Who supports compulsory membership and why?
Three main groups support compulsory membership and they each do so for reasons that put the interests of their respective groups above the interests of individual students.
The first group that support compulsory membership can be called beneficiary organisations. These are organisations outside of tertiary institutions that benefit from the existence of compulsory membership. The benefit comes about because compulsory student associations tend to do and say things that support the goals and objectives of the beneficiary organisations. Beneficiary organisations tend to see compulsory associations as like-minded organisations and therefore support the laws that allow compulsory membership to continue to exist. Most beneficiary organisations and compulsory student associations tend to be left-leaning (more on this later on) so they regard the existence of each other as being mutually beneficial.
The second group to support compulsory membership can be called institutional players. This group includes the governors and managers of tertiary institutions – particularly the councils, vice-chancellors, chairs and chief executives of tertiary institutions. This group supports compulsory membership because a portion of compulsory student association fees are sometimes used to subsidise non-academic activities. This means that institutions can offer so-called services – such as orientation events – in their marketing to prospective students without the institution having to pay for the service. Institutional players also support compulsory membership because it creates a façade of universal representation; because all students are members, institutions are able to operate on the false assumption that the person elected as president actually represents all their fee-paying student clients. This pretence makes consultation with student clients much simpler for institutions. Rather than dealing with thousands of individual student customers, institutions can consult with one student politician who erroneously claims to represent all students. Despite outward appearances and the inconvenience of the occasional occupation or kerfuffle at a council meeting, institutional players also like the fact that compulsory associations kick up a stink about fees from time to time. Fees protests tend to support institutions’ perennial argument that they’re underfunded. Compulsory student association agitation can be used to put more pressure on government for increased funding.
Institutional players are also against the idea of students having choice when it comes to student association membership because they’re concerned the idea could be contagious. If students find they like the idea of being able to choose whether or not they join an association they might start wanting to have more choice over other aspects of institutional life – such as the quality of teaching. Any moves in this direction would be upsetting for institutional players.
The third group is insiders. As described above ‘insiders’ are those who stand to gain from compulsory membership. These insiders tend to come from specific groups, for example politically active students, students involved in student media, and students whose clubs receive funding from compulsory membership. These students support compulsory membership because they believe they get more out of a compulsory association than they put in. Insiders also include many of the employees of compulsory student associations.
Insider students benefit from the collective pool of money taken from all students under compulsory membership. Because insider students believe they gain from compulsory membership they’re more motivated to defend the compulsory regime should it come under threat. Insider students have more to lose from voluntary membership than non-insider students have to gain. The people who turn up to student meetings and are active in student politics are predominantly insider students. Insider students are also more motivated to vote in student elections because they understand they’re able to vote themselves other people’s money. When 90-95 percent of students don’t vote, compulsory associations end up being controlled by 5-10 percent of students, most of whom are insiders.
Insider students’ main objective is to defend compulsory membership and the money that flows from it. Insider students are predominantly from the left of politics, but not all insider students are of the left. If compulsory membership comes under threat left and right wing insider students will combine to defend it. Radical socialist students and National-voting rich kids who go on student-subsidised skiing trips can find themselves on the same side in defending compulsory membership.
Why do Labour and other left-leaning parties support compulsory membership?
In addition to being beneficiary organisations, Labour and other left-leaning parties have additional reasons for supporting compulsory membership.
First, compulsory student associations have provided and continue to provide a training ground for many Labour-left activists who go on to move up through the ranks of political parties, the trade union movement, and left activist groups. A large number of former, current and prospective Labour MPs and Labour-connected activists first cut their political teeth in compulsory student organisations and gained valuable political and administrative experience in these organisations.
Second, for some within the Labour-left compulsory membership fits with a particular view of how society is or should be organised. According to this view, society is primarily made up of classes or groups of people. These groups share common interests and values and act, or should act, in the interests of their fellow group members. Some existing groups are well-defined and easy to identify: trade unionists, employers, farmers etc. Other groups are harder to define. The existence of compulsory student association membership forces tertiary students into groups (even though these are seriously flawed) and fits with the view of society of those who primarily see New Zealand in terms of groups.
Third, for many Labour-left people currently in positions of power the 1960s was a formative period. During this era, university students were at the forefront of many social movements such as Vietnam war and apartheid protests, and the emerging environmental, minority and women’s rights movements. Many Labour-left people support compulsory membership because they hope a so-called ‘student movement’ – resourced through compulsory membership – can be rekindled as a force to lead future social change through new social movements.
