Why is the ACT Party asking students to defund their own services?

NEWS | ISSUE TEN | ISOLATION

Written by Liam Hansen (they/them) | @liamhanse.n | Associate Editor

Election campaigns are generally opportunities for parties to blue-sky, spelling out each of their priorities, policies, and prayers for the election long before they’re held accountable for anything they promised on the trail. 

The consequences of this have already been felt in 2026, as Luxon's comfort in the non-menacing talkback booth of Mike Hosking gave him the opportunity to, in the words of the totally loyal Chris Bishop, start “musing around the concept of a referendum in amongst the conversation around constitutional arrangements, four-year terms, and things like that”.

The plans thrown into the air in the election period aren’t just causing failed coups in the Beehive. Amongst the myriad of ACT Party policies that fan the flames of unnecessary culture wars against migrants and trans people, MP Parmjeet Parmar, a migrant who transitioned from National to ACT after she lost her seat in the 2020 election, has spearheaded the proposition of making the University Student Services Fee, also known as the Student Levy Agreement, voluntary. 

For context, we, our bosses at AUTSA, and every other service designed for students are made possible thanks to the Student Levy Agreement included in tuition costs. Where your tuition fees go into your studies, this fee funds student associations and media (like Debate), campus cafes and bars, events, and services like healthcare, counselling, clubs, and societies.  

This follows on from changes ACT made under John Key’s government in 2011, where student union membership was made voluntary. Access to food banks, healthcare, and financial assistance was locked behind a series of hardship applications that continue to place barriers on students to feed themselves, find housing, and confidently complete their courses. 

Parmar, the ACT Party Tertiary Education spokesperson who also celebrated the dismantling of Fees Free, says that “universities have undermined the spirit of Voluntary Student Membership by absorbing the old association fee into a compulsory levy that students still cannot refuse.”  

The removal of compulsory membership made student associations reliant on their universities, a problem Parmar herself points out in the press release: “ACT's policy will also restore the independence of unions to challenge university leadership. Unions are meant to hold the bosses to account, but there's a huge conflict of interest when they're dependent on the university for funding.” 

This is a problem that the ACT Party created by making student membership voluntary, decentralising student services and splitting them between disconnected teams across various departments, campuses, buildings and budgets. What was once consistent funding and support is now fraught, leading to fractures within the communication between these different student services and the university itself. 

These are fees that the university doesn't want to pay for, but needs. So the responsibility is shifted onto students, firstly to seek out access to the services they need, and now whether or not they exist at all. This is a strategic way to gut the budgets of universities, but the point of it all seems more in line with the party's bitterness that their anti-student policies are being opposed by students. 

“Right now, student unions are running political campaigns to influence the election. They might even campaign to stop this policy. Students are forced to fund this activism, even if they disagree with it.” Once again, the party has forgotten that unions are made up of students. 

“ACT says unions are free to campaign, but no-one should be forced to fund them.” 

On an unrelated note, Parmar has used her taxpayer-funded salary to purchase five new rental homes and investment properties since the government cut tax on landlords.