Burns Brendon: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Burns Brendon: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:16880] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I was not planning to take a call tonight on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill but I heard the member in the chair Heather Roy speak a little earlier and it sparked something in me that caused me to want to make some comments. It was the comment she made on the issue of coercion. 
In Heather Roy’s view students are being coerced to pay funding that they do not want to pay. My mind was taken back to last year and the difficulties within the ACT Party which saw that member go home for a couple of days and then reappear at a press conference sitting very uncomfortably alongside the leader of the ACT Party. She was being asked to confirm whether she was really happy to be sitting there alongside that member and I guess effectively she was being forced to say through gritted teeth that she was. If ever I thought that I had seen an element of coercion going on it was watching that coverage that night. I felt for that member at the time because I think she is a good decent and honourable member but if ever I thought that there was coercion going on I saw it on my television screen that night. 
When we talk about freedom of association I think we also have to acknowledge that where there is a balancing of rights it comes between the rights of individuals and the rights of the collective but it is not simply an issue of the rights of individuals über alles. I think people will generally acknowledge that collectively they can gain things if they work together if they come together and if they pool resources together. If we want an example of that within our economy we could look at Fonterra which is effectively a collective where people come together and pool their resources. Collectively that company is a $10 billion export company and is upheld as an example by some members opposite even though it might sometimes seem a little bit too collective and maybe even—to use the “s” word—socialist in its intent. It actually works well in the best interests of its members and it works extraordinarily well in the interests of New Zealand. 
We can put up against that the issues of narrow self-interest that I think this bill represents in respect of a handful of people with connections to the ACT Party who say that they do not want to fund any of the activities of students associations but would rather look after themselves. Well that is all very well but obviously students have the option already in existing legislation. If they want to they can force a referendum—although that does not seem to be happening on much of a basis—and therefore that mechanism provides them with some protections. 
I know the realities of what students associations can provide because I spent 8 years as a member of the council of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology. I sat on the council of a small polytechnic straddling across the two provinces of Marlborough and Nelson. The students association had to provide services across about 2500 equivalent full-time students or “EFTS”. Many of those people were part-time students. There were lots of sole parents—mums coming back and doing some training part-time. There were lots of short seasonal-type courses. There was not that much in the way of degree courses. Often people were there for only 6 months or a year on a diploma course or a foundation course. Usually 2 years at most was the time that people spent there. But those students needed access to services. They needed to know that if they had a health issue they could go to a subsidised doctor service. They needed to know that if they had issues with sexual health there was somebody who could provide them with those kinds of services. Those services came through the student association. 
I ask a question of members opposite who have indicated they will support this bill. If we look at the current pressure upon the tertiary sector for educational funding we are told there are no spare dollars currently available for any services across the whole panoply of Government. Yet here we are by inherently suggesting that by doing away with the current compulsory regime with the option for referenda effectively we are likely to see this bill used in one or two instances I suspect to try to force those votes and disestablish students associations. What does that mean? Does that mean that in these very difficult financial times we will see student services close down? If that is the situation what will it mean? Will it mean in fact that the Government will have to stump up and provide extra resources because students simply will need to have access to those provided services in terms of things like Student Job Search student health services and the like? 
I think one other important point to recognise is that students associations often give young people their first taste of democracy. It can often be the first time they have stood for a representative body.