Peachey Allan: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peachey Allan: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20836. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 1 I need to react to comments made by the member for Wellington Central who it seems to me is digging himself deeper and deeper into a hole in terms of three things. One is his inability to actually address the issues in this bill. I heard that the Labour members who were speaking last night are supporting it. Secondly he is trying to get this all tied up with the voluntary student union membership bill where the issues in my view are very very different. And thirdly and most significantly—and where the electorate will demand a price at the election and in Wellington Central itself—is the willingness of that member to use filibuster tactics in this House to frustrate a bill in his name brought on behalf of the Royal Society in relation to which he was being asked to discharge his responsibilities as an electorate MP. Instead he chose to put an ideological agenda ahead of an organisation in his electorate that required his assistance.  
As the chairperson of the Education and Science Committee I chaired the hearings on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill and I want to apologise to my friends in the Royal Society. I am sorry that they got caught up in this mess but I am confident that the electorate of Wellington Central will hold that member to account.  
I will get back to Part 1. In relation to tertiary education this part enables the responsible Minister to issue directions on student services fees—compulsory fees for non - tuition-related services. It seems to me that there is a debate that we are fringing around. It sort of does not really matter on this side of the Committee because the Government is confident in what it is doing. It becomes a little bit tricky when Labour tries to link this to the survival of compulsory student unionism. I think the Committee has been very tolerant in letting members like Mr Robertson do that but at the end of the day the basic question is not being asked which is how many of these services are actually necessary for the great bulk of students.  
One of the clear messages that I felt came through during hearings on the voluntary student membership bill was that we had reached a situation where one begins to wonder whether 17 18 or 19-year-olds who go off to university are capable of standing on their own two feet and making good decisions for themselves. I listened to the sort of stuff that Labour is putting up in this debate and in the voluntary student membership bill debate. One has to ask oneself where is the faith and confidence in the young people of New Zealand who are deemed to be intelligent enough— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Oh my gosh pot calling kettle black! Oh my gosh! Who’s saying 16 and 17-year-olds don’t know what food to buy? 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Perhaps the member who is shouting at me might like to take on the demeanour of an adult rather than of a recalcitrant fourth-form girl. It seems to me that we are in danger here—or at least Labour members are—of trying to convince this House that there are 17 18 and 19-year-olds who have the qualifications to attend tertiary institutions but who are not capable of making good decisions for themselves. One of the things that comes out of this legislation and the Minister’s authority to be involved in the setting of service levies and that sort of thing— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Before the next member Carmel Sepuloni begins I say that we are debating the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) not the voluntary student membership bill. People can make comparisons I guess but the debate should be on the Education Amendment Bill (No 4).