Davis Kelvin: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Davis Kelvin: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20300] 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 If it would help Mr Chairman being a rugby man perhaps if you just blew the whistle and went upstairs for an instant replay we would see the order of how things happened. It gives me great pleasure to stand after my colleague Stuart Nash has given such a passionate eloquent reasonable and rational series of speeches on clause 6A. Members can be assured of the same sort of rationality from me as well. 
I will follow on from what my colleague David Shearer has said about the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. It is an ideological argument that if something is not broke I wonder why we are spending time here trying to fix it. We know that the law already says that a referendum can be held if 10 percent of the student body agree to it. So why on earth do we need— 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I believe that this particular member is straying well outside of clause 6A. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Clause 6A relates to private training establishments. The rules regarding 10 percent apply to them as they do to others. It is a question of whether the rules that currently apply to them should continue to apply to them. The absolute essence of what is being debated here is whether they are in that set of rules. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will rule that the member is still inside the boundary. I was not paying particular attention as I am processing quite a pile of amendments at the moment but I just ask him to bear in mind that he should be speaking to clause 6A. I am not accusing him of not doing that but I am just asking him to please contain himself in the future. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: Thank you Mr Chair because I was just getting to the private training establishment part of things. This legislation applies as we know to private training establishments as well. I forgive you Mr Chair for not paying attention to the eloquence of this speech. The reality is that the law already says that a referendum can be held if 10 percent of the student body agree to it. Why do we need to go through this now? By holding a referendum at private training establishments the students there can decide whether they want to be part of a students association. 
Shifting to what happened at Waikato University as an example when the students association was disestablished things fell apart. I was listening to the debate earlier on and Tau Henare was saying it was all about choice. Well he should tell that to students at a private training establishment who need a students association at a time of particular crisis in their lives. We know that students associations provide services of that sort for when students are in difficulties. That member should tell the students who turn up looking for help from a students association: “Sorry it has been disestablished. It has fallen over because of this bill that has been pushed through Parliament.” He should tell students in their moment of need that it is just too bad and that Parliament has decided to override the current law and change things. 
Why change it? Why change it went it is not broke? As Stuart Nash said private training establishments allow students to train in the area where they come from so that they can train not far from home. When people in the north like me wanted to go to teachers college the only option was to journey south for 3 hours to go to the nearest teachers college. It is great that students can train in the area around them. Why should this bill apply to private training establishments? Why should it apply at all when there is actually no problem? Who has asked for this bill aside from the ACT Party? The students do not want it. If they wanted it they would gather up 10 percent of the student body and ask for it. Instead here we are overriding what the student body wants. Why do it? What is the point of doing this and undermining the services that are provided to help students get through their training? 
We know there are a lot of difficulties. We know that students are often leaving home for the first time. They get introduced to all the vices that are out there and they need help often. They get into trouble with the law. I remember friends getting into trouble with the police. They needed help and advice from people and peers whom they trusted and the student body at Auckland College of Education provided that help when I was there as well as the social side of things. But I do not want people to think that students associations are there only for social activities because there is a lot more than that. Students’ physical and mental health and well-being are also being considered here. This bill threatens to take that service away and there is no need for it. Like I said 10 percent of the student body need to come together. All that a student body at a private training establishment needs to do is gather together 10 percent of its students who do not want it. If there is not 10 percent who do not want it what are we doing here? What are we doing debating this bill now? There is absolutely no point. Those members cannot even gather 10 percent of the student body to oppose compulsory membership. 
The other thing is conscientious objection. If students really do not want to be part of the student body at a private training establishment they can opt out of it. There is the conscientious objection side of this. As I said members opposite should try telling a student who is having social emotional or any other difficulties at a private training establishment: “Sorry we do not provide any services. We do not have any choice.” 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What’s wrong with the whanau? 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: Here we go. Students are often away from whanau and often many whanau are dysfunctional in themselves so what happens to students who are dysfunctional in themselves? 
Stuart Nash 
: The student body becomes the whanau. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: Mr Nash to my right has a point. The student body does become the whanau for the student who is having difficulties. It is a pointless exercise to carry on arguing about this bill when all we need is 10 percent of the student body who do not want a students association to come together and have a referendum. 
Simon Bridges 
: Why is he still talking? 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: But of course Simon Bridges over there has come in and made an utterly pointless rebuttal. He has suddenly joined the fray. He has woken up. He has had his nanny nap this afternoon. He has come in here and decided to jump up and announce his presence. Simon Bridges could not rustle up 10 percent of a student body at a private training establishment to object to students associations. With that I look forward to hearing what Simon Bridges has to say. I am sure that he has a lot of eloquence and passion to explain his thoughts. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Sit down and give somebody who knows what they’re talking about a turn. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: I also acknowledge the contribution of my whanaunga Tau Henare who as ever has made a highly productive contribution to the debate. Kia ora.