News

Both of OUSA President Francisco Hernandez’s referendum questions may prove invalid, after one was ambiguous and the other improperly presented.

Hernandez’s question “Should the Otago University Students’ Association (OUSA) adopt a Single Transferrable Voting (STV) system for its elections?” was tabled at an Executive meeting on 10 September, and will be voted on alongside the OUSA elections from 30 September to 3 October. STV is a voting system based on ranking candidates, and is usually considered fairer than First Past the Post (FPP), which is OUSA’s current system.

STV is used in multi-seat constituencies, where more than one candidate is elected in the same round of voting. However, OUSA currently elects members of the Executive individually to specific positions, with separate rounds of voting for each position.

Thus, the adoption of STV would have wider implications, implying the removal of designated positions on the Executive. In place of designated positions, candidates would have to be elected as general representatives and assigned portfolios once elected, in a similar manner to Cabinet ministers.

Hernandez denied that the question would have that effect, claiming that STV can be used for single-seat constituencies as well as multi-seat constituencies. However, where there are single-seat constituencies and ranked voting – as in, for instance, Australia – this is generally known as Preferential Voting (PV) or Alternative Vote (AV). In the 2011 New Zealand referendum on changing the country’s voting system, STV and PV were listed as separate options.

As a result, it is unclear what system students will actually be voting on, and many of the wider potential implications of a “yes” vote are not spelled out in the question itself. An STV system would also clash with s36 of the current OUSA Constitution, which states that candidates for OUSA elections must be nominated for specific positions. Therefore, this new system could not come into effect unless s36 is amended.

Hernandez’s other referendum question, “Should the Otago University Students’ Association (OUSA) continue its membership of the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations (NZUSA)?” was also tabled at the 10 September meeting, with the options to be either “no” or “yes, with reforms.”

OUSA’s solicitor later pointed out to Hernandez that a referendum must pose a “yes” or “no” question. Hernandez then reworded the question to read “Should the Otago University Students’ Association (OUSA) continue its membership of the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations (NZUSA) if it implements reforms that enhance its campaigning capacity?” This newly-worded question was not presented to the Executive, and the deadline for doing so in time for the question to be included alongside the upcoming OUSA elections had already passed. However, Hernandez still intends to pose the question to the student body.

In any case, the referendum will not be binding on the Executive. Under the OUSA Constitution, referenda on any financial matter, other than the OUSA budget, will be non-binding. OUSA pays NZUSA an annual membership fee of $45,000.

Students around campus were predictably outraged by such brazen and heinous breaches of their glorious Constitution. “This is exactly why we need VSM,” one law student fumed.

“The OUSA Constitution is our founding document, and Fran is quite literally shitting on it. If our founding fathers like Mark Baxter and Logan Edgar were alive today, they would be spinning in their graves at this ruthless disregard for our basic rights and freedoms, like our right to not be able to decide whether to stay in NZUSA.”

For more information on FPP, STV and PV, see page 20 of this week’s issue.