that they survive in spite of VSM, and not because of it. They are really under the thumb of the institution and the institution can do what ever they want. So, (under VSM) the independence of student associations isn’t going to continue, because they are going to be under the thumb of institutions.”
Hughes continues: “The way students prioritise services versus the institutions can be totally different.
We are going to see controversial services scrapped. Some universities give crime updates on campus. Some do sexual risk audits of campuses—looking at where the dangerous areas are. Some students’ associations do a performance ranking on lecturers. None of that stuff is going to happen because it’s not in the institutions interest.”
Hardy’s concerns are related. Specifically, he sees the bill as the end of accountable student representation,
“which is important and one of the reasons why Victoria University and VUWSA opposed the bill.” He says that the lack of “direct student scrutiny”, and fewer volunteer hours means that the amount of money charged for the services VUWSA currently provides is likely to steadily increase.
Most importantly, Hardy believes it is essential that there are “people looking out for the best interests of
the students first and foremost, and not just the best interests of the institution. The bill really doesn’t achieve anything for the students. All it does is remove the ability of students to have a say in what services are provided on campus, what sort of education they receive at university, and where their money goes.”