Mackey Moana: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20290] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 What an extraordinary contribution from the member who first drafted and passed into law the very provision that members opposite are now deleting. The very provision they are now deleting is the provision that Tau Henare drafted and passed into law. 
When he was on his feet I asked him the question why the National Party had promised not to implement this Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and clause 6A—not to extend it to private training establishments. Why did National promise at the last election that it would not do this yet National members are sitting here tonight voting for it? Why? They have all gone very very quiet now because they know that there is no mandate for clause 6A. There is no mandate for extending these provisions to private training establishments. 
They are doing it because the ACT Party—a 2 percent party on a good day—cannot get the 10 percent support of students required to force a referendum. If an institution like a private training establishment wants voluntary student membership all it has to do is get 10 percent of its students to agree to a referendum and a referendum would be held democratically at that private training establishment to determine whether its students wanted to go voluntary. All that is required is 10 percent support but the ACT Party cannot get it so members are sitting here in Parliament today forcing through legislation that will be forced on students who have said democratically that they do not want it in their private training establishments. Mr Henare talked about everything under the sun and barely mentioned private training establishments. This clause extends the bill to private training establishments. The ACT Party cannot even get 10 percent support from those students to have a referendum to let them decide. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise to the member for interrupting. I noticed you signalling to the member to restrict her comments. I spent time— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I ask the member to resume his seat. I have on numerous occasions asked members to come back to clause 6A. Instead of standing and giving an order I often signal to members to come back to the point which is clause 6A. That is what we are debating. It is what I normally do. It is a practice I have followed for a long time. It is to just indicate to the member that they should be relevant and come back to the clause we are debating. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think that is a good practice. It is one that good Speakers have used as well. The issue I have is that I could not see you all of the time while Mr Peachey was speaking but I listened to his speech from the Chamber— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is not a point of order. I ask the member to resume his seat. I will determine the relevancy of speeches. I have brought members back to clause 6A. I will do it as I see it at the time. That is the way I have ruled. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The point I am getting to if I am able is a request for you to do that on a consistent basis. I was here for Tau Henare’s speech. I did not see you give that signal to him at all and he gave a history of the world rather than addressing the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I did actually tell him to come back to clause 6A. I ask Moana Mackey to continue. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Clause 6A of course extends the provisions in clause 6 to private training establishments and that is what I have been discussing. The point I was making was that all that is required under current law is that 10 percent a measly 10 percent of students sign a petition to say that they want a referendum and a referendum will be held—10 percent. Apparently that provision is such a huge problem that we need to get rid of it and students do not want it yet the ACT Party cannot even get 10 percent of the students at a private training establishment to call for a referendum so that the students at that establishment can determine for themselves whether they want to be voluntary or compulsory in terms of their students association fees—10 percent. We could be standing here instead discussing as Labour wanted to whether that threshold is too high and whether private training establishments should have to get the support of only 5 percent of students to force a referendum. That is fine; let us have that discussion. But we are here in Parliament legislating over the top of the democratic right of students to determine for themselves whether their associations are voluntary or compulsory because the ACT Party could not even get 10 percent of students to agree with it. There is no mandate to extend this bill to private training establishments at all. There is no mandate. ACT is a party on less than 2 percent support—less than 2 percent. 
National members promised at the last election that they would not extend the legislation to private training establishments. They said there was no way they would support this. They gave that commitment to students. They said to those in private training establishments that they would not vote for this. So only a party with 2 percent support went to the last election promising this change—2 percent—and Heather Roy says she has a mandate to do this. There is no mandate. This is not about choice. This removes choice. It removes choice from students in private training establishments. It removes choice. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: We’re going to free-vote on this. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Tau Henare interjects. This is the man who wrote this provision. He gave this great eloquent speech about why it should be gotten rid of and failed to mention the fact that he was the member who drafted it in the first place—he was the member. But that is Tau Henare. He can argue both sides of any argument. He can belong to any political party he wants to. He is AC/DC which is why he has belonged to so many political parties. 
This clause is bad news for students in private training establishments because it removes their choice. And this is from a so-called party of choice. Now there will be no choice as to whether membership of a students association is voluntary or compulsory. There will be no choice in private training establishments. Those students will have only the option that ACT the “2 percent party” wants them to have. It does not matter that in some cases they have democratically chosen that they want compulsory students association membership. That does not matter. It does not matter that provisions exist already for those who want to conscientiously object to do so. If the provisions that allow conscientious objection by students in private training establishments are not strong enough then let us talk about that. Let us have that discussion. 
That is what Labour wanted to do when we said we wanted to talk to Heather Roy and to the Government about finding an enduring solution for private training establishments—an enduring solution so that this issue does not become a political football. We were told no; no they did not want to do this. The “2 percent party” wanted to force this through because its members know they will never be able to force through referendums on the campuses of New Zealand. They know they have lost that debate. They know that the private training establishments will not support them in their ideological drive to get rid of political opposition and to get rid of the voices of students associations that might disagree with them. They know they cannot do that on the campuses of private training establishments so they have to come to Parliament to force through legislation that there is no mandate for—no mandate for—and that removes choice. 
I look forward to the next National speaker who gets up to speak on clause 6A and waxes lyrical about how great this measure is how fantastic it is and how great it will be for students. I want to hear from National members why then they promised they would not do this. Why then did they go to the last election promising not to vote for clause 6A not to vote for this legislation? Why did they go to the New Zealand University Students’ Association conference and say “National will not vote for clause 6A. We will not vote for this bill.”? That is what I want to hear from the next National speaker. They all get very excited about clause 6A but they fail to mention that they are breaking a major election promise by supporting it. They are breaking a major election promise. 
Hon Member 
: Major! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It was an election promise. Go and ask Paul Hutchison. He went to the New Zealand University Students’ Association conference and promised that National would not support this clause and National would not support this legislation. That is why Labour has been opposing this clause and this legislation so hard—because of the fact that there is no mandate for it. There is no mandate for it. Two percent of the country voted— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: It’s called a majority. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh “It’s called a majority.” says Tau Henare. So why can that not apply on the campuses of New Zealand? If it is called a majority why can that not apply on the campuses of New Zealand so that they can have a vote which Mr Henare is interjecting and saying he should be allowed in this Chamber? Why is there one rule for National and Tau Henare and another for the students in private training establishments around New Zealand? Why? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: We won you lost! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: He says “We won you lost!”. Apparently democracy is important in this place but nowhere else if it does not suit Mr Henare. Well Labour members support democracy on the campuses of New Zealand. 
I feel sorry for Heather Roy that she was not able to get 10 percent of students to agree to a referendum. That must have been very discouraging. It must have been very embarrassing. She probably thought private training establishments were the area where she would get traction. Well she could not get 10 percent support. How hard could that be if this is such a major issue that we need to legislate over the rights of all students in order to fix it? 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Phil Goff can’t do it! Phil Goff can’t get 10 percent! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Ten percent I tell Mr Boscawen. Ten percent! That is all that ACT members needed to get on the campuses of private training establishments but they could not do it. They failed. They failed. So here we are in Parliament debating a bill that has no mandate which that party over there said it would not support. A party on less than 2 percent support is forcing this law change on all students even though they have said they do not want it and even though they voted on it in private training establishments and on other campuses around the country. They voted I tell Mr Boscawen and they said they wanted the choice. Remember choice? That used to be what the ACT Party was about. Not any more because if people do not choose what the ACT Party wants then it will legislate over the top of their rights. That is the true ACT Party. That is what those members are doing here in this Parliament. That is what they are doing in clause 6A which removes the choice of students in private training establishments to determine for themselves—rather than just do what the ACT Party thinks is good for them—what they want in terms of their students associations. What is so wrong with that? Well what is wrong with it is that there is an ideological bent on the part of the ACT Party to get rid of them.