91ÇÑ×Ó

Student representatives can maximise their effectiveness by embracing the political neutrality principles now being foisted on New Zealand universities, according to the head of arguably the country¡¯s most flourishing student union.

Luc MacKay said student representatives alienated their constituents by crusading on issues not directly related to student welfare, particularly if they were seen to be laying a ¡°platform¡± for future political careers.

MacKay, president of the University of Canterbury Students¡¯ Association (UCSA), said representative bodies should restrict their activism to matters that directly affected students, such as fees, allowances and classroom supports. The union should ¡°enable¡± student agitation on broader issues like Palestine, sexuality and disarmament, while taking no part itself.

MacKay says the ¡°unique¡± stance has made UCSA easily the strongest student union in Australasia. He said 26 per cent of Canterbury¡¯s students had participated in student elections last year, compared with rates in the ¡°low 10s¡± at other universities in New Zealand and Australia.

The union had employed 350 staff at its peak and achieved ¡°ballpark¡± revenue of NZ$25 million (?11 million), compared?with a few million dollars elsewhere in New Zealand.

UCSA is in a different ¡°league¡± to the country¡¯s other student associations, MacKay said. ¡°It¡¯s unfortunate, but we really just are ahead of the game.¡±

Many student unions take a different approach, campaigning on broader causes. New Zealand student unions have a storied history of protesting the Vietnam War, the criminalisation of same-sex relationships and a visit by South Africa¡¯s rugby team in the apartheid era.

But MacKay said times had changed. ¡°If you go back 30, 40, 50 years ago¡­the role was to be involved politically and get students motivated. Now it is interfacing with your own university. Your focus [is] to be for students and about students, as opposed to trying to tee your way into politics.¡±

The disagreement echoes a wider debate affecting universities. An amendment bill championed by libertarian deputy prime minister David Seymour requires universities to promise not to ¡°¡±, as part of broader free speech commitments. Parliament¡¯s Education and Workforce Committee has with minor amendments.

UCSA¡¯s stance is partly responsible for derailing the revival of a national student representative body. Liban Ali, president of Victoria University of Wellington Students¡¯ Association, said political neutrality had been a ¡°massive¡± source of friction in talks to establish the Aotearoa Tertiary Students Association (Atsa).

Ali said a compromise deal would have given each union the option of joining a ¡°political wing¡± of the national body, the ¡°Aotearoa Tertiary Action Group¡±, to agitate on student and broader issues. But most unions ultimately opted against this idea, leaving the student movement without a united voice ahead of the 2026 parliamentary elections.

¡°Atsa is still going, but realistically, it¡¯s just a mechanism of hopping on a Teams meeting every couple of weeks and sharing information about what¡¯s going on across the country,¡± Ali said, adding that each union¡¯s stance on political activism reflected its culture.

He said UCSA had a tradition of being ¡°inward thinking¡± and ¡°focused directly on their student experience. At Wellington¡­there¡¯s an expectation from our student body for us to speak up on things.¡±

MacKay said his union¡¯s role was to ¡°empower¡± student protests ¨C without actively participating ¨C on any issue, within legal bounds. This included issues that lacked broad student support, such as anti-abortion activism.

¡°University [is] an important place for discussion, dialogue and debate. If we¡­nitpick who is allowed to have a voice, we lose that entirely ¨C and then what¡¯s the point of a university?¡±

He said the union had supported an invitation for Seymour, an unpopular figure in university circles, to a campus event organised by one of Canterbury¡¯s political clubs. ¡°Naturally there [was] pushback from some students who [said] ¡®we don¡¯t want that kind of rhetoric here¡¯.

¡°But¡­even though a good chunk of students disagreed, it was a valuable opportunity for students to challenge and debate ideas. If the student association [had] said, ¡®no, it doesn¡¯t align with the majority of students¡¯, we wouldn¡¯t have the ability to have conversations. We would remain siloed.¡±

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com