Lees-Galloway Iain: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14707] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I am dismayed that I have to take a call on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. This bill should not be before Parliament; we should not be dealing with it. I am very interested to know what John Key would have to say about this bill if he had the time to come to the House and take a call on it. The reason why I wonder that is that John Key is a pragmatist. He has built his reputation on being a pragmatic chap who does what is necessary and what is right and he is open to anything that works. If ever there was a time or a need for pragmatism this is it. 
This is not a pragmatic bill; it is ideology pure and simple. It was introduced to the House by one ideologue who I do not think was particularly interested in it and then it went back to the original drafter of the bill another ideologue who is not representing the voice of students. We have not had a great outpouring from university and polytechnic students crying for this bill to be put through the House. This is a sop from the Government to its minority support partner and to the tiny number of students who belong to ACT on Campus—I think the entire number of them are in the Speaker’s gallery this evening. 
How will a new student respond to the environment of a voluntary students association? That is the question we really need to think about. What will this mean in practical terms for students? New students arrive at university and they are hit with a bill before they even arrive there. Part of that bill may be an option that they may or may not want to take up: their students association levy. They have no idea what the students association is. They have course fees they have living costs and they will probably have to borrow against their loan for living costs. They are facing years and years of debt. They will try to find any possible way to keep down that debt. They have no idea what the students association does because the students association does not have the resources to market to potential students use and should not be wasting its resources on that. 
We will see students who have no idea about what choice they are making. They will have no idea. They will not be making an informed choice. They will turn down that option and students associations will find it very very hard to recruit new members before they have even had the chance to go to them and tell them what services they provide. This is the death of students associations. It is the death of organisations that provide a vital service in universities. 
Even the tertiary institutes the universities and the polytechnics hate this bill. They do not want this bill. They are opposed to this bill. They value what students associations bring to the tertiary environment. They do not just value it; they see the services that the students associations provide as absolutely necessary—so necessary that the universities will step in and replace some of those services if the students association folds. That is very noble of the universities but it presents a number of problems. 
First in most practical terms are the costs for students. Students—who are already facing massive costs who have a lower potential to earn and who have low incomes—will be hit by a higher cost. They might be able to turn down the students association fee but they will get a much much higher student services fee because the university will have to step in. It will have to step in to make sure that students have representation and advocacy. Many students associations support the health care services on campus; a university will have to step in and do that. A students association can do it for a lot less than a university can because it relies on a volunteer base and on people who are paid a lower income because they appreciate the experience that they get from working at a students association. The university will not be able to do that. It will have to pay a proper wage and that will drive up those costs. 
Second students will have no say on the setting of that levy and on how that levy is spent. I know that not too many students bother to make it to their annual general meetings but they have that option available to them now. They can have a say on how that money is spent. That say will be taken away from them when the university has to take over running those student services. So students will not only have to spend more they will have their rights and their say on how their money is spent taken away from them. All of that is for choice and freedom of association! What ideological claptrap we are hearing from the ACT Party. 
The other problem with the university taking over is that it presents it with a massive conflict of interest. The advocacy services and the representation that students associations provide are absolutely vital. If students find themselves in a disciplinary process up against the academic council or any of those sorts of processes they will need representation. Who does that work at the moment? The students association does it. It is a free service that is provided to its members. The university or the polytechnic will have to step in. That presents a massive conflict of interest because not only will they be providing the advocacy for those students but they will be the other party in the disciplinary process. Students associations are completely independent and that independence brings a robustness to those processes that will be completely lost if this bill goes ahead. 
It is ideological claptrap—nothing more nothing less. The National Party has bent over backwards to let the ACT Party have its say. Let us be honest: it is to restore a little bit of mana for Heather Roy within the ACT Party. That is what this bill is all about. 
Where are the pragmatic amendments? The National Party says it is a party of pragmatism under the “Lone Ranger” John Key. Maybe that is the problem. John Key is the pragmatist but everybody else is not and they actually favour this ideological approach. Where are the amendments? Submitters who came to the Education and Science Committee and spoke against the bill offered up a number of amendments that would have lightened the touch of the bill a little bit and made it a little more sensible. They would have made it a little bit more usable and it would not have had that same kill-off aspect that it does for certain associations at the moment. They offered up ways of introducing more accountability and transparency. They offered up options for clarifying objection to membership. Where are the amendments that could have been offered up by the select committee? Where is the pragmatism? What happened to those very sensible ideas that were promoted by people who submitted on the bill? 
The committee received 4837 submissions and 98 percent were opposed. I would have thought that John Key would come down to the Chamber stick his finger in the wind and say: “Do you know what? The political winds are blowing against us here chaps. I think we’d probably better get onside with the students.” But no the pragmatic National Party is bending over for the ideological ACT Party. 
What is the sum total of this bill? It will increase costs for students. That is about it. It will take away their voice. It will take away their ability to group together collectively and to have a voice in Government decisions that affect them. It will take away their advocacy services. It will take away some of the fundamentals that students hold dear such as their ability to go to events at a reasonable price the ability to use the gym at a reasonable price and the ability to use student clubs and societies sports drama and debating clubs. Those will all be gone. So too will counselling services legal help and financial assistance. It is true. I am a former students association president and I really appreciated the ability to support students in hardship. That service is under threat thanks to this bill promoted by the ACT Party and the National Party. 
Labour has a very clear position on this bill and I will spell it out. The only sensible part of this bill is that it will not be enacted until the beginning of 2012 which is after the next general election. If Labour is in Government then we will repeal this legislation. We will be on the side of students. We will be the people of pragmatism and common sense which is sorely lacking from the Government with this absolutely ridiculous bill. This bill is a fundamental attack on students’ rights.