Hughes Gareth: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hughes Gareth: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14702] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. The Green Party can see no justification for the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and we agree with the majority of the submitters that the likely outcome of this bill will be damaging to our tertiary education sector. This bill takes us backwards. This bill is an ideological problem in search of a solution. Impacts on students on the sector and on the economy will be severe. 
With very minimal student or institutional demand this bill will damage students. There has been hardly any demand from any students whatsoever. We heard from a tiny ideological minority who could not convince other students—their colleagues and their peers—through the current arrangement which is a petition or referendum. So that minority has used the ACT Party to use National as a vehicle to achieve its minority ideological interests. 
We will be voting against this bill because of what is in this bill but also because of what is not in its explanatory statement. We believe that the underlying objective of this bill is to weaken students associations and to undermine their membership and financial viability and in doing so to reduce student democracy student participation and a student voice on university and polytechnic boards. 
This bill also serves another purpose which is a smokescreen—a smokescreen to cover the other changes in the sector. This Government has made studying less accessible less affordable and in some cases downright impossible as it has shut the door to students who have the grades and the money to study. Surely when facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression we want more people to become skilled and we want more people with qualifications. But this Government is cutting tertiary education funds and making tertiary education less accessible less affordable and in some cases downright impossible. 
This bill is convenient in the short term because students’ attention—rightly so—has been focused on protecting their existence. The bill is convenient to the Government in the long term because it will reduce students’ organisation and ability to critique Government policy. The irony of this bill is that it will take away the right of students to choose the membership system that is best for them. It will take away the compromise agreement reached in 2001 which let students choose whether they wanted to have voluntary or universal union membership via a petition and a referendum. 
The bill aims to uphold a very debatable very controversial interpretation of the right to freedom of association. The majority of students associations operate under a compulsory membership model whereby students can—but we heard that only a tiny tiny fraction actually do—choose to opt out of their student association membership. If there has been a problem to be fixed then surely it could have been fixed by simply making that opt-out provision clearer more accessible and easier to understand. If there has been a problem with corruption and misspending then we could have dealt with that. If there has been a problem with bad decision-making then we could have dealt with that. This has been a massive missed opportunity which is something that frankly occurs all too much in this House as well. The tragedy is that we could have tweaked the system but instead we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 
It was a privilege to sit with the other members on the Education and Science Committee and I acknowledge the other members because they went into the process with a real sense of what I thought was critical engagement. There were some good questions. We heard from some 180 oral submitters and received more than 4800 written submissions. About 98 percent of the submissions were opposed to the bill. 
We heard from a tiny and ideological minority who supported the bill. The presented a grim economic view of the university as being simply a place where students go to maximise their employment outcomes—where students go to sit to listen and to go home again. They presented us with a university without the people without the culture and without an atmosphere. 
We heard also from students associations institutions and city officials. We heard from cultural clubs sporting clubs and support networks. We heard from a broad range of people. We did not hear from student radicals or students alone; we heard from real people with real concerns about this bill which have unfortunately been ignored. The overwhelming majority of the submissions opposed the bill and cited the considerable expected negative impact on students associations’ ability to effectively deliver services advocacy and representation. Tertiary education providers will not be able to provide those services with the same level of skills and of cost and in light of current budgetary constraints they will not do as good a job in providing them. 
We heard from students that they do not have $100 or $200 burning a hole in the pocket at the beginning of the year to join a voluntary association. Students especially in their first year do not know what to expect. They do not know what they will need down the line and they already have to outlay thousands of dollars on books bonds and rent. 
I ask the National members on the select committee what they told their caucus. I ask them why they could not convince their caucus to oppose this bill for the practical reasons we have discussed tonight. Or did the Minister for Tertiary Education decide? I ask whether the Minister said that they had to support as a smokescreen this bill to reduce representation. The options that students associations have now are to slash services sell assets or sign service agreements with the institutions. 
We heard from university associations like the one at Waikato which went down the path of having a voluntary model. It told us that it has been spending the last 10 years recovering from the lean years under a voluntary student membership. We heard about the assets that were flogged off after being built up over decades by the student body. 
This bill will mean that across the country we will see the slashing of services. We will see the slashing of university sport which will lead to fewer Olympians. We will see cuts made to magazines radio legal advice and welfare and to minority groups like UniQ Pasifika groups cultural clubs and groups supporting sexual abuse survivors. This bill will impact on students. It will impact on their pass rates at the same time the Government is making tertiary success one of its priorities. The bill will affect students’ advocacy and representation. 
Tonight National members have said that we are fearmongering and spreading doom and gloom but we are not talking just about predictions. Across the ditch there was an experiment. When Australians introduced this legislation in 2005 it was found that it was a catastrophe and that is why they are undoing it now. That is why they are undoing it now and the Australian Government has had to stump up with $120 million. Across the ditch we saw them sell off assets and that is what will happen here as this bill proceeds. Those assets have been built up by students who have slowly squirreled away a tiny amount of money every year to build up their asset base. But those assets will be flogged off. 
We will see service agreements being signed by tertiary education institutions with students associations. We heard from institutions from across the country—from polytechs and universities—that they appreciate the work and the support of students associations and often they will sign a contract with them. In Auckland which is the only university at the moment with a voluntary student membership model we heard from the president who said that the association survives despite—not because of—voluntary student membership. But we heard that the association’s independence has been irredeemably compromised. The university has already used the threat of pulling the funding to the association to keep it under the university’s thumb and to make sure that the association does what it wants. 
A key question for the Minister for Tertiary Education now is whether he will cap student levy funding and whether he will further weaken students associations. I ask the Minister how much money has been put aside for the transition and whether that discussion has even been had. The irony of this bill is that the services still have to go on. Someone has to provide them but they will happen without students having a say—without their representation. 
We agree with the submitters’ concerns that the impact on student association membership and funding levels will be catastrophic. It will have long-term impacts for our universities our economy and our democracy. We are sowing massive uncertainty in student bodies for next year and the year after. How will people join their students associations? Will they do it at the beginning of the year? Will they need ID? Can they put the fee on their student loans and pay only once at enrolment time? None of these questions have been dealt with. 
Probably one of the biggest costs of the process over the last few months has been the opportunity cost. We could have done good work. We could have made the great work that the associations do better. We could have worked out the opt-out provision clause. We could have made provisions on the better use better accountability and transparency of student money in decision making. We have heard about a whole bunch of new tools that we could be using to encourage democratic participation. But instead why are we doing this? We are doing this not to save money and not to make a university a nicer place a better place or to get more pass rates for our students. What we have is a thinly veiled effort to establish a way to shut down youth voices youth representation student voices and student services and to make being a student in New Zealand just a little bit harder. 
I thank all the submitters who did great work throughout the long but very interesting submission process. I thank them for the hours of work that went into it but I lament all the other things the Government has been doing that students could have been campaigning on this year. In summary I support the right of students to choose the system that works best for them and not what the ACT Party says is best for them. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next member I just mention to those in the gallery that we welcome their interest in the debate but theirs is a passive role and they cannot participate. I ask them to respect that convention of the House.