Beaumont Carol: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Beaumont Carol: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20844. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I need to respond to the Minister in the chair the Minister for Tertiary Education in relation to the student levies that are being covered by the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). I note for the record just in case the Minister has missed it that Labour is supporting it. Labour supports this bill and we support greater transparency and control of the levies that are being set and that students will be required to pay.  
We support greater transparency and accountability in the setting of student levies. I think it would be important to look at how that might work and at the apparent inconsistency with the legislation the Government is putting in. I congratulate the Minister—so that the Minister hears that directly—on putting into this provision greater involvement by students in the setting of student levies which is covered by Part 1. But sadly the gains that are possible there will be undermined by the loss of students associations as a result of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill which will cripple students associations and their ability to represent students and lobby institutions over fee increases.  
If one is looking at just the practical circumstances here one has to ask how institutions will consult students and include them in decision-making processes on levies if there is no organisation to represent them. Will they just pick random students who happen to be walking around and say: “You! Come here. We want to talk to you about student levies.”? Or perhaps they will go to the Young Nats club on campuses and say: “Listen we need to talk to some students about levies. So you you and you—you’ll do the job.” Where will the independent voice the organised voice and the democratic voice for students be in order for them to be consulted? I would like the Minister to answer that question. I have congratulated him on ensuring that this provision provides for student consultation but how on earth will that be done?  
The other inconsistency here of course is that the demise of students associations will mean that institutions will be expected to provide more services not fewer. How will they do that? That will put an inconsistency in there as well because they will want to ensure that some of those services continue—services that are actually very important to the student experience to their well-being and to their involvement in university. If those services are lost through the demise of students associations will the institutions be picking them up? That will be an extra cost. Therefore we have a bit of a circular problem here. The answer of course to the question of who will pay or how that will happen is that there will be no money to provide for those student support services. They will be lost and that will diminish the tertiary experience and threaten achievement at universities.  
I note that the reasons for bringing in this particular part are good ones. There have been increases in fees in a way there should not have been which has put pressure on student incomes. Certainly Labour does not support that and we do support the greater accountability and transparency. The Minister himself has said that “Under the proposed changes … arrangements for decisions to be made jointly or in consultation with students on matters associated with student services”. In relation to that specific point I would like the Minister to tell us how that will happen when students associations go down the gurgler.  
I note that the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations has welcomed these proposals. That is positive; we are all in agreement here. It agrees in fact—not surprisingly—that students should have oversight of these levies that that is the best way to ensure that services are responsive to students and that the levies are kept under control. So that is all good—tick tick tick.  
Students already have a say at some institutions and I say good on those institutions where people do better than the legal minimum. The example of Victoria University is cited where the students association works in partnership with the university to ensure that the levy is controlled and spent on services that students use and value. Well that is good and I congratulate Victoria University on that. But the University Students’ Association then pointed out: “While we welcome today’s proposals the unfortunate irony is that the Government is in the process of severely undermining any independent student voice at institutions”.