Delahunty Catherine: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Delahunty Catherine: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:16886] 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 I spent some time on the Education and Science Committee for the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and I am trying to remember when we discussed clause 4A. It seems to have come out of the blue and I do not remember being informed about it by officials being given any background on it the select committee having any kind of debate on it or any submitters coming to talk about it. 
Clause 4A seems to be an anomalous clause that does not relate to the alleged purpose of the bill. It seems to be the exact opposite of what the ACT Party claims it is because it is actually interfering in the political process. The ACT Party’s claim about the bill which I do not agree with at all seems to be that we must not interfere in political process. 
The Green Party is at a loss to understand where the clause fits in the bill. The clause seems to be more to do with a bill we debated at the select committee some time last year—I think it was the Education Amendment Bill (No 2)—which was about changing the polytech councils. The clause seems to be more to do with deciding that the role of students will be limited because the ACT Party does not want the influence of students over councils at universities and tertiary institutions. We have a major problem with that approach. We are very surprised the ACT Party members are supporting the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill in one breath and then in the next breath going on and on about freedom. 
Some of the submitters who came to talk to the Education and Science Committee talked a lot about their freedom. They were talking only about themselves. They had no concept of the freedom of other people but they certainly seemed to be obsessed with the idea that they did not need students associations because they were free spirits and students associations did not matter. They had no ability to empathise with or show any imagination towards other people who might have needs. 
Clause 4A is all about the constitution of councils and it does not seem to fit logically or coherently with the overall ethos of the bill if there is one. The Green Party is at a loss to see why clause 4A has been done this way. Maybe it has something to do with inconsistencies with the Education Act or maybe it has something to do with the way legislation is drafted but the clause does not seem to have much to do with the coherent clauses and the fundamental purpose of the bill which we have just debated. I cannot see how the clause is linked with the principal purpose of the bill. It certainly seems to me like political incorrectness gone mad on every level. That is really a good description of the bill and possibly what it should have been called. But we are not here to debate the name of the bill; we are talking about clause 4A. 
I do not have a lot more to say about clause 4A except that I would like to be able to say that we had a robust and coherent debate on it at the select committee that everyone who was there understood the clause that it was discussed intelligently and that we stand behind it. But in fact we did not we do not it was not and it will not be. 
We in the Green Party would like to know why one would dictate how many students could be appointed to a council. Why would ACT members if they are interested in freedom talk about there being “at least 1 but not more that 3 persons who must be appointed following an election (conducted in accordance with statutes made by the council)”? That sounds extremely Draconian. It does not sound like freedom. It does not sound like the students are getting to make choices. It sounds as if the system at the moment which has worked perfectly well is going to be changed so that the councils on the tertiary institutions will have all the power. Well guess what they have all the power now. They have a huge amount of power. 
We have a vulnerable student body that has lost access to universities in huge numbers. When I sat on the select committee and listened to submissions from Maori organisations Pasifika organisations disability activist groups and people concerned about all kinds of issues I heard that the last thing they wanted was for the councils of their organisations to have more power over them. They wanted students to have the right to collectively organise to advocate for themselves and to be able to elect representatives to participate in things like councils. 
I am at a loss to see how clause 4A usefully contributes to the idea that students have rights and that students are valid participants in the governing bodies of their organisations. If we want to disempower people why are we not honest about it and say that this bill is about disempowerment that it is about breaking down the opportunity for students to organise politically and that under clause 4A it is about breaking down the opportunity for students to choose freely their own representatives in the manner they want? If ACT members want to be honest then they should talk about what the bill is really about instead of writing clauses that do not make it clear and do not help the public have any understanding of why the National Government has supported ACT on the bill. 
The Green Party is appalled that we have actually undermined students in so many ways in the last 2 years. Students have been undermined ever since Roger Douglas brought in user-pays. The situation is getting worse by the day and now ACT wants to take away students’ fundamental rights not only to have their needs looked after in terms of services and clubs but also through clause 4A in terms of how those services and clubs are appointed.