Ardern Jacinda: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Jacinda: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:21078] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak on clause 9 of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. As my colleagues have pointed out we are discussing the transitional provisions. I think a really important point has been made in terms of the suggestions that we have put forward to the member in the chair Heather Roy on the transitional provisions—that this is an opportunity to prove that this is not an ideological issue and that if some of the amendments we have put forward were adopted that might go some way to alleviating that concern. I give that a heavy caveat because ultimately I would still probably believe this is purely ideological. 
There are two quick points that I want to make. Clause 9(2)(a) states: “a student to whom this section applies continues to be a member of the students association until the expiry of his or her current term of enrolment;”. Obviously the impact of that will be that we will have potentially a gradual depletion in students association numbers and that will impact on the ability to keep students association services up to the level that would be provided if we had full membership. 
Probably the best example I can give of that is to ask what would happen in New Zealand if only a quarter of the country was contributing to the services that require universal provision—if only a quarter of the country was contributing to roading to schools and to health services. 
Health services are actually a direct parallel. If we suddenly have the phasing out of students contributing to those services—if economies of scale require that we have no less than one nurse or one doctor available—we can almost guarantee that despite those students still being enrolled in the students associations and requiring those services and expecting those services the depletion of resources going into those areas will gradually mean that they will not be able to be provided to the same level. 
The transitional provisions I think will ultimately lead to the gradual decline of those services as will this entire bill. This bill is denying only to a certain degree the ultimate inevitability of the depletion of services and advocacy for students on campus. However as we have already pointed out that is ultimately the purpose of this bill. 
I turn to some of the amendments proposed by my colleague Grant Robertson because I think they require a response from the member in the chair. I reflect that if we are treating this as a true democracy then the most important part of a true democracy is the ability to communicate with those who have an interest in the details of student union membership. If it is impossible to communicate with the individuals in question then that is an erosion of that democratic principle. 
I think it is absolutely pertinent that Grant Robertson has put forward an amendment that suggests we add to clause 9 a subclause (3) which states: “The institution”—obviously the tertiary provider as it were—“is to provide its student association with the following details of students for whom any membership fee of the kind prescribed in section 229CA(1) is currently collected from: (a) The student’s full name; and (b) The student’s contact address; and (c) The student’s contact phone number; and (d) The students email address.” 
Just like in elections whereby we are able to make contact with individual constituents via an electoral roll for the purposes of communicating in a general election I think it makes absolute sense that students associations are able to communicate with potential members about the services they can provide via membership. If this were truly about giving students choice then surely a fundamental principle of that is providing the information in order to make said choice. I cannot see how anyone would have a problem with such a common-sense clause. Second and equally as important is the ability to provide information about the services themselves. Having the contact details of the person one is communicating with is one thing but the ability to provide adequate information is another which is why Grant Robertson very wisely has put forward another amendment. 
Grant Robertson 
: Name-dropper. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I am a terrible name-dropper I say to Grant Robertson. I am yet to mention other learned colleagues in the House. I see that Paul Quinn is here as is Simon Bridges and I am sure they will make contributions on this bill as well. 
Grant Robertson’s next amendment to clause 9 inserts subclauses (3) and (4). Subclause (4) states: “The type of information referred to in subsection (3) includes: (a) the services the association provides members; (b) the services the association provides non-members; (c) the fees and levies which apply to joining an association; (d) the process of electing representatives of the association.”. 
So not only does it set out the type of information which of course is incredibly important. If students are to be contributing a fee or levy they deserve to know what they will receive for that fee or levy in the same way that someone who is putting himself or herself forward for election is able to provide for their constituents information about what they are able to provide as an elected representative. There are similarities there which are just basic principles of democracy. 
I think it is important also to point out that in the fourth area he has also added the process of electing representatives of the association thereby indicating that from the outset those who are opting in to an association—because it is exactly what this entire bill will prompt—will have the ability to see from the very outset the process they can expect for electing representatives of the association. It is a good common-sense clause. 
Prior to subclause (4) though he has also added subclause (3) which states: “Despite sections 229A to 229CA information must be provided by the institution to both prospective and current students about any student association at the institution for the purpose of informing the student about joining the association.” 
If the member in the chair is unwilling for us to explicitly set this out in the legislation what information can we expect students to receive? Essentially without this subclause we could expect them to receive nothing: absolutely no information about those services their rights their access to them as advocates and the process that is undertaken for electing representatives. That is just not good enough. So I ask the member in the chair to demonstrate to us that in her mind this bill is genuinely about democracy. I have already given the caveat that I am unlikely to believe that in any case but I ask her to demonstrate to us that by adopting these simple common-sense provisions about information and the right of access to information this is about choice for students. 
Under those criteria these provisions should be adopted. If they are not adopted I think this Committee deserves an explanation. I do think though that in broader terms the use of the term “democracy” has been bandied around and misused by members on the other side of the Chamber in regard to these provisions in the bill generally. As the member who spoke before me said if this bill really was about democracy there were already provisions that allowed students to trigger a referendum if that is what they wanted. That has not happened which is why in debating clause 9 I ask that the member in the chair directly address why it is that at the eleventh hour you are unwilling to add a provision that would enhance what you claim to be the ultimate principle of this bill— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Me? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Not you Mr Chairperson. There are double Roys in the Chair today which means that probably I am OK. I look forward to the female Roy—Heather Roy—responding to that challenge. I think that Grant Robertson has crafted these provisions with care. I think he has put some thought into how we can improve these last transitional provisions of the bill. 
It looks as if Heather Roy—the female Roy—is about to get to her feet I hope and tell me whether she is likely to adopt those provisions. I did see the whip come over so perhaps that means that she is corresponding with him about how she can introduce those provisions. Thank you.