Robertson Grant: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20286] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 During Mr Peachey’s call Tau Henare shouted out that the Labour members on this side of the Chamber were engaged in fascism by opposing this Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. Well I have news for Mr Henare. What we on this side of the Chamber are doing is protecting the National Government’s provision that was supported by Mr Henare when he was in Mauri Pacific and in fact advocated for by Mr Henare when he was in Mauri Pacific. We are trying to protect his work and he calls that fascism. That is what Mr Henare is doing. He is calling his own provision fascism. Mr Henare was part of a Government that came up with a solution that gave students associations choice. It gave students associations choice. I congratulate Mr Henare. He made sure there was a choice for students associations. If enough members of an association wanted there to be voluntary membership they could get a referendum through and then there would be a vote. In fact under this bill brought forward by Heather Roy that choice gets wiped out. The choice that Mr Henare put into the law is now wiped out as a result of this bill. The Auckland University Students Association went through that process. It is now voluntary. That choice is gone under this bill. One does not have the ability to make that choice as a student. So the fascism that Mr Henare accuses us of is actually his own work. We are defending his own work. 
Clause 6A applies the clauses of this bill to private training establishments. I think we have seen enough information in the media in recent times to indicate that the students involved in many private training establishments are in fact very vulnerable. We have seen a number of examples of students enrolled in private training establishments who have actually had their money ripped out of their pockets for very little return. The role of a students association the role of student movements within private training establishments is in fact becoming increasingly important. Value for money—making sure one actually gets a qualification at the end of the day—is an important part of what students associations do. Students associations are there every single day in institutions around the country making sure that students get value for money and that they can stay in their education. 
During the consideration of this clause in this part of the bill in the select committee process Mr Peachey Louise Upston and Colin King the National members of the Education and Science Committee heard the submissions—the overwhelming submissions—that said that we should keep the status quo. The institutions who came to the committee all bar one said “Please do not pass this bill. We believe in what student associations are doing.” Mr Peachey heard all of those submissions and he knew. Mr Peachey and Louise Upston knew that they needed to do something to stop this bill from going through. They knew—perhaps with some mitigation something around more referendum opportunities or something around an opt-out clause for students—that that was a better option. Mr Peachey and Louise Upston knew that was a better option then all of a sudden that went out the window and National kowtowed to ACT. National simply went along with ACT. As my colleague Moana Mackey pointed out via interjection Paul Hutchison went to the New Zealand University Students’ Association conference before the last election and said that National would not support voluntary student membership and it would not support what is being done by clause 6A here today. That is what National said before the election but after the election that is out the door—just like GST not going up is out the door. The commitment of National to stick with a workable solution for students association membership was completely rejected out of hand after the election as part of a deal with the ACT Party. 
That deal with the ACT Party will mean that students right across tertiary institutions in New Zealand will lose the important advocacy and representation that is given to them by students associations. Be they in a public institution or a private institution students will lose the ability of those students associations to provide services because that is the real evidence of what happened in Australia when this kind of legislation was passed. Seventy-five percent of the services provided by students associations disappeared when voluntary student membership came in and there is no doubt that the same thing will happen here. The real vulnerability is not just for those students who are in polytechnics and universities but also for the ones in small institutions in small polytechnics and in institutions where there will not necessarily be some kind of contract for service between the institution and the students association. The students association will end up withering and dying on the vine and that will mean that those students do not have representation. 
Clause 6A refers to the changes that were made under clause 6 and quite clearly within those changes there is the substantive change that moves from a situation of universal membership to voluntary membership as outlined in section 229A inserted by clause 6. This was the area where compromise was on the table. This was where the Labour members were prepared to look for an enduring solution so that this does not flop around with each change of Government. Mark my words—under a Labour Government it will change back. We have said that in the minority report—it will change back. But what we could have had was an enduring agreement. Mr Peachey wanted an enduring agreement and that would have been one where we looked at something like more regular referenda or looked at an opt-out clause. That was on the table. But instead under section 229A that goes off the table and we move to a situation where the choice of students to decide whether membership of their association will be compulsory or voluntary—Mr Henare’s clause—is out. That has gone. 
Also within what has now been put in place in clause 6 for private institutions is section 229B on the question of undue influence. I have often wondered about this change. The provision around undue influence is so ill-defined as to what undue influence might constitute. Certainly I know that students associations right around the country will often run orientation activities which will include all manner of things that are part of buying an orientation ticket. Is the promoter of this bill seriously saying that undue influence could extend to whether an orientation ticket has some free beer with it or something like that? Is that the extent of undue influence? We do not know because section 229B is so ill-defined. The reason why I am raising that under this clause is that clause 6A applies section 229A through to section 229C to private training establishments. How will we know what undue influence is? What procedures will be in place to ensure that undue influence is not exerted? Section 229C inserted by clause 6 runs through the complaints process that people will be able to undertake in terms of undue influence but it does not give us any kind of accurate definition of what that influence might be. In addition to taking away the choice of students associations as to whether membership will be voluntary or compulsory what this does in addition is put in place an unworkable in my view situation around the question of undue influence. 
Another important matter that is now covered in terms of private training establishments by clause 6A concerns the reason fees can be collected. Section 229CA now tells us that “(1) No person is required to pay a membership fee to a students association or to pay money to any other person as an alternative to paying such a membership fee unless that person chooses to become or remain a member of that association.” It then goes on to say that “(2) A person who is not a member of a students association may not be required to pay a representation fee to that association for any services that the association provides generally to the institution’s student body.” 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You are talking about clause 6. We are on clause 6A. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Clause 6A applies sections 229A to 229C to private training establishments. To give it any meaning whatsoever we would need to discuss that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I hear what you are saying. You must tie it back. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Thank you Mr Chair. We are saying for students who are enrolled in private training establishments that should there be a situation in which those private training establishments accept some kind of an arrangement with a students association in those private training establishments the fee that was being charged perhaps by the institution directly to the student could not be for any kind of representational activity of a students association. To me that is completely nonsensical. We also now have the situation— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have just been to the Table to look for a copy of the bill and there is no copy of the bill on this side of the Table. I do not think this debate can continue whilst there is no copy of the bill for Opposition members to consider. I suggest that this debate stop immediately until there is a copy of the bill on this side of the Table. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are having— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That member walked across the Chamber without acknowledging the Chair. That is utterly disorderly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I ask the member to sit down. I will rule on this matter. Although there might not be copies of the bill on the Opposition side of the Table and I appreciate the member bringing it to our attention the Clerk has asked for further copies to be delivered to the Chamber. However there are copies of the bill on the Government side of the Table. There is no requirement to have copies of the bill on each side of the Table just as long as the bill has been tabled and there are copies on the Table. The point has been made and we now have copies specifically on the Opposition side of the Table. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Hon Tau Henare walked across the Chamber without recognising the Chair and that is disrespectful to the Chair. I expect you to bring him to order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for that. I did ask the member to resume his seat—to sit down. That is the end of the matter. Let us move on. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. While I was undertaking my point of order the Hon Tau Henare threw a copy of the bill at me. I do not think that is a very orderly manner for him to conduct himself either. If the member wants to help me then— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you. The member has made his point well. I asked the member to resume his seat—to sit down. That is the end of the matter. The member has erred; I have told him to sit down to resume his seat and that is the end of the matter. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Sections 229A to 229C inserted by clause 6A apply to private training establishments. I note in my remaining seconds of speaking time and as other members take a call that Allan Peachey in his initial contribution on clause 6A did not mention clause 6A once. He actually talked only about clause 6 so I am sure it is a wide-ranging debate.