1Submission on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill 2009Education and Science Select Committee30

March 2010Nicholas CrossMay it please the Committee:

Introduction:

I set out bellow a written submission to the Education (Freedom of Association) AmendmentBill 2009.In summary I respectfully submit that:a)

he current system of compulsory membership of student associations breaches the right tofreedom of association.b)

he current system of compulsory membership of student associations has failed to providestudents with effective representation or services.c)

here will be no problems in the provision of services or negative effects on the quality of student life created as a result of the implementation of voluntary student membership.

his submission is made in my personal capacity only. I offer my support to this bill andcommend it to the committee.About me:-I am a student at Victoria University currently studying for an LLB/BA majoring in Economicsand Political Sciences.-I am interested in politics, and regularly find myself at odds with public positions taken byVictoria University Wellington Students Association (VUWSA) and the New Zealand Union of Student Associations (NZUSA) despite regular claims that these organisations represent allstudents.-I participate in campus life (i.e. by joining clubs) but regularly find the services provided byVUWSA inadequate and limited.-I can be contacted at:1 Hamilton road, HataitaiCell: 027 3144 995Home: (04) 976 9971chriss_cross.nick@hotmail.com I would like to make an oral submission to the committee.

reedom of association

Section 17 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights provides that:

Everyone has the right to freedom of association

Many commentaries of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, such as Butler and Butler,

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: A Commentary

(2005)

state that this section clearlyentails the right not to be compelled to join an association.3.

However the simplest and most authoritative evidence that a meaningful application of the concept of free association must include the right to not be compelled to associatecomes from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where Article 20

provides that:

Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association2)

No one may be compelled to join an association

Clearly the authors of this document and nations who voted for its adoption in theGeneral Assembly of the United Nations (including New Zealand) did not intend for itsarticles to be broken lightly, if at all. And yet at face value it seems obvious that thecurrent system of compulsory student membership conflicts with Article 20 and the NewZealand Bill of Rights Act.5.

Further analysis of the right to free association shows why it must necessarily includethe right not to be compelled to join an association, as well as the rightto join anassociation. If one accepts that the right to join an association stems from the right topursue or advocate for an interest or idea, then the right not to be compelled to join anassociation seems equally important. For example; an atheist or agnostic person mayconsider his decision to not be associated with organised religion to be a positiveassertion of his beliefs.6.

Broadly, supporters of compulsory student membership make two arguments toattempt to prove that the right to freedom of association is not violated by the regime of compulsory student membership

:1)

he Education Act contains a procedure for conscientious objectors to beexcepted from compulsory membership2)

he Education Act provides a procedure for referendum on compulsorymembership of student associations

onscientious objectors

Supporters of compulsory student membership argue that a system exists for individualswho conscientiously object to associating with students associations to leave those

Butler and Butler,

he New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: A Commentary

at paragraph 15.7.10.

http://www.udhr.org/udhr/art20.htm

http://www.saveourservices.org.nz/mythbusting.html, see Myth 1 and Myth 2.

3student associations. Conscientious objectors must prove to the student association thatthey have a sufficiently strong moral objection to being a member in order to leave.8.

I find this argument unconvincing for a number of reasonsa)

If one accepts that free association is an individual right, then it seems unfair to limit the justifications that a person can use to assert that right. An individual may have anynumber of personal preferences or reasons to not join a student association, and itshould be up to them to decide what constitutes a good or bad reason to not join anassociation.

his is particularly true when considering that under the status quo studentsassociations themselves are the ones who decide whether or not to exemptconscientious objectors from compulsory membership, based on whether or not theirobjection seems conscientious enough.b)

A large percentage of students are apathetic on political issues, or have no particularpolitical opinions.

hese people also tend not to vote in student elections, and feel noparticular desire to opt out of.

o presume that these people not opting out constitutesthem supporting the positions of their students association is untrue and unfair.c)

he right not to be compelled to join a students association seems inconsistent with asystem which compels people to join students associations and then provides themwith an opportunity to leave those associations.d)

Section 229A(6) of the Education Act does not permit conscientious objectors to berefunded their membership fee

, that money is donated to a charity of the studentassociations choice. It seems highly degrading to require individuals with strong personalbeliefs (the only ones who tend to succeed in the conscientious objection process) whichmandate that they must not join a student association, to pay an annual fee and receivenothing in return in order to comply with those beliefs. Furthermore there seems to beno justification whatsoever to not give objecting students their money back, although itdoes serve to deter students from applying for an exemption.e)

Even though a system which results in money going to charity seems to at least be amethod for conscientious objectors to deny student associations the use of their money,it may not be all that it appears. Consider that the money is donated to a charity of thestudent associations choosing.

he VUWSA Food Bank is a registered charity, and isendorsed by VUWSA. VUWSA may choose simply send the money of conscientiousobjectors straight back into its own charity.f)

At the moment I believe that my student organisation; VUWSA does not adequatelycomply with section 229A(7) of the Education Act which requires that they ensureinformation about the right to be a conscientious objector is available to students beforeenrolment. Although this information is available if one reads the Education Act I havenever received it from VUWSA and suspect that most other students have not either.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1989/0080/latest/DLM185170.html