Shearer David: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Shearer David: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:21087] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 That was a very interesting turn of events and I thank the previous speaker Te Ururoa Flavell for putting that to the Committee and for the brave attempt at preventing this Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill from passing through. 
I start by commenting on a couple of points that Heather Roy mentioned in her contribution just before about the students associations going to her and—as she intimated anyway—their lack of ability to get back to her on a number of issues. I think that was a bit unfair. I think the students associations have come to her on many occasions to talk through this bill with her and to try to seek a compromise as have we. What they realised was that at the point when there was a possibility that this bill would not get through Heather Roy was willing to listen and to compromise. When she believed that the bill was unlikely to be prevented from passing she closed that down. That in some ways is in complete contradiction to what she said on  
Back Benches 
 the other night. She said that some of the best legislation that she had got through had been when parties sat around and compromised—that is exactly what she said. I think it is somewhat sad that she did not take that advice those ideological words she talked about on  
Back Benches 
 and put them into action particularly with this bill. This bill could have had a much better outcome that would have been durable and long-lasting and it would have respected the students associations and the ability of people who wanted to opt out and not be part of a students association. Instead we have the situation as it is today. 
Let us be quite frank about this: at the point that we were looking for a compromise with Heather Roy Labour’s point of view was that we thought we could defeat this bill. We thought we had sufficient time to defeat this bill and it would not come forward. We were willing to compromise and put up an opt-out clause because we felt we could get much better legislation out of this and it would stop this whole issue being ping-ponged around the place which is to the detriment of students. I want to put it pretty firmly on the table that when Heather Roy pops up and says that it is all Labour’s fault that we are looking to extend out the transitional arrangements to 2013 so that students associations have an opportunity to get themselves ready we can say that there was an option on the table to have different legislation to the bill we are debating today. 
The second thing that Heather Roy says of course is that it is Labour’s fault that students associations will face an inordinate problem to get ready by 1 January. So therefore we are not looking at trying to do something to ameliorate the position of the students associations; we are simply blaming Labour. Well Heather Roy can blame us if she likes. I submit that in fact she is equally as uncaring about what will happen with the students associations as she is in blaming us. I think there is a very strong case under clause 9 to put together a transition clause to enable students associations to get ready much more adequately. 
I will refer to a point I made in my last call. Under the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) there are some real restrictions on universities increasing their levies to meet the services that students associations will no longer be able to provide. This is a very serious issue. We all know what will happen when this bill comes through. We all know what will happen when clause 9 is enacted. What will happen is that the students associations will run short of money which happened in Waikato and at Auckland University and every single Australian university where the same sort of legislation was put in place. When that happened the universities had to step up and pay the students associations or contract out the very services that the students associations once provided. It is ironic and I hear Sir Roger Douglas call out “freedom” or “democracy” or whatever he calls out from time to time. 
Grant Robertson 
: It’s hard to say. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: It is hard to say but there is a grunt over there in the corner that sounds a little bit like “freedom”. But effectively students will be levied money for the services they receive now from the university without any representation. Taxation without representation is supposedly something that the ACT Party upholds higher than just about any other value that its members espouse—perhaps no taxation would be one—but they are not willing to examine that in the light of this legislation. 
I come back to the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). It puts in place a number of stipulations for universities to consult with their student bodies. It puts in place some regulations on the degree to which a levy can be raised. We know that in the case of Auckland University—let us take that example—the levies went from more than $100 to more than $500 to meet the costs of services that the students association there once provided. Now the students association quite frankly is a contractor to the university. It does not have the same ability to represent students as it did before. 
In my reading in this area I came across a quote from the UK Conservative Party which at the moment as some members may know is raising the cost of universities considerably and stripping away basically a free university education there to huge protests. The Conservative Minister for Universities David Willetts praised the contribution of students associations in a recent speech saying that students associations “are playing their part in their local communities. To local schools hospitals charities friendly societies I would add student unions.” He does not call them a union in the sense of a workers’ union; he calls them a union in the sense of an association like those other societies that he referred to. He says: “We value student unions. We salute them and what they achieve for and on behalf of students. Without them universities would be much poorer institutions as would the employers causes and political parties who take on their alumni.” That was a Conservative Minister in the throes of making universities in the UK much more expensive to go to yet he is valuing students associations and ensuring those students associations stayed there. 
Mr Locke as did Ms Roy in her contribution talked about the fact that students associations were in fact voluntary early on in the New Zealand university experience. According to my colleague Grant Robertson who actually did a thesis on this issue which I did not know—it does make him something of an expert on the matter; just in case he does not get another call I just want to say that he reflects from that thesis and I think he should make it into a book—students associations became compulsory when the University of New Zealand was split up into the various universities that we largely see today. At that point there was a clause put in the legislation that created our universities from the University of New Zealand and said that students associations should be compulsory.