Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
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.
-
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 -
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 think you owe plenty o' beers to the people who argued with you the last few days.
Okay.
Now I'm sure we're at cross purposes.
I support voluntary membership of students' associations at New Zealand universities and other tertiary institutions.
I do not support universal membership of churches.
I replied in response to this, from Daniel Kalderimis:
I may be missing something here, but isn't there something highly ironic about your stance on universal student association membership, given your advocacy - in your previous post - of universal church membership, where you said as follows:
"And it just doesn't seem fair that we all benefit from their existence, but don't all contribute to them. The freeloaders in society – most of us, I fear – gain these substantial benefits but offer no assistance: I wonder if it isn't time for a little more universality. Given the role they play, why aren't all required to play their part?"
Unless that entire post was a carefully constructed satire, it seems you are playing on both sides of the fence.
That entire post - in which I argued for universal church membership - was the satirical one.
-
I'd rather you went down the road of "Sir Roger Douglas - the Musical" myself.
On that note - I just discovered that Roger encouraged his facebook fans to read my "excellent piece on VSM".
"She says she always has to ask her father's permission before having lunch with fascists" is still a pretty good line.
Was looking for the argument itself myself, unfortunately Youtuber Kelseyshuan only seems to uploaded the bit before and the bit after...
-
Can you do school vouchers next?
But what would the analogy be?
Hmmm. An argument about how state housing assistance should only be provided through public housing estates ... and that those who choose to live in the private sector because they think it suits their family or children better are undermining public housing and shouldn't expect government assistance?
That could work. But the follow-up straight post wouldn't be particularly indignant.
-
Unless that entire post was a carefully constructed satire, it seems you are playing on both sides of the fence.
It was carefully constructed satire.
-
Just so y'all know.
A members' ballot was held today.
The Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill in the name of John Boscawen was drawn.
hat-tip Trevor Mallard.
-
For me, there are such things as community rights, and the student community have a right to exercise these where they collectively choose to do so.
I don't think anyone is arguing against this. The one "right" I'm trying to remove from the student community is the right to force me to be a member of an incorporated society of which someone may not want to be a member - feel free to argue their doing so is a reasonable limit on an individual student's right to freedom of association, but elevating that choice to the level of a right seems a little far-fetched.
Why would I want to stop the student community from collectively organising? I support collective action. I just don't see why this specific case your right to choose to associate with someone is more important than their right to choose not to associate with you.
If, as you say, the current Bill of Rights makes it unlawful for a university to require its members to join a student union, why has there been no challenge in the courts?
First, because currently universities don't require their members to a join a student union (at least not any more). And second, because someone would have to bring one, and the only associations of students wealthy enough to afford it probably wouldn't want to - this will not be the only matter where legislation falls short of constitutional guarantees that is as yet untested in out courts.
On the broader question, you create an unbalanced situation where a wealthy, right-wing foreigner has the right to use their NZ customers money to propagandise freely, whilst poorer, left-wing students do not.
That's what I'm fighting against - left-wing students' right to propagandise freely with compulsorily-acquired student money? Thank you! You've made my argument a lot easier!
-
But Souter doesn't need one. He has a monopoly of buses in Wellington as well as receiving state funding (in much the same way as Vic Uni does for its domestic students).
...
It comes back to my point on state and non-state actors: a powerful person or corporate doesn't *need* the backing of law to impinge on human rights.
That it is difficult to fight what might be considered human rights violations by one private entity I don't consider a particularly good reason to fight human rights violations by some different public entity.
I should refuse to assert my rights under the Bill of Rights against my government because you have a harder time asserting your rights against some private foreigner? I feel for you, but I don't really see how my giving up this fight would assist yours...