Blair
Mulholland
Life Lived Laissez-Faire
Life Lived Laissez-Faire
Welcome to the website of
social and political commentator Blair Mulholland. Here you'll
find commentary on current events, as well as details of my stance on various issues, my career and background, my twin daughters, and some of my other interests and hobbies.
Submission to the NZ Parliament on the Voluntary Student Membership Bill
I support this Bill being passed by the New Zealand Parliament.
I served as a member of the Student Executive of the Auckland University Students' Association in both 1998 (when it was compulsory for students to join) and 2000 (when membership was voluntary).
The compulsory fee for students in 1998 was over $140. Some of this went to necessary services for students, but much of it was wasted on dubious expenditure. There was, for example, a $20,000 budget for the Education Action Group. Students who did not support the campaign were still required to pay for it. Being forced to spend money on political ideas one opposes is a fundamental violation of human rights and not something that should happen in a democratic society.
It is my opinion and experience that voluntary unionism has been hugely beneficial for the AUSA and for students since its introduction there in 1999. The Union was forced to streamline its services and cut back on unnecessary expenses and staff. A service agreement was made with the University to pay for those services they deemed necessary, so that students were only paying for comprehensively audited services such as advocacy. Union-owned enterprises were put into trusts and forced to make a profit. And the Union had to go out and persuade students of the merits of membership - and provide good incentives to join.
The result was that in 2000 when I served on the committee again, the Union fee had dropped to $30. From memory, about 3500 students joined that year. The following year, the fee was reduced to $0. While the University charged a service fee of its own, it was significantly less than the old Union fee and there was much better accountability for that money.
Students approved of the change. In 2001 and 2003, referendums were held on voluntary unionism at the University of Auckland, and the voluntary membership option won resoundingly by a 2 to 1 margin on both occasions. After passing by only 98 votes in 1999, those results alone tell us that students who have tasted the freedom to choose see themselves as better off.
There is still wastage, corruption and dubious political spending within voluntary unions, but there is generally less. Knowing one can lose or gain members from one's actions has a galvanising effect on student executives. And the difference, with AUSA at least, is that nobody is being forced to pay for it. AUSA is now funded by their commercial enterprises, which students and others can choose to spend money on as they see fit.
In conclusion, voluntary unionism is good for students, because they only pay for audited University services and are not forced to pay or support any other activities. It is also good for Unions, because it lessens wastage and ensures greater accountability lest people vote with their feet.
However, I do forsee one problem with this bill. There is a danger that a small clique will take over a union executive, deliberately make union membership unattractive, and use those assets, built up by students over many decades, for their own ends without any opposition. This happened to the Waikato Student Union, and also briefly with the AUSA in 1999, when the executive passed a motion limiting membership of the newly voluntary union to only themselves. Fortunately this was short-lived.
Therefore, I propose that this bill, as an additional amendment to the Education Act:
1) Prevent student unions from altering their own constitution in such a way as to alter their nature as a student union, or refuse membership without compelling reason to any student of the university they serve who wants to join;
2) Ensure that assets of a wound-up student union revert back to the University it serves.
I currently live in Corpus Christi, Texas, USA, so will not be appearing in person before the Select Committee. However, I welcome committee members' questions via email at blairmul@gmail.com.
I served as a member of the Student Executive of the Auckland University Students' Association in both 1998 (when it was compulsory for students to join) and 2000 (when membership was voluntary).
The compulsory fee for students in 1998 was over $140. Some of this went to necessary services for students, but much of it was wasted on dubious expenditure. There was, for example, a $20,000 budget for the Education Action Group. Students who did not support the campaign were still required to pay for it. Being forced to spend money on political ideas one opposes is a fundamental violation of human rights and not something that should happen in a democratic society.
It is my opinion and experience that voluntary unionism has been hugely beneficial for the AUSA and for students since its introduction there in 1999. The Union was forced to streamline its services and cut back on unnecessary expenses and staff. A service agreement was made with the University to pay for those services they deemed necessary, so that students were only paying for comprehensively audited services such as advocacy. Union-owned enterprises were put into trusts and forced to make a profit. And the Union had to go out and persuade students of the merits of membership - and provide good incentives to join.
The result was that in 2000 when I served on the committee again, the Union fee had dropped to $30. From memory, about 3500 students joined that year. The following year, the fee was reduced to $0. While the University charged a service fee of its own, it was significantly less than the old Union fee and there was much better accountability for that money.
Students approved of the change. In 2001 and 2003, referendums were held on voluntary unionism at the University of Auckland, and the voluntary membership option won resoundingly by a 2 to 1 margin on both occasions. After passing by only 98 votes in 1999, those results alone tell us that students who have tasted the freedom to choose see themselves as better off.
There is still wastage, corruption and dubious political spending within voluntary unions, but there is generally less. Knowing one can lose or gain members from one's actions has a galvanising effect on student executives. And the difference, with AUSA at least, is that nobody is being forced to pay for it. AUSA is now funded by their commercial enterprises, which students and others can choose to spend money on as they see fit.
In conclusion, voluntary unionism is good for students, because they only pay for audited University services and are not forced to pay or support any other activities. It is also good for Unions, because it lessens wastage and ensures greater accountability lest people vote with their feet.
However, I do forsee one problem with this bill. There is a danger that a small clique will take over a union executive, deliberately make union membership unattractive, and use those assets, built up by students over many decades, for their own ends without any opposition. This happened to the Waikato Student Union, and also briefly with the AUSA in 1999, when the executive passed a motion limiting membership of the newly voluntary union to only themselves. Fortunately this was short-lived.
Therefore, I propose that this bill, as an additional amendment to the Education Act:
1) Prevent student unions from altering their own constitution in such a way as to alter their nature as a student union, or refuse membership without compelling reason to any student of the university they serve who wants to join;
2) Ensure that assets of a wound-up student union revert back to the University it serves.
I currently live in Corpus Christi, Texas, USA, so will not be appearing in person before the Select Committee. However, I welcome committee members' questions via email at blairmul@gmail.com.