Legal Beagle: The Inexorable Advance
289 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 Newer→ Last
-
After taking time to re-read all the comments here I am now ready to offer my considered opinion.
First I would like to couch the argument in historic terms.
For clarity I propose to use the term "Student Union" as opposed to "Student Association" so the term "Freedom of Association" is not used to conflate two separate but related issues.Very few would argue that the "Oxford University Student Union" was not part of that esteemed collegiate.
Reflecting the collegiate nature of the University of Oxford itself, OUSU is both an association of Oxford's more than 19,000 individual students and a federation of the affiliated Junior Common Rooms (JCRs), Middle Common Rooms (MCRs) and other Constituent Organisations that represent all undergraduate and graduate students at the University's 44 colleges and Permanent Private Halls.
However.
Individual students can opt out of membership, though this is rarely exercised. Individual Common Rooms can also disaffiliate, and disaffiliation debates or votes are perennial fixtures of some Common Rooms.
This state of affairs is, I believe, one that you (Graeme) would not have a problem with.
The crux of the argument has two parts, part one is, to what extent should Government, in the form of Mr.* Douglas' amendment, interfere with the Governance of our universities? The second part is, does the Bill of Rights trump existing legislation?
The answer to the second part is a simple no. Part 1 Section 4So this leaves us with part one.
Mr. Douglas claims " The current legislation fails to guarantee individual students a satisfactory opportunity to withdraw from associations, and sets the bar too high for those who wish to make membership of a students association voluntary."
Ref
Section 229A states "A students association may exempt any student from membership of the association on the grounds of conscientious objection; and, if exempted, the association must pay the student's membership fee to a charity of its choice."I propose that the fee be refunded and the provision for a charitable donation either be repealed or held as an option. He, rather disingenuously infers that an individual should be able to cause a Student Union to move from Compulsory status to a voluntary one.
The procedure for Compulsory membership to be reduced to one of a Voluntary membership is already enshrined in Section 229B, part three states' "A request under subsection (1) or subsection (2) is not effective unless it is accompanied by a petition requesting the vote, signed by at least 10% (as calculated according to figures provided by the Ministry) of all students currently enrolled at the institution."
If Mr Douglas considers this "setting the bar too high" then I suggest he has no love for Democracy.To conclude,
I would say that with minor modification (the dropping of the charitable donation and the refund of the fee) the status Quo should satisfy even the most ardent Liberal Democrat and as such reduces Mr Douglas' amendment to nothing more that a puff of ill wind that would do no good and goes against his own principal of "Laissez-faire"How does that grab ya?
* I do not recognise the acquired Honorific. (Sir)
-
1) Good post, Steve Barnes.
2) I actually agree with Graeme and Eddie that " Freedom OF Association" is intended to include Freedom FROM Association. (Much like how when we are speaking of 'Freedom OF Religion' it is taken to include freedom from religion, unless otherwise clear it is not meant that way for some reason.)
3) Steve says: "Mr. Douglas claims " The current legislation fails to guarantee individual students a satisfactory opportunity to withdraw from associations, and sets the bar too high for those who wish to make membership of a students association voluntary."
Then:
"Section 229A states "A students association may exempt any student from membership of the association on the grounds of conscientious objection; and, if exempted, the association must pay the student's membership fee to a charity of its choice."
How does that not satisfy Graeme's concern? Students are not forced to enter an association they don't want to. Where's the problem?
-
Wait on...
Is the judgment to exempt someone entirely up to the SA?
-
How does that not satisfy Graeme's concern? Students are not forced to enter an association they don't want to. Where's the problem?
...
Wait on...
Is the judgment to exempt someone entirely up to the SA?
Pretty much - kind of. There are a few problems with the current set-up.
In the case of VUWSA, the students' association about which I know the most, the policy is as follows:
1. Any student may apply in writing to the President for exemption from membership on the [ground of ...] conscientious objection.
...
6. In the case of application on the grounds of conscientious objection the application must state clearly the grounds on which the student has a conscientious objection and the application will need to demonstrate a deeply held philosophical conviction that compulsory association infringes the applicants rights in ways and for purposes that are demonstrably offensive to the applicant.
7. In line with past precedents set by the University when dealing with conscientious objection, the President shall work with a definition of “conscientious” which shall include moral, philosophical and religious grounds, but not dissatisfaction with policies (that can be affected democratically) nor dissatisfaction with VUWSA services.
8. Any student granted exemption on the grounds of conscientious objection shall be required to pay a sum equivalent to a charity which has been endorsed by the Executive. In addition to the charities approved in Appendix 1 of this policy, the President shall refer any other charities requested to the Executive for approval.
9. If a student is dissatisfied with the decision, they may appeal to the Executive, who upon receipt of such an appeal shall form an ad-hoc committee comprising:
9.1 A student member of the Academic Board (not the President)
9.2 A senior academic appointed by the Executive
9.3 A past officer of the Association
10. The deliberations of the committee shall be final.
As you can probably guess, I've a few issues with this.
First, you will have noticed section 229A(7) of the Education Act:
Every students association must ensure that information about the rights in subsections (5) and (6) is available to students before enrolment, and must make rules for dealing in a fair, timely, and consistent way with applications for exemption under either subsection.
This has never occurred. The information isn't even available after enrolment. I only have a copy of the membership policy, from I quote above, because I served on the VUWSA executive. It isn't available on the university website and it isn't available on the VUWSA website - and nor is any information informing you of the right to apply to object. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the current exec had no idea there was a policy.
Secondly, it's a hell of a high threshold and applications (there are a few - I suspect from people, like you, who found the information by looking up the Education Act) are declined. It's not that students don't have to be members if they don't want to - they have to prove it would be demonstrably offensive to them on some moral, philosophical or religious ground.
Thirdly, having to apply through the president in the first instance just makes it that much harder for some people to do. There was a comment above (I think - it may have been a thread elsewhere about VSM) where someone noted that a president of an association had a practice of abusing those who enquired.
Fourth, even if you are successful in your application, you still don't get your money back, it goes to a VUWSA-approved charity, and among your options is the VUWSA-run foodbank.
If there was a form you could fill out on the university website, or at the university fees office, and giving writing your name, student ID and signing to say you wanted to leave, you got your money back/refunded off your student loan etc. (pro-rated if necessary), and information about this was actually available to students, my human rights objection would cease. I think a New Zealand Court would find that would be a reasonable limitation of the right to free association. It would be good enough to meet my objection, anyway.
As I noted in an earlier comment - there will still be arguments over whether that's the best system and whether it's optimal for society, students generally, students at a particular university, etc. - but you can have those arguments with other people =)
-
I voted for VSM for Otago back in 1999 I think it was and if I remember rightly my main reason was that OUSA for all its many good points was decidedly unrepresentative of the student body and therefore not particular legitimate. This I think was as much the student body’s fault as OUSA, if not more so, but it really rather grated that at best 20% of students would vote in any given election. I have no idea if such turnout figures still hold true or how they compare with other student unions. It could just be that students don’t care about voting
That being said, like Graham I would almost certainly always join such a group as I deem it to be useful. OUSA provided a lot of services that I enjoyed and generally seemed worth the money. The advocacy role it played was also rather useful, even if I didn’t particularly agree with either the Right or Left extremists (as many of us non involved students saw them at least) that jockeyed for influence or control. No offence intended to anyone reading who was part of either group at the time.
What concerns me though is that in some cases freedom not to be associated can result in no effective representation whatsoever. Like someone said at the start of the thread, most students are three year types who want to be in and out as quickly as possible while having a good time. This doesn’t bode well for institutional longevity and it makes student unions a different flavour of beast from say a church, local government or political party, all of which have some expectation of long term membership or involvement.
Which is why I would support an opt-out model, which is what we seem to have right now if I’ve understood Paul’s point, rather than a forced voluntary model where we gut the existing unions on the hope that we get the best of both worlds re freedom from association and effective student representation. It almost seems like trading one’s kettle for the promise of an espresso maker sometime in the future
-
This I think was as much the student body’s fault as OUSA, if not more so, but it really rather grated that at best 20% of students would vote in any given election. I have no idea if such turnout figures still hold true or how they compare with other student unions.
OUSA was always considered the model of participation with its 20% or so.
VUW had 21,380 students in 2008. Election turnout that year was considered high at 2657. Previous years (with similar numbers of students - 20,000+) saw:
2007 - 2432 voters
2006 - 1042 voters
2005 - 996 voters -
On that note - I just discovered that Roger encouraged his facebook fans to read my "excellent piece on VSM".
The person who commented on his link, saying that he couldn't agree because Graeme supported taxes. He's the person who I was arguing with last week about whether or not taxes breached his basic human rights as they were me applying force to him.
It was like I was 20 again, arguing with a libertarian in the pub over a beer.
-
Massey - conscientious objection is ok, $$ goes to charity; you can also apply on hardship grounds and if you succeed, you're stilll deemed a member and postgrads who have already clocked up two fulltime years worth of SA fees, but are still finishing their degrees can be exempt from paying but still members. This info is also published on the MUSA website.
-
First, because currently universities don't require their members to a join a student union (at least not any more).
Hang on, this is a bit suspicious. Obvs. universities tend not to, because they don't have to, but I strongly suspect that they have in the past, and would quite happily in the future.
After all, lots of the stuff that students' associations do is stuff that needs to be done: student representation on Council, organising Orientation events, the sort of stuff that would end up being done one way or the other. (Which is also why you wouldn't get a lot of the money that goes to the SA back; it'd just end up going to the university anyway.)
And arguing about the meaning of statements that would only be meaningful if the world were different is utter tosh, I have to say.
-
Which is why I would support an opt-out model, which is what we seem to have right now if I’ve understood Paul’s point, rather than a forced voluntary model where we gut the existing unions on the hope that we get the best of both worlds re freedom from association and effective student representation.
Ben, my memory is that most SAs in the 90s operated this way. The one I was most associated with, WSU, did but I confess it wasn't well administered and applications were routinely rejected. It was an error. I referred to VUWSA because, I recall, they pretty much automatically exempted people (but typically required a payment). A much smarter and fairer approach.
It frustrates me that a simple solution to this longstanding debate can't be agreed. The status quo seems reasonable and gives students that power to change the membership arrangements without undue hassle.
I can't help but think how frankly pathetic it is that Roger Douglas's return to parliament is to prosecute this issue.
-
Paul, that might just reflect the fact that ACT is heavily influenced by people still fighting the battles of the 1990s. If some of the student activists that were in Otago during my time have stayed in the party and are now in their late 20s/30s they might well have a significant influence on policy given the small size of the party.
-
Good post, Steve Barnes.
Thank you Mr. Parks, welcome to the gang of Steves. ;-)
...it's a hell of a high threshold and applications (there are a few - I suspect from people, like you, who found the information by looking up the Education Act) are declined. It's not that students don't have to be members if they don't want to - they have to prove it would be demonstrably offensive to them on some moral, philosophical or religious ground.
I agree. There seem to be deliberate obstacles to the opt-out process but this should only be a matter of oversight, as to who this oversight falls to could be open to debate but I do not think that body should be parliament. It is, surely, a matter for chancery I would have thought.
it really rather grated that at best 20% of students would vote in any given election.
Considering student are mostly teenagers with better things to do than vote it doesn't surprise me. ;-) But as active membership is not a major part of the activities of a Student Union it seems more than reasonable.
There are good examples of Student Unions providing much more than just a service to students and managing to be part of not only the University but part of the greater community. Student Radio is a good case in point. By the use of supplementary membership, the BCard, 95BFM has managed to sustain a unofficial school for music related industry training and... er whatever.
I have heaps more I could say but I must sleep....zzzzzzzzz
Good night ;-) -
Thought I'd post this as a reminder to those that thought Student Unions were lame.
Those were the days -
Can you do school vouchers next?
I can in four sentences. Here goes...Those were outcomes. Outcomes don't matter to Propertarians. If a solution provides objectively better benefits to most people, but interferes with property rights (the only valid human rights) then it's Wrong and Evil.
It doesn't matter that universities develop all the social cohesion of a group of people taking Microsoft exams, so long as the students sacred property rights are preserved.
-
referred to VUWSA because, I recall, they pretty much automatically exempted people (but typically required a payment). A much smarter and fairer approach.
I'm pretty confident that's not true. I was VUWSA treasurer once and I helped reject an application. There have been other rejections.
It frustrates me that a simple solution to this longstanding debate can't be agreed.
I'm not sure that's true. Let's send the bill to select committee and see - if Labour come out in favour of "tell the university you want to leave and get your money back" I have every confidence National would back that compromise.
The status quo seems reasonable and gives students that power to change the membership arrangements without undue hassle.
The hassle is most certainly undue. Students also only have the power to change membership arrangements if they can meet an incredibly high threshold. You also shouldn't have to now that there's an Education Act to find out about the right.
I can't help but think how frankly pathetic it is that Roger Douglas's return to parliament is to prosecute this issue.
Of course it wasn't. The Bill is Heather Roy's; she is now a minister and can't have a bill in the members' ballot. Now that it's been drawn, Roger is now proposing a bill about parole. Probably not his favoured pick either.
It is also a bill which can actually be advanced through members' legislation, and his party is part of the Government. Many of Roger's other ideas will be more complicated economy-based measures that he will try to feed into government legislative processes.
-
I'm pretty confident that's not true. I was VUWSA treasurer once and I helped reject an application. There have been other rejections.
It was true around 1993/4/5. I was president of WSU in '94 when the Laws bill was drawn and we quickly caucused practice at other unis. At the time, VUWSA typically exempted people on application and without much fuss. As I said upthread, I regret we didn't do the same.
I'm not sure that's true. Let's send the bill to select committee and see - if Labour come out in favour of "tell the university you want to leave and get your money back" I have every confidence National would back that compromise.
Perhaps, I don't doubt the sincerity of your views but my experience with others is that their agendas are far more political. Hence my sense that the status quo represents a reasonable position.
Of course it wasn't. The Bill is Heather Roy's; she is now a minister and can't have a bill in the members' ballot. Now that it's been drawn, Roger is now proposing a bill about parole. Probably not his favoured pick either.
It is also a bill which can actually be advanced through members' legislation, and his party is part of the Government. Many of Roger's other ideas will be more complicated economy-based measures that he will try to feed into government legislative processes.
I understand that Graeme, I've some experience in parliament, but coudn't resist the opportunity to point out how tragic Roger appears (at least from my perspective).
-
There seem to be deliberate obstacles to the opt-out process but this should only be a matter of oversight, as to who this oversight falls to could be open to debate but I do not think that body should be parliament. It is, surely, a matter for chancery I would have thought.
No-one is suggesting that people wanting to opt-out should apply to Parliament. And, of course, for your idea that students should instead apply through the University Chancery to take effect, would require Parliament to amend the law.
-
I used to be a supporter of compulsory membership, back in the last century when I was an undergraduate. I still might be, if I could at least choose which student to be a member of. Mind you, I thought that "compulsory church membership piece" made quite a compelling argument, so maybe my reason bone's a bit broken or something. Anyhow, the purpose of this post was mostly to have a winge: as a student of the University of Otago, ... Welllington, I have to pay for membership of an association from which the only benefits I receive are... um... well, maybe that "student voice" thing, if I needed it, which so far I haven't. All the other stuff (you know, the stuff that I might actually find useful - a gym, cheap medical services, etc.) is in Dunedin, where I have spent exactly two days in my four years of study. So I begin to see how voluntariness might have something going for it.
-
Lucy, as a student not based in Dunedin, you pay a drastically reduced membership fee, mostly the component which pays for membership of the two national bodies. If for some reason you're paying the full levy you should write to the fees office and ask them to charge you the same as other out of town students are charged.
While the gym is 40% owned by OUSA, the majority of its running costs are covered by the University's welfare and recreation levy.
The student health system is completely owned and financed by the university (again through your levy) and isn't anything to do with OUSA.
-
I'd object just as strongly to a law giving the residents of every street the power to decide whether membership of a neighbourhood association should be compulsory for all street residents.
Let me see if I understand your "freedom of association" argument.
Suppose every university in the country declare the students assocs disbanded. And then they took over all the functions the students assocs used to have, and organised a system of fees just like what they have now, and organised a system of elections of students to run this new module of the university. You'd have no problems with that because they did exactly the same things, run by the same elected students, charging the same, but they were no longer requiring students to "belong" to something?
Is that it? What you object to is not the services and fees but the belonging?
-
Let me see if I understand your "freedom of association" argument.
...
Is that it? What you object to is not the services and fees but the belonging?
I believe you do have it. There are some caveats around other rights that might be implicated depending how it was implemented etc., and there remain arguments about whether that your idea is a good system, but I can't see a freedom of association argument arising when students aren't forced to be members of something.
Suppose every university in the country declare the students assocs disbanded.
Of course, I would have a problem with this. If students want to join students' associations I don't see that the government/university should be stopping them. It wasn't at all central to your argument, but I think it's worth responding to anyway.
-
Graeme,
You do realise that the system I propose is not at all theoretical? It is how many US universities work?
(possibly 'most', though the voting aspect varies widely)
Also, Roger Douglas's VSM bill is very different than Michael Law's VSM bill was. I am surprised that you have not mentioned this. Laws bill would have forbidden the universities from doing many things in an attempt to prevent the universities from taking over the functions of the students assocs. Douglas's bill does not do that. So Douglas's bill doesn't mean you get to opt out of paying for the student newspaper, gym, cafes, student creche, etc, etc. *All* you get is the ability to not have your name listed as those who are members of the students assoc.
So I think your 'freedom of association' argument is angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff. A logical exercise with no practical effect. Which does remind me greatly of student politics, where the fighting is so bitter because the stakes are so small.
-
Graeme,
You do realise that the system I propose is not at all theoretical? It is how many US universities work?
Yes.
*All* you get is the ability to not have your name listed as those who are members of the students assoc.
Then why not let me have it =)
Also, Roger Douglas's VSM bill is very different than Michael Law's VSM bill was. I am surprised that you have not mentioned this.
It's not been particularly relevant to my argument.
I'm not making an argument for the passage of Roger Douglas' bill in its present form, nor an argument for the passage of Roger Douglas' bill amended to match Michael Laws' bill. I've been making an argument about how I consider the present law represents an unjustifiable position, having regard to respect for human rights, and asking that the position be changed to something justifiable.
The form the amendment to the Education Act takes isn't a particular concern of mine. If it means the Education Act no longer breaches the Bill of Rights Act, I shut up about human rights in relation to this matter.
-
I've been making an argument about how I consider the present law represents an unjustifiable position, having regard to respect for human rights, and asking that the position be changed to something justifiable.
That you have, and you've made it. I "unjustifiable" is a little incongruous with the preceding discussion, but that's ok. Rights-based discussions are fine, so far as they go, but ultimately unsatisfying since anyone of us could list a catalogue of rights sadly lacking.
I can't quite fathom how this debate continues, it seems so trivial on many levels. Still, I get that the student plurality is far more diverse today than it was when I was active. I get that the liberal progressives are but a minority where once they were well, everywhere... but, it's just not so offensive, universal or compulsory membership, it's just not... and it pales in significance compared with all manner or issues... issues Roger's apparently incapable of addressing... he's a bit senile yeah, can we say that?
-
it pales in significance compared with all manner or issues... issues Roger's apparently incapable of addressing... he's a bit senile yeah, can we say that?
If you prefer to avoid issues and conduct politics based on personalities you say whatever you like about him.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.