Ardern Jacinda: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Ardern Jacinda: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21549] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I start today with a very very simple question for this House and that is: “Who are we here to represent?”. I often hear the sop in this House that young people are our future that we must invest in our young people that we need to give young people the best start in life and perhaps the most ironic statement of all that young people need a voice. I really question what kind of voice we have given young people over the past 2½ years. 
If I were to do a very quick review it would probably cover the fact that this Government has eroded the chance for young people to have for instance the same retirement as members in this House today by suspending payments to the superannuation fund. Second the kind of voice we have given young people is a Government that has sliced into young people’s KiwiSaver accounts; a voice via a Government for whom a credible emissions trading scheme does not matter and which will put young people into debt for 50 years to subsidise heavy polluters; and a voice that refuses to acknowledge that eventually the next generation will not be able to afford to put oil in their cars but this Government refuses to fund an alternative. Now to add to the list of shame the latest voice we have given young people is the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill—a bill that will remove student services student advocacy and student voice. 
The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill received almost 5000 submissions. Members in this House know that 5000 submissions is substantial. Members in this House know that it is almost unheard of to get as many submissions as that on a bill. What is even more unheard of is getting 98 percent of submitters to agree on one thing which is that they do not want this bill. Students and young people did not ask for this bill. ACT asked for this bill so what kind of voice are we giving young people in this House today? So I ask again—I ask again: who are we here to represent? And second why are we doing this? 
Members would have heard from the Government that this bill is going through because of the fallacy that somehow it is providing student choice. Well do not believe me on this question; let us go to one of the submitters. Why do we not ask for an independent view from the Human Rights Commission? The commission when asked whether the existing structure and framework we offer in New Zealand actually caused any New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues in relation to freedom of association answered—what? It gave a clear no. The Human Rights Commission came to this Parliament and told us that the current structure did not pose any issue to freedom of association. 
So I ask again: if this bill is not about choice what is it about? In fact let us reflect on what the current structure provides us. Personally I believe that the current framework already gives students choice and I would have thought that Tau Henare would agree with that as well given that it was National that was behind the clause that allows students to initiate their own referendum. If it is not about choice already then why have we already seen student unions going voluntary? 
We have already heard that Waikato University went voluntary in 1997. I joined that campus in time to watch attempts to switch back. The movement was not a movement of the vice-chancellor as some pundits would argue. No matter what those out there say I remember and I saw the cuts that occurred on that campus as a result of voluntary student membership. Students on that campus at that time know that that structure meant that we saw masses cut out of student media and saw a student radio station fold. 
Members can claim whatever they like about the referendum that brought Waikato University back from voluntary student unionism ultimately in 2000. They have had 10 years to switch back if they so chose and they have not. Why? Because it did not work for Waikato University. What about Auckland University? I acknowledge that there are a number of students from Auckland University watching from Shadows bar this evening and why? Because even though their association has gone voluntary a large number of students on that campus do not agree with what is happening here tonight. 
What of the services that the Auckland University Students Association is able to provide? Well anyone who was on campus at the rally that occurred this week will have heard Joe McRory president of the Auckland University Students Association point out that even Auckland University under this bill will experience cuts to services. Even a student union that currently operates as a voluntary student union will experience cuts because of this bill and to claim otherwise is a complete untruth. 
Let me run through it. Under the Education (Compulsory Student Union Services Fees) Notice 2011 there is a list of student services that the Auckland University Students Association and the Auckland University cannot fund. Let us run through the things that Auckland University will no longer have as a consequence of this Government: orientation; student representation through the Auckland University Students Association executive which it has had since 1891; student representation through clubs which again it has had since 1891; student representation from class reps which it has had since 1968; and club grants and Ed Hillary’s historic tramping club is particularly worried about what this bill will mean for it. Also affected are the university games; reorientation; Pacific Island students associations; library services; freshers’ week; courses and careers days; the Maori Students Association—and I acknowledge the advocacy of the Maori Party in particular on behalf of our Maori students associations—the student emergency fund; international student advisory services; and pastoral care. All of these services will not be able to be funded as a consequence of the actions of this National-ACT Government. 
The House cannot tell me that this bill will not affect student services when it will impact on the ability to raise funds for them and their ability to pay for them. The irony of all of this is that every single member in this House who went to a university experienced and enjoyed the services provided by students associations—the very services that members are now gutting. More than that these services represent the fibre of our universities. If we want hollow institutions devoid of ideas and devoid of debate this bill is part of that. I am by no means the first person to make that claim. 
Nicky Hager in his book  
The Hollow Men 
 talked about attempts to squash student unions through the voluntary student membership movement and that is not something that should be viewed in isolation. It was never just about student services or money. What do most people think when they think about universities and campuses? I know that I always saw them as being about advocacy on behalf of students—for students by students. Universities have been a place of consciousness of debate of academic freedom of ideas and of protest. 
Unfortunately I joined Waikato campus at a time when Prebble’s Rebels were having a resurgence so all of those elements were not quite as strong but the point remains. These are not just places of learning; they are places where we grow global citizens. Students are not a brief sub-community. They have been our political consciousness and students associations— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh the international socialist. Where’s your badge of Che Guevara? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: —I say to Tau Henare—have been the backbone of that. To destroy that is to destroy something much greater than just student services. Therein lies the answer. This bill is not about cost. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: And who cares? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Tau Henare asks who cares. This bill is not just about cost. It is not about choice and it is not about freedom. It is about the opposite of all of those things. This bill is about removing student voice. I ask again: who are we here to represent? If taking away the voice of students if taking away the voice of young people is what those members call representation then we have failed young people yet again. Shame on those members.