Robertson Grant: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17588] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Yes Mr Chair. I do want to speak on this clause. In fact I look forward to this being the first of my four calls on this particular clause because this clause is where the rubber hits the road in the bill. I am sure that even the member in the chair Heather Roy will acknowledge that this is indeed where the rubber hits the road in this part of the bill. 
Initially I will make two comments about the beginning of clause 6 which inserts new section 229A “Membership of students associations voluntary” in the Education Act 1989. We have said on numerous occasions in this debate that we fundamentally oppose this particular part of the bill. This is the bit of the bill that will destroy students associations. That is the evidence we have seen from Australia and that is what will happen in New Zealand as well. This provision fundamentally undermines the ability of students associations to organise and to resource the work they do. It means they will become beholden to the institutions they are part of and it means that students will lose control of student affairs. This is the undermining of student representation—the student representation that has meant many individual students have been able to carry on with their study and to succeed and pass because they have had a resourced students association to back them up. 
When I sat on the Education and Science Committee on this bill I think my colleagues from National actually began to realise as the debate on the bill went on that students associations play a fundamental role in the success of students in their study. We heard of numerous examples. I have mentioned before the example from Waikato University of the students whose flat burned down who were being ripped off by the insurance company and who were being biffed out of their flat. It was the Waikato Student Union that made sure those students were able to continue to study and stay at university. We heard other examples of a similar nature. 
New section 229A will fundamentally undermine the representative role the advocacy role that has meant so much to so many students not just in terms of those practical day-to-day issues but also in the overall advocacy that has seen interest-free student loans. It has seen going as far back as the 1970s the standard tertiary bursary which resulted from advocacy in those situations by the New Zealand University Students’ Association backed by its constituent associations from polytechs universities and wananga. That kind of work will not now be possible with students associations undermined by new section 229A. 
I make a bit of an appeal to my National colleagues. As I said in the debate we heard at the select committee we felt that our National colleagues were beginning to realise there was a possible way through to enable them to address some of the issues they had in relation to their fear of compulsion and of what that meant in terms of freedom issues—things they obviously genuinely see as being important. We felt in the discussions that a compromise was possible. That compromise was built around the amendments on a couple of Supplementary Order Papers that I have on the Table. One of the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 191 is about ensuring that if a decision is made to enforce what is in new section 229A it is undertaken only after a nationwide referendum of students. It should be done only after a nationwide referendum of students. 
At this point it is important to remember that what is being undone by new section 229A is in fact National policy. The compromise from the 1990s relating to the ability of students to call for referenda and go to a voluntary position was the policy of National driven through by Tau Henare of all people among others. But the Bolger-Shipley Government said that it thought that policy was the right thing to do. That Government also did that at the end of a long submission process after it had heard from the institutions the students and the families of students. It said that it did not want to ruin students associations. It wanted to address some of the issues it had in relation to freedom of choice and compulsion and it did that by putting in place the ability for students to call for a referendum in order to give students some choice in whether there would be a students association. That is what is being undone by new section 229A. 
But I think that in the select committee we found further compromise via the amendments on the Supplementary Order Papers and in this case that is to allow for a nationwide referendum. That is the first area—the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 191 to add after “association” at the end of new section 229A “if a majority of students support voluntary student membership in a nationwide 2011 referendum”. I ask why National members would oppose that. That is students making a choice. Of course members on this side of the Chamber oppose the bill in principle but having realised that our National colleagues on the select committee wanted something different we have gone looking for something that is a compromise. 
I am making a plea tonight to the National members of the committee who sat through all of those submissions and heard overwhelmingly from students and tertiary institutions that they want to retain representative well-resourced students associations. Above all the submitters wanted to retain some sense of student control and student choice. We have the ability to do that in the amendment we have put forward to new section 229A. I know that National members on the select committee wanted to look at those ideas and I am calling on them tonight to think about how they can make sure that students associations will continue and will be able to address some of the issues they have. That is what we are looking at in the amendment to new section 229A. 
The other amendment I will talk about in relation to that issue is to do with whether students can request a change to membership. Obviously that is the situation we have at the moment. If 10 percent of students want to have a referendum then there will be a referendum. We have always felt that that was a reasonable proportion of students. We are happy to look at compromise. We are happy to bring that percentage down a little bit if that is enough for National or we are happy to simply say that there will be a referendum every few years. If for instance students do not make the choice to put forward the idea of a referendum and if a number of years elapse—5 years was a figure I heard bandied around in the select committee—then after that 5-year period there will automatically be a referendum. I stress that this is not the preferred option of members on this side of the Chamber; our preferred option is to continue to allow students to organise on their own terms. But we recognised during the select committee process that there may need to be some room for movement so that we do not go down the path of destroying students associations because that is what the new section 229A and the subsequent clauses will do. 
There is an option on the Table in my Supplementary Order Paper 191 that I believe fulfils the desires of the National caucus to make some change but still allow students associations to succeed. The opportunity is there tonight for National members to adopt those amendments. It will still mean a change it will still mean that things will be different for student associations but it will safeguard those vital representative roles those vital advocacy roles—the student services that have made such a big difference to the health and well-being of students. 
National members on the Education and Science Committee heard time and time again during the select committee process how vital those things were and how easily they would be undermined. I know that the National members of that select committee knew that and while Roger Douglas was there it seemed that they would go with it. It seemed as if they would go with it then some very unfortunate shenanigans in the ACT Party saw Heather Roy returned to the select committee and mysteriously the National members’ enthusiasm for some form of compromise waned. 
Hon Heather Roy 
: Persuaded by the member. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I am not sure; persuaded by the member—perhaps. There seemed to be a sudden shift in National’s view at that point. That is unfortunate because I strongly believe that in these Supplementary Order Papers a middle ground can be found. That is not what members on this side of the Chamber would prefer by any means but it is certainly something for which we think we can see a wide buy-in. 
As it stands new section 229A which is the first change within clause 6 is one that I believe will see the end of student associations on a lot of campuses. Perhaps it will not on some of the larger university campuses where students associations have service level agreements—and we will come to that a little further on as we go through some of the other changes in clause 6—because there is scope for certain types of service level agreements. But for those polytechnic campuses where students associations will not be able to enter into those sorts of service level agreements new section 229A is the death of student associations and the death of all the good work like the advocacy the representation and the other services that have meant so much to generations of students. It will be very sad if these provisions are passed tonight as they are now because those things will be undermined. 
There is an opportunity here for compromise. National members should take it.