I think it’s important to point out this was a press release summarising our view. It’s not designed to be a full article with arguments fully fleshed out.

I’d also like to point out that this is simply a list of misrepresentations by student associations, not our entire argument.

I am happy to respond to some of your points here though:

10: We never claimed what they were doing was illegal. In fact the whole point is that it’s completely legal because Parliament passed a special law for them. That is what we oppose. Putting aside the fact that the EFA (and hence the 2008 election laws) doesn’t really make a distinction between advocating a policy and advocating a policy, you’re completely right that it is very different from third party electioneering. All those organisations you list are spending their own money and people can withhold that money if they don’t like what those organisations are saying.

8: The difference is in who makes the generalisation. When the media do it it’s kind of annoying because it’s obvious that not every farmer or every teacher agrees, but, as you say, it’s not a big deal. However, when a student association does it in a press release they aren’t just reporting on a group’s views, they are claiming to speak on behalf of them, and are legitimately (though not voluntarily) able to do so under the law.

7: Again, they are misrepresenting the views of students, not the actual facts. Note the sneaky use of ‘funding adjustment’ rather than ‘funding increase’ too.

5: Just a quick note here. AUSA actually withdrew the offer when they came under pressure from their members. In response, VUWSA offered the same reward and refused to remove it when students complained.

4: Without my original document in front of me I’m not sure but I think this may be a genuine mistake. I believe it was VUWSA and a few smaller student associations that endorsed and funded the Alliance in 2002, rather than NZUSA. I’ll have to go back and check my document.

3: Ironically, I agreed with the “no offical mandate” line. That’s one of the exact arguments we use to oppose compulsory membership and shows that student associations actually have no mandate to do ANYTHING under compulsory membership, because they will always misrepresent some of their members.

1: They can comment on whatever they want, when they’re not using compulsorily acquired fees to do so. Students who support VSM are paying for NZUSA to run a campaign saying that ALL students support CSM. See the misrepresentation there?