Mackey Moana: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mackey Moana: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14709] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 It has been disappointing that the National Government which is breaking one of its election promises by supporting this legislation does not feel that it should be making speeches longer than 20 seconds. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You’re making it up. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I will get to that I say to Dr Smith. One of the most depressing things about being in Opposition is seeing how quickly National Governments can tear down institutions that have taken decades if not a century to build up. We do not know the value of some of these things until they are gone and once they are gone—I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am facing a barrage from the member Louise Upston who is not in her seat. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will decide the level of interjection and when it is at a level where I have difficulty hearing and I find it intrusive I will act. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Thank you very much Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to make a few comments about this bill because I am sick and tired of seeing National and ACT members destroy institutions like students associations and early childhood education because they can afford alternatives and because their supporters can afford alternatives. 
I come back to the member Heather Roy who said in her speech that she opposed compulsory membership because it was against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Where was that respect for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act when she gave a speech tonight on Paul Quinn’s ridiculous legislation which is thoroughly against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? The Attorney-General says it is against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and it is making New Zealand an international joke. Heather Roy had no credibility when she spoke in favour of that bill and voted for that bill and she has no credibility when she now claims that somehow because of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act we should be getting rid of compulsory membership of students associations. 
The other issue is that there is no demand for this bill apart from a small minority. Ninety-eight percent of the submissions to the Education and Science Committee opposed the bill. Paul Hutchison the National member went to the New Zealand University Students Association conference on 5 July 2008 and promised that National would not make any changes to students association membership—he promised that. National went to the last election promising that it would not do this. 
Apparently we have such a huge problem with students association membership in our universities that Parliament needs to intervene yet the supporters of voluntary student membership cannot even get the 10 percent required to force a referendum. If they cannot get the 10 percent to force a referendum it is a bit rich to come to Parliament and claim that the majority of people in New Zealand think that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. 
Let us be clear that this bill is being passed by a party that got 2 percent support at the last election. Is it not funny that the 2 percent support it got at the last election is also the level of support in the submissions to the select committee? Most New Zealanders did not want this they did not think that they were voting for it and it is a sop to the ACT Party that it even being passed in this House. 
People who have spoken very briefly in support of this bill do not even seem to understand what students associations do. They do not understand what they do at all. These organisations are run by students for students. What can be more responsive to the needs of students than an organisation they control they elect the executive for and they run? Why does the ACT Party think it knows better in terms what students want and what students need than the students themselves? 
I do not know when the members who have spoken in favour of this bill actually went to university and when they were last involved in a students association but since National was elected in the 1990s it has become very expensive to be at university. The subsidised services are very useful. Counselling services are very useful for many students and support services in terms of educational support and hardship are valued by students. There are also health services and if one goes to the doctor a couple of times one has already paid back the cost of the fee at the beginning of the year. Once these services are gone we will not get them back. Student unions have spawned a number of leaders sportspeople—as my colleague said—writers journalists community leaders in the non-governmental and Government sectors Mana by-election candidates and politicians. 
Let us be clear: this is the issue. The National Party and the ACT Party cannot beat students associations democratically on campus so they have to intervene in this House—they cannot get the numbers democratically in the institutions to do it any other way. 
Why do National and ACT not like students associations? Because students associations speak up for students and National and ACT do not have policies that are good for students. If they do not like the people opposing them they can just obliterate them—get rid of them altogether—then maybe the annoying nuisance of those students who are paying high fees and facing hardship because of Government policies will just go away. 
This bill is not about choice. I see that Tim Macindoe is in the House. I am very pleased he is in the House because his university Waikato University in his electorate actually voted to get rid of compulsory student membership then brought it back because it was such a dismal failure. How can Tim Macindoe say that this is about choice when his university made a choice? Those students had a vote. They voted democratically that they wanted compulsory student membership and Tim Macindoe is voting tonight to override their choice—their choice. [ 
Interruption 
] They voted I say to Mr Macindoe. They said they wanted it. Well Tim Macindoe and the National Party say that they know better than the students who democratically voted to bring back their students association because it completely fell apart. 
Mr Macindoe is from the party that promised at the last election that it would not do this. There is a little bit of a pattern with the National Party—the party of choice! This is not choice. Choice is saying to students associations that they can have a referendum about whether to be voluntary or compulsory. That is choice. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: They’ll have the choice to join. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: No they will not have a choice. This bill says that they have to be voluntary. Even if they want to be compulsory they cannot be under this bill. How is that choice? That is not choice at all and it will be very very damaging. 
We could have made a whole raft of changes to this legislation if it was about accountability. If the National and ACT members thought the conscientious objection provisions were not strong enough they could have been changed. If they are finding it so hard to find 10 percent of students who want to have a referendum they could make it 9 percent. A whole raft of things could have been done at select committee but they did not do any of them—they did not do any of them. 
Universities may be able to keep running some services in some form or another but they will not be run by students and they will be more expensive. Students associations are incredibly cost-effective organisations. They run on volunteer hours. They are run by people who enjoy being part of a university community and are happy to provide services more cheaply than is normally the case because they see the value of contributing to that university community. Now that will not be the case. 
Universities which have already had their funding cut under this Government—in fact all tertiary institutions have had their funding cut under this National and ACT Government—will have to find other ways to provide those services and they will be more expensive. They will not be run by the students. The tertiary institutions themselves have said they do not want to do this. They said: “Please let us keep our students associations.” In some cases students have voted democratically to say they want to keep compulsory membership of their students associations. National and ACT say they know better. National promised it would not do it at the last election. 
Two percent of the population voted for this bill at the last election but it will be foisted on 100 percent of students—100 percent of students. I repeat: Paul Hutchison when speaking on behalf of the National Party on 5 July 2008 at the New Zealand University Students Association conference promised that National would not support this legislation. He promised that National would not support this legislation. This bill will kill students associations. 
I point out the difficulties for small provincial polytechnics which are finding it hard enough already. In my own home town of Gisborne Tairawhiti Polytechnic is being forced to merge with another polytech not because it wants to or because it is a good idea but because it has had its funding slashed to the bone. Our students association at Tairawhiti Polytechnic is gone. 
Debate interrupted.