Recently Sir Roger Douglas introduced the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill to Parliament. This legislation has the potential to effectively decimate students associations but many students and non-students alike will be asking as to why is students association membership compulsory on many campuses around the country?

People might validly ask this question because trade union membership is now voluntary and no one is compelled in this country to join a political or advocacy group against their own will. Arguments like this one are what Douglas and his Act colleagues are advancing in order to defend their position on this issue. After all Act, as a free market, libertarian party, are wedded to the idea of individual freedom as part of their neoclassically-derived principles. On closer inspection though, their arguments begin to fall apart.

Firstly, what about the notion of freedom of association being violated? For one thing, under current incorporated societies legislation, it is possible for any member of a student's association to bring forward a motion at a student general meeting to wind up an association and/or make membership voluntary. But so far, no one from the student right has come forward (from what I can gather) anywhere in the country to place such a motion on the agenda of a student meeting. Plainly, this is illustrative of the general disorganisation of right wing oriented student organisations on campuses around the country in that if they can't muster support for such a motion or even organise themselves effectively, then they have to resort to asking (like children who can't get their own way) their Act and National 'Mummy's and Daddy's' in Parliament to do their bidding for them by introducing legislation to make it, ironically, compulsory for students association's to go voluntary.

Secondly, without a collective student body it would be impossible to provide many of the additional support services that tertiary institutions could not afford to provide on their own account. At Otago University (where I am a mature postgraduate student) the Otago University Student's Association (OUSA) provides funding for clubs and societies, student advocacy, social events and subsidises media including student radio (Radio One) and Critic (the student news magazine). Therefore, without an independent, strong and autonomous student organisation on both my own and other tertiary campuses around the country, there would no be independent voice available to speak up for ALL students (irrespective of their political views) on issues that concern us and these include fee setting, legal issues and general welfare matters, to name but a few. Moreover, tertiary institutions might seek to exert greater control over the lives of students as has been the case at Otago with their introduction of a Code of Conduct (otherwise acrononymically known as the CoC) which makes all students potentially subject to the University's disciplinary processes if they commit illegal acts off campus as well as within it in order to supposedly uphold and protect the institution's 'good reputation'. For those who are old enough to remember, it was student's associations who were also instrumental in ending the ban on mixed gender flatting during the 1960s and 1970s and this means that student bodies have defended (and continue to) the civil liberties of their members as well!

Thirdly, and leading on from the second point, the economics of making student's associations voluntary  needs to be examined further. Student organisations throughout the country levy a fee (which is democratically set by mass student meetings) which is then added to  fee accounts at the beginning of each academic year and/or semester. In many cases (such as at Otago University) this fee is not more than $150 per year and for that, all students get a good deal through the provision of services (such as those outlined above), on either a free or very low cost basis. I well remember the brilliant posters devised as part of the OUSA campaign to keep student membership compulsory during the 1999 referendum on this issue. These posters (part of a campaign devised by then student activist and now National Distribution Union official and National Radio political commentator, the brilliant Andrew Campbell) pointed out the stark reality in that if membership became voluntary, then students could be looking at either forking out hundreds of dollars more to access services like gymnasiums, or seeing them cut entirely. Opponents of the keep it compulsory campaign at the time labelled this publicity as scaremongering but this scenario would likely have come to pass had Otago students opted for voluntary membership (and one only has to venture as far as Australia to see the impact that voluntary student membership has had  there!)

Fourthly, and this now winds into my next and wider point about freedom of association. Under current legislation (which was passed by the National-New Zealand First Coalition Government), students can petition their relevant tertiary institution to hold a referendum on students association membership at any time. I can remember the 1998 referendums which were held on all campuses around the country (as these first referenda were mandated to be held compulsorily within all tertiary institutions at the time - another delicious irony). At these referenda, the vast majority of students at tertiary institutions around the country voted to retain compulsory membership and by substantial majorities too. Therefore, students at that time democratically determined that they wanted to be members of their campus students associations and if this exercise were to be repeated again, I have no doubt that similar results would be returned.

What the Tories (National and Act) are determined upon this time is to smash student's associations once and for all. They see these organisations as the last bastion of organised opposition to the New Right and its agenda to corporatise and then privatise tertiary education provision in this country. Effectively, if this law is passed then this objective will be more easily realised.

While compulsion may have its downside, the current status quo arrangements grant to all students the right of democratic representation within their own tertiary institution and the ability to be effectively heard outside of it. Therefore, with universal membership, students of all political persuasions have the right and the ability to influence their own collective destiny.

With Roger Douglas's legislation, this ability could be taken away. That's why I am supporting the fight for continued compulsory/universal membership of student unions for so long as their own members desire.