Delahunty Catherine: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Delahunty Catherine: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:15985] 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairperson. I was in my room and I was moved to come down to the House in support of students across the country to talk about the title of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. This bill could be called the “Education (Massage the Coalition Partner) Bill”. It could also be called the “Send a Very Silly Measure Bill” or the “Freedom for the Privileged Student Bill”. 
I sat on the Education and Science Committee until Gareth Hughes took over upon coming to Parliament and becoming our member who is closest to being a student. I sat and listened to the submissions and they touched on a portfolio for which I am responsible which is the issue of disability. A number of submitters came forward and talked about the value of the students associations as advocates for the most vulnerable students in the universities. Yes university is fine if someone is totally able-bodied well-heeled and confident was raised speaking the English language from the word go and understands how institutions work. It is fine for people like that; in fact it is a fantastic environment. But if someone happens to be vulnerable in any way university can be a very vulnerable and daunting experience. 
One of the things that the groups who made submissions on the bill told us was that vulnerable people need advocacy. They need somebody to stand up to the university at times and speak for them when nobody else understands their issues. That advocacy is what we will lose. I know that students these days are not only highly stressed by their debt burden but also stressed by an environment that for some of them does not recognise their needs. That is why advocacy is always important. I do not expect the ACT Party to understand that because it has an interesting fantasy world of freedom and choice. It always fantasises about the individual and believes that the survival of the fittest model will really work for everybody even though it has failed again and again. This legislation is about to reintroduce failure into universities for many people. We will lose the advocacy for vulnerable people such as those with disabilities who have difficulty on campus. Those submitters spoke highly of their student unions as advocates. The other people who spoke to us were the Pacific and Maori groups who are again often marginalised inside Pakeha universities. 
Of course some of the individuals who spoke in favour the bill were not from those groups. They were not speaking for groups at all. Most of them spoke in terms of “me” arguing: “It is OK for me because that is the world is about—me. It is all right for me to come into a system get what I want from it not pay for it not expect to be part of the collective and not care about the disabled students the Maori and Pacific groups or the other groups of ethnic minorities in the university. That is OK because I am OK.” That is what the issue is about for some people. But the tradition in the universities through the students associations has been to look after the more vulnerable and provide things that they would not otherwise get. We will lose those things. 
One of the arguments put up by some submitters—and the ACT Party put this up as well—was that if people really wanted those services they could pay for them. They argued it was about freedom and choice. But freedom and choice means that those who can pay for services will pay for them and those who cannot will go without. That is the model we will perpetuate if this bill is passed tonight. If students will have to pay for every individual service that those at university now have created for themselves and will have to find a way to do so on top of paying for everything else we will make students who are already vulnerable miss out. But for the submitters who wanted membership to be voluntary that does not matter because that is freedom and choice and “I’m all right Jack.” That is the philosophy of choice. 
Choice is an Orwellian word and this bill has an Orwellian title. It is titled in a way that George Orwell would really relate to because it states the opposite of what it means. It is the “Some Are More Equal and Have More Choices Than Others at University Bill”. We should call it that because that is what it is about. That is fine for those of us who can pay for everything that we have but if all students pay a tiny amount for a student fee they may be able to get a student advocate or have a club that they can afford to participate in. But no those services will be only for those who can afford to pay for them. 
The Green Party has been consistent in its opposition to this bill because we want to see those clubs and advocates supported in the universities. Many students who were not particularly politicised came and said they needed to have the services for practical reasons and they will lose them.