Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:16853] 
Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 8 December 2010. 
Clause 2 Commencement ( 
continued 
)  
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I do not know whether I can say it is a pleasure to take a call on this particular bill and this particular clause but I certainly am happy to do so. We are debating clause 2 which is the commencement clause. It was amended by the Education and Science Committee so I think it is good to debate at some length whether the amendment would be a good idea. 
The select committee’s amendment was that the Act come into force on 1 January 2012. The reason the select committee made that amendment was that most of the members of the committee were concerned that students associations and institutions would need time to prepare for a change such as this one. As we are now are in 2011 and the select committee decided in 2010 that the commencement date should be 1 January 2012 I think there are good grounds for supporting the amendment on the Table in my name. My amendment omits the words “1 January 2010” and substitutes the words “1 January 2013”. 
Everybody is well aware that on this side of the Chamber we oppose this bill in principle because we believe that it will in effect destroy students associations. That is the evidence we have from Australia and I have not seen anything brought before the House that tells us that it would be any different in New Zealand. We believe that students associations play a critical role in the health and well-being of students and in their academic progress and we believe that this bill should not proceed. But as we are in the position of looking at a commencement clause we need to give the affected associations time to adjust to the change. 
As I said in 2010 it was thought that the commencement date could be 1 January 2012. We are now in 2011 and I believe we need to look at moving the commencement date further out to 1 January 2013. I know from talking to students associations at their conferences over the summer break that they are already—certainly from the university end—beginning to talk to institutions about what they would do if this bill were to pass. Those discussions will take time. Those discussions will be difficult. One of the criticisms this side of the Chamber has of this bill is that it puts in the hands of the institutions what services students will get. 
When we were campaigning against this change in the 1990s we used to have posters that asked whether people wanted the vice-chancellor to choose the music for orientation. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Probably not. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: No and in the case of some vice-chancellors I know I would not want them to do that although Steve Maharey would be the exception. He is a man with impeccable music taste. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It is—it is very good. The point is that students associations will no longer have control of the services that are provided. Students lose control and the institutions will decide whether there are services via the agreements they might have with associations or whatever they provide themselves. I do not believe that a commencement date of 1 January 2012 is sufficient for the necessary discussions and negotiations over this matter to take place. I think it needs to be extended out to 1 January 2013. 
Should the Committee not wish to take up my suggestion of 1 January 2013 as the commencement date there are a number of other dates through the period of December and perhaps even further back than that. If the member in charge of this bill the Hon Heather Roy is serious when she says she does not want to destroy students associations then she should at least look at how this legislation could be phased in to enable those students associations to have some kind of ability to get ready to prepare themselves and to perhaps make agreements with institutions. 
On that point I say that the big concern we have on this side of the Chamber is not so much about university students associations. Although they will have the problem of no longer being able to have students control student affairs most of them are large enough that I am sure the institutions will contract for services with them. But that will not happen in polytechs. That will not happen in most of the polytechs around New Zealand. Those polytech students associations will not survive and I do not believe they will be contracted for services. So they need even more time to prepare themselves for this bill and they need a commencement date that is far further on than 1 January 2012. 
Polytech students are transitory by nature; they usually come in for only 1 or 2-year courses and sometimes for courses that are a lot shorter. The infrastructure of the students associations is not built up in the way that it is inside university students associations. They of all people need a longer period of time for the institutions and the students associations—where they are still going on polytech campuses—to come up with a plan that means student services are still provided. At this stage we cannot guarantee that. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I also speak in support of the amendment to clause 2 of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. The original commencement clause states: “This Act comes into force 1 year after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” The Education and Science Committee saw fit to change that date to 1 January 2012. My understanding is that the intent of that change was to increase the length of time between this Act’s receiving the Royal assent and its coming into force. Of course we find ourselves in a difficult situation now. As Mr Robertson pointed out this bill has taken some time to make its way through Parliament. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: As I was saying before the dinner break the amendment put up by Grant Robertson is to amend clause 2 by omitting “1 January 2012” and substituting “1 January 2013”—that is to delay the commencement of the bill by 1 year. Clearly the clause needs to be amended. I think that goes without saying because the select committee recognised that the original wording of the bill which was for the bill to commence 1 year after the date on which it receives the Royal assent posed some difficulties for students associations universities polytechnics and private training establishments. It could mean that the change would potentially come in midway through a semester with all the difficulties that that would bring with it. The select committee also recognised that students associations and their tertiary institutes would need a significant period of time in which to make the adjustments in order to start working on the service agreements that many of the students associations are working on with their universities and polytechnics for the new regime of voluntary student membership. 
The select committee recognised that issue and wanted to make the period of time longer. Well because of the time it has taken for the bill to progress through the House the period of time is shorter. It is less than 1 year until 1 January 2012 which restricts the amount of time in which the changes can be made so the intention of the amendment made by the select committee has now been lost and in fact the opposite is now the case. 
There is absolutely no doubt that the commencement clause needs to be amended and the only amendment we have before us on the Table is the one to change the commencement date to 1 January 2013. It seems to me to be a sensible amendment bearing in mind that Labour is opposed to the bill and we will be voting against it throughout the process. If the bill goes ahead in order to make it workable the amendment has to be made. 
The benefit of the commencement date being 1 January is that it is a clear date. Most universities these days still have summer schools so the universities and students associations will still be operating but it is a time when things are fairly quiet. It will not be during normal semester time. Therefore it gives the universities and students associations the opportunity to make the changeover on 1 January. It will not come up on some arbitrary date. It will not come up midway through the year. But it does deliver on the intention of the select committee to give students associations and tertiary institutes additional time because a lot of work is required from both organisations to make the adjustments to the proposed new regime—not least to the service agreements around services such as health centres orientation events coordination and probably advocacy services. A lot of negotiation will be required to ensure that advocacy services even though they are probably being funded by the university remain at arm’s length from the university and exactly how all that gets organised will take quite a lot of negotiation. 
There will also be the matter of costs and the fact that the universities polytechnics and private training establishments will be increasing their service levies. No doubt it will take some time for the university and polytechnic councils to make the decisions around what those service levies will be. There is also a range of other issues that need to be accounted for. I suspect there is some risk that the Government needs to take into account which is the fact that the amount that will be borrowed against student loans will have to increase because the service fees will be increased. There is also the potential for other fees to increase as well. That will mean students will need to borrow more against those student loans. The Government will have to ensure that it is in a good fiscal position to be able to lend that money. We know that the Government is looking pretty hard at student loans at the moment. There is some consideration of reintroducing interest charges on student loans and obviously the Government sees those loans as something of a risk. 
The increased fees that will result from the changes that have to be made in the period between when the bill receives the Royal assent and when it commences are quite substantial. Not only will the universities polytechnics private training establishments and students associations have to figure out what it all means for them but also the Government—and I imagine quite a few ministries and departments as well—will have to figure out what it means for it. Quite a lot of work needs to be done and frankly trying to squeeze it all in before 1 January 2012 is just not feasible; it simply is no longer feasible. 
The Minister Heather Roy says she does not want to see students associations collapse and that that is not the intention of the bill. As I have said Labour questions that statement but if that is the Minister’s intention then increasing the length of time between the bill receiving the Royal assent and its commencement makes a lot of sense. It gives everybody a little more time to make the adjustment. I see Louise Upston having a bit of a smile and a laugh about that— 
Louise Upston 
: She is actually a member not a Minister. It is important that you address the right person in the chair. I just thought I’d correct you on that one. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: OK. I see Louise Upston is having a bit of a smile about that— 
Louise Upston 
: No just factually correcting you given that you were not on the select committee and do not actually understand what occurred. But that’s OK. Carry on. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: The more the member wants to say on the bill the better. We will just debate it further. Quite a lot of work needs to be done and it needs to be dealt with. It is actually quite serious. I think we are all trying to make the bill which is a bad bill functional. We are trying to make it work so that it does not absolutely obliterate students associations. Although personally I do not think it will make any difference for the students associations at polytechnics it may be just enough to help the university polytechnics tread water. The current situation whereby they would have only until 1 January 2012 does not allow for that at all. It means a lot of things will be rushed probably some of those service agreements will not be exactly what they should be and the universities will not have time to figure out their fee structure either. 
The amendment is pretty simple. I do not think it is overly controversial. It comes back to the original intention of the select committee’s change to allow students associations more time. I submit that the amendment should be a pretty easy one for the Government to support. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity to speak on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. The Maori Party has been greatly concerned about the intention of the bill. It basically ensures that no tertiary student is required to join a students association. But we believe that the underlying purpose of the bill is to erode students associations. It is well known that the current system allows students to opt out of membership. The bill proposes that students be required to opt in. 
The context of the bill is that students associations and their representatives including Maori student ropu and their representatives have often been strong advocates within tertiary institutions and the wider sector for high-quality academic standards adequate Government investment and the maintenance or reduction of course fees. Students associations and ropu have challenged user-pays education since its introduction in 1990 and instead argue that education is a public good and should be funded as such. 
Surely we are not about to suggest that we should be afraid of people having the opportunity to challenge that in a healthy democracy. The current legislative framework is both flexible and inclusive. It allows for both voluntary and universal membership of students associations. This framework also allows students to be the decision makers on whether their association is voluntary or compulsory through transparent democratic referenda. In short there is no widespread criticism of the status quo. 
In light of all these criticisms we have drafted a number of amendments to reinstate the rights relating to effective and meaningful representation to ensure that student voices are heard. I acknowledge Grant Robertson for his initiative in putting forward amendments that replicate the amendments that we are proposing. We are certainly happy to support the changes that he has put forward. 
My amendments are focused on three key areas. The amendment to clause 2 will provide sufficient transition time to minimise disruption to the tertiary sector and services on campus. If as we think is inevitable the National Government supports this ACT Party bill then the immediate consequence is that the sector and students will be at a significant disadvantage due to the short time window for transition and implementation. There is a very strong case to be made for increasing the lead-in time of the bill to minimise potential disruption. The amendment does not change the intent of the bill. 
The second amendment establishes a new section requiring information to be provided by the institution to both prospective and enrolled students about any students association at that institution for the purposes of informing those students of the services provided and of how to be a member. 
We seek to create a new section 229CC “Representation”. The bill as currently drafted places most of the control of student representation and advocacy in the hands of the tertiary education organisation. Students the primary funders of student services will be increasingly forced to shift funding from students associations to tertiary education organisations through student services levies. Students should have the right to effective and meaningful representation to ensure their voices are heard. 
Finally I thank the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations Te Ropu Akonga o nga Whare Wananga o Aotearoa for its persistent support and encouragement to do what is right for students. We share with it concerns about the negative impact that this bill will have on students tertiary institutions and the wider sector as services and facilities come under threat and important advocacy and representation on student issues are put at risk. We hope that these amendments will receive the support of the Committee that they will improve the bill that they will protect student choice and that they may better ensure that services can continue. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Before I call the next member I remind members that clause 2 is the commencement clause. Debate should be confined to issues related to the commencement date. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. 
It is great to be here debating this bill. I missed the beginning of the Committee of the whole House stage with a new baby all the way back in December so I am glad that we managed to keep some of this bill alive to be able to debate it tonight. I had the great privilege of sitting on the Education and Science Committee to hear the hundreds of submissions on this bill. So I had a great insight into what will happen on 1 January 2012 when this legislation commences. 
Tonight I think there is a whole host of arguments that need an airing and need to be put on the floor of this Chamber. I am looking forward to discussing some of the amendments I will seek to have passed tonight. Although the Greens will not support the bill as it currently stands we think our amendments have a lot of merit and should be passed. 
This bill if it passes its third reading will come into effect on 1 January 2012. When is that date? It is right after the 2011 election. What we are seeing is an agenda from that side of the Chamber to force through this bill and delay the negative impacts it will have on our students associations our students and our universities and polytechnics until after the election. People will cast their ballot not knowing the impact of this bill. To be frank although this bill is interesting and fascinating it has been the domain of the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations politicians and lobbyists and it has not reached the public. I think that if the public knew what would happen when this legislation commences on 1 January 2012 they might have a second thought when they are in the ballot booth. 
This is a bad bill plainly and simply. It is an extreme bill. It is simply an ideological solution in search of a problem. On the select committee I did not hear from anyone as to what the problem was that we were trying to fix. The ACT Party has somehow convinced the National members who do not have to support the bill to support it. Even at this late stage in the proceedings those members do not have to support its passing. 
Today we had the honour of having the Australian Prime Minister in our Chamber. Maybe we should have asked Prime Minister Gillard what we could learn from the Australian experience. When this legislation commences on 1 January 2012 we should take the lessons learnt from Australia because we are not doing this in a vacuum. We have seen an experiment across the Ditch on what happens when we force a voluntary student membership model on to students associations. We should have asked Prime Minister Gillard why her Government is now changing the Australian legislation in order to find out whether we are likely to have to change our legislation after this legislation commences. We should have asked Prime Minister Gillard why Australia had to pour $120 million extra— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Commencement. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: Thank you Mr Chair—the commencement. 
We have to ask why Australia had to pour $120 million extra into its tertiary sector after its legislation commenced. We should be asking that legitimate question because I have not heard from the Government benches or from the Minister about what those members will do for a transition programme or how much extra money they will have to put into one because our associations will suffer once this legislation commences. 
I have a whole host of extra things to say. I have some great amendments that I look forward to speaking on. When this legislation commences I say it will be bad news for New Zealand. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am looking forward to the debate on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill commencement clause and on when the bill should come into effect. I will raise three main points in favour of deferring the date upon which this bill comes into effect the first of which is about the fiscal risk posed to the Government by this bill. This bill does not just have an impact on students. The impact it will have on students will flow on to tertiary institutions and flow on to the Government. I will explain that impact. It is one of the reasons why I think this bill needs to be delayed. Dealing with the flow-on impact of the decisions that will be made as a result of this bill will take longer than the 9 to 10 months in which this bill effectively allows for decisions to be made. 
If students associations become completely voluntary and their ability to raise a compulsory levy—a universal levy—from students is removed then universities polytechnics and other tertiary institutions will want to continue to provide many of the services that they currently provide. They will have to pay for those somehow and they will have to pay for them either by increasing student fees or by finding the money from somewhere else. Should they choose the option of increasing student fees or levies the flow-on impact will be more student loan borrowing. It will have a flow-on impact on student loan borrowing which will flow into greater fiscal risk for the Crown which will ultimately increase the cost of the student loan scheme. 
I believe that this bill will increase the cost of the student loan scheme by more than the amount currently paid in the existing students association levies because—as I intend to argue later on in the debate—I do not believe that tertiary institutions can provide for the same cost the services that students associations currently provide. It will cost the institutions more. That is the first argument. The first argument for deferring the commencement date is that even if we go ahead and make students associations voluntary we need to make sure that all of the fiscal risks are adequately dealt with in implementing this law and that it has been sufficiently worked through. 
The second issue and I think it is quite a complex issue relates to the assets that are currently held by students associations. In some cases students associations actually hold a significant number of assets—many millions of dollars’ worth in the case of one or two associations. If we pass this bill which makes students association membership entirely voluntary then the question of who is accountable for those assets of who has the responsibility for and the ownership of those assets becomes a very vexed issue. For example the incumbent executives of an association may ultimately have total control of those assets without accountability back to the universal wider membership base that they had. 
I am talking about millions of dollars’ worth of assets. These issues will take some time to work through. I think we need to take some steps to protect those assets so that a small group of students do not end up capturing those shortly-to-become-voluntary membership organisations and basically asset-stripping them which is a very real possibility. We could see a small number of people stripping assets out of students associations and I think we need to avoid that. Once again I say I am opposed to the bill but if the bill is to be passed then we should take all the steps we need to to ensure that it is passed responsibly. I do not think we can do that in the period of time that this commencement clause will allow. 
The third point that I will raise concerns the matter of whether this bill is widely supported and the question of whether the commencement date allows time for democracy to take its course. There is a general election on 26 November. The overwhelming majority of submitters to this bill I am told by my colleagues on the Education and Science Committee were opposed to it. Those people may choose to exercise their rights at the general election and vote against this current National-ACT Government. They may choose to elect a new Government and that new Government should have the time should it wish to preserve the universal nature of students association membership. This bill as it is at the moment would require a new Government that wished to do that to push an amendment bill through all stages under urgency. That is not something that the National Government is unfamiliar with but it is something that an incoming Labour Government would be less likely to wish to do. We actually believe in the democratic process of Parliament and in doing things properly. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Oh so Labour has never operated under urgency? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: We do not intend to rush a bill like this through after the next election when we return to Government. The New Zealand public are getting fed up with this Government already. 
Those are the three main arguments that I have for deferring the commencement date of this legislation: we need to deal with the fiscal risks to the Government; we need to protect the many millions of dollars’ worth of assets that students associations currently hold; and we need to make sure that all New Zealanders are given the opportunity to have their voices heard. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can I just be clear: I am not resuming my call? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No no. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: This is a new call? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: You are on your second call. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I am on my second call so I am at liberty to seek the call again at the end of 5 minutes. Is that correct? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes. Any member can take up to four calls. You have had one. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I can have two consecutively. Thank you very much Mr Chairman; I wanted to clarify that. 
As the Committee is aware but as people who have tuned in just recently may not be we are debating clause 2 which is the commencement clause of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. This clause states simply that “This Act comes into force on 1 January 2012.” I would like to support the amendment in the name of Rahui Katene to substitute the words “1 January 2013” but I consider that to be a lesser position than the one I would ultimately prefer. I had the privilege of sitting on the Education and Science Committee for some time when I had responsibility for that shadow portfolio and I listened to many of the submitters who came before the select committee. The select committee also travelled around the country listening to submitters and it was under the good chairmanship of Allan Peachey that in fact the committee travelled to hear people. However we come to the commencement date now and the member’s bill states that it will come into force on 1 January 2012 when in her original version it was “1 year after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” But those words were struck out by the select committee and we have the amendment that “This Act comes into force on 1 January 2012.” 
There was not one submitter who came before the select committee and whom I heard who wanted this bill to commence at all let alone on 1 January 2012. I understand there was one submitter whom I did not hear personally—one submitter or one submission; I am not sure whether the submitter appeared in person—who supported the bill. I understand that Whitireia Community Polytechnic submitted that it was in favour of this legislation and of making membership of students associations voluntary because it had had a bitter and unpleasant experience of its particular students association. I cannot blame it for feeling bitter and unhappy about the way in which that students association conducted itself. But that is not the malaise that this bill is trying to address and that it seeks to address from 1 January 2012. That is not a malaise that afflicts all students associations. To have one submitter with a very particular objection to the way in which its students association was run become the cause célèbre for this legislation that is now designed to commence on 1 January 2012 is insufficient cause for this Parliament to pass bad legislation. 
So I support Rahui Katene’s amendment to push the date out to 2013 but as a lesser option because there is no date that is appropriate for the introduction and enactment of this legislation. It is very poor legislation; it is derived from an ideological position for which there is no practical or pragmatic requirement. The date of 1 January 2012 will simply be the date on which a bad piece of legislation comes into effect. Not only is it bad legislation but it is legislation that nobody or almost nobody wants. Almost nobody wants it. My colleagues have detailed some of the potential pitfalls in relation to the enactment of this legislation effective 1 January 2012. They have enunciated quite clearly some of the real dangers from the loss of ownership of assets built up over years from student fees. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on the commencement clause. The reason is that sometimes the commencement clause might be seen as not particularly important but when we are talking about the scale of change seen in this legislation the clause in fact becomes critical. There is only one reason why a commencement clause with a date at the beginning of next year would be forced through and it is that the massive changes that will occur in our tertiary institutions and students associations cannot be undone by future Governments. We sincerely hope that at the election this year this commencement clause will not matter because we will be in a position to revisit this issue. I am very grateful that our election will be held before 1 January 2012 so that we may have the opportunity to do that. 
I do not think we should underestimate the scale of change that will be happening in the very short time period this commencement clause allows for. It is in that light that I congratulate my colleague Grant Robertson on his amendments to move the commencement date out to allow for students associations to prepare for the scale of change that is coming. It is not just so much as preparing the students for what it will mean for them but it is giving students associations the time to organise alternative methods of funding if that is what they have to do. If they will need to go out and look for philanthropic donations to keep running some of these services that students have come to expect and to value then a commencement date of 1 January 2012 simply does not allow for that—it simply does not allow for that. I believe that that is entirely deliberate. 
I completely endorse what my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway said that it is too late for our polytechs. They are not going to be able to survive in terms of their students associations and their services. But for universities that provide much larger-scale services and that have more students etc. a commencement date that allowed more time for students associations to preserve those services would seem to be fair and reasonable if we wanted the preservation of those services. If we actually wanted those services to fall over so that future Governments or future legislation could not reinstate those services because they had gone and we could not get them back then a commencement date that is very soon such as the one found in this legislation would be the path we would go down. 
I ask the member in the chair Heather Roy why she will not allow students associations to have a longer time to prepare for this change a longer time to try to save some of the services. I ask why she will not agree to a commencement date of even a year further out as my colleague Grant Robertson proposed in order to make sure that if this legislation goes through these services will not be lost because of having such a short period of time in which to adapt. A commencement date at the very beginning of next year means that students associations will not have time to attempt to find alternative sources of funding for their services to set up different arrangements or to have democratic processes on campuses. Students associations could say that the Government has said they could not have compulsory membership and perhaps they could set up some other kind of student cooperative or student funding mechanism in order for their services to survive. 
This issue is apparently some kind of great philosophical problem; the biggest problem facing New Zealand which needs to be solved is that we have compulsory student membership despite the fact that of course students can opt out of that if they want to. I ask the member in the chair why she will not just give a commencement date in this legislation that allows for students associations to adapt to preserve those services and to find alternative sources of funding. I do not believe that that is an unreasonable request unless our primary goal is to have those services fall over so they can never come under the ambit of compulsory student membership again. It is no surprise that members on this side of the House feel very strongly about this issue. We feel very strongly about the preservation of those services. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rahui Katene to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 January 2012” and substitute “1 January 2013”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Grant Robertson has a typescript amendment to clause 2. I have ruled that out of order as it is of the same substance as the previous amendment. Under Speaker’s ruling 113/6A the other 31 amendments which substitute dates for “2012” are also out of order. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Darren Hughes to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 January 2012” and substitute “1 year from the date of Royal assent”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Clause 3 Principal Act amended 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to be on my feet to take a call on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and on clause 3 of this bill. I am a member of the Education and Science Committee which heard the many many submissions on this bill. It is a very good select committee. 
Clause 3 is about amending the Education Act—amending the Act that is supposed to enhance public education for the people of this country. It is the Act that is supposed to promote educational opportunities for people in this country but here we are with legislation that will actually make educational opportunities more difficult for students. The reason it will make educational opportunities more difficult for students is that despite what the member sponsoring the bill says it will put paid to student representation and it will put paid to the student voice. On this side of the House we believe that a strong student voice and strong student representation are absolutely important for making sure we have good quality education services in New Zealand so I find it very ironic that the Education Act is being amended by this particular bill because I am sure we would find that the objective of that Act is to promote quality education. In the bill we have in front of us we find that the legislation will do the opposite. 
If anyone is in any doubt I will just take some time to read a little bit from one of the very good submissions we heard the submission from the Waikato Student Union. I think its submission was particularly powerful because the union had been through voluntary unionism. It had been through voluntary unionism when it was voluntary to have voluntary unionism. This bill proposes to make it compulsory to have voluntary student union membership but Waikato went through the process voluntarily. The union went through it: it took its own ballot and it decided membership would become voluntary. 
That happened in 1996 and in 1997 it spent the whole year planning what it would need to do to actually retain a student voice under voluntary membership. So it did things at that point. The membership levy revenue was $593000; it was reasonably healthy. That was before the union went to voluntary union membership. The union created a working party to plan and manage the transition for what it was about to undertake. It started selling assets in 1997 in order to become voluntary. It sold off campus movies. It started asset stripping its own union in order to make that change. I could read out all the bullet points because there is a lot of detail about what it went through in the year before it got there but the bullet point that really makes my heart break is the final one: all staff were made redundant effective 31December and that was before the union even went to voluntary student union membership. That was in preparation for going to voluntary student union membership. So in the year of 1998 when the union’s membership became voluntary it literally had no infrastructure in place to make sure there was a voice for students to ensure that the education of those students was improved—as I believe the Education Act actually envisages. I am sure that the Education Act was put in place to make sure that we had the best possible education system in New Zealand not a second-rate one not one where students did not have their voices heard and not one that has been proposed by this bill. 
I think that being on the Education and Science Committee while an enlightening process was actually quite disturbing because about 98 percent of the submissions that we heard were against the Education Act being amended in this way. Submitters came forward and said to us that they did not want the Education Act amended in this way at all; 98 percent of submitters said that so the majority of the select committee has gone against the wishes of those submitters in amending the Act. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill amends the Education Act of 1989. The question of course is how it amends the Education Act 1989 which is dealt with in the substance of the bill. But the wider question is whether there are unintended amendments to the Education Act 1989 and whether there are flow-on impacts to the wider Act that are not being adequately considered. The reason I raise this question is that the Education Act is a very substantial document. As a former president of a students association— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Two-term president! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —two terms actually—I used to have a copy of the Education Act sitting on my desk. 
Louise Upston 
: Oh that’s really sad mate! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I know. I can assure Louise Upston that I have read it from cover to cover. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Another one stuffed under his mattress! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I did not go quite that far. One of the roles of the students association was to ensure that the institutions complied with all of the requirements of the Education Act and ensure that the students received all of their entitlements under the law. So one of the issues I have with this bill and the way it amends the Education Act is the unintended consequence of that. Basically it lets the institutions off one of the safeguards currently in place to protect students and to protect those attending any sort of tertiary institution by having a strong students association that can advocate on their behalf. Of course the bill makes a number of changes to the Education Act. It extends wider than just the membership of students associations; it extends to the membership of a tertiary institutions council for example. So there are changes to the way institutions will be governed under this law. 
The question is the unintended consequences. Are there unintended consequences of this legislation on the principal Act that it amends? I argue that there are some unintended consequences and that in fact we need to consider very carefully whether the spirit of the Education Act is being adhered to and whether other safeguards are being put in place to ensure that students’ rights are being responsibly adhered to by institutions. I know as the president of a students association and as a member of a university council that I had a few arguments with the vice-chancellor and the management of the institution that went all the way to the university council to the governance level of the institution as allowed for under the Education Act. At one particular meeting we won and the vice-chancellor lost because the other members of the university council the lay members thought the case we put forward was sufficiently compelling for them to overturn a decision the vice-chancellor had made with regard to academic grievances. Institutions have to have a process in place for dealing with academic grievances and this is allowed for under the Education Act. The university council was not satisfied that the vice-chancellor had done an adequate job and we were able to overturn the decision. We could do that because under the Education Act there was universal membership of students associations and that gave us that ability to put forward quite a compelling argument and to argue it all the way through the university system right up to governance level. 
In conclusion I think one of the things this House should be aware of when it amends the Education Act is whether the amendments go wider than was originally envisaged. I argue there is quite possibly a strong compelling case to suggest that they do. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on clause 3 of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I apologise to my colleagues who were also seeking the call because I know that a lot of Labour members take this bill very very seriously and are keen to put their views—[ 
Interruption 
] Sorry? 
Shane Ardern 
: Some of them might even have had some speech notes. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Oh there is always a chance of that. A bit of preparation does not hurt I tell Mr Ardern. I am always keen to do a tutorial on this particular legislation before we speak on it. 
I want to follow on from the comments of former student president Hipkins who regaled us with stories about his copy of the Education Act that he kept so close to him. 
Chris Hipkins 
: How many terms did he serve as president? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Oh no—you see I was never up at such lofty heights; indeed it is unfulfilled ambition in that respect. If it were not for the fact that night schools have been cancelled in this country I could do a bridge course to get myself back into a university. But sadly this is not the case. 
The principal Act though is the 1989 Education Act; Mr Chairman you need to be aware of this because that is the clause we are debating at the present time. I saw by that look on your face that you were confused where the Committee of the whole House was at the present time. That Act is the legislation that of course our entire system is founded on and built on. One of the key phrases in that legislation that all members of Parliament should be very much concerned about and have their minds focused on is the role of universities and tertiary institutions to be the “critic and conscience of society”. Those are very lofty words. New Zealand legislation is not often given to lofty concepts. We are very practical people and we write our legislation in terms of what we want to see happen. We do not always write into law such aspirations as that one but when the original 1989 Education Act was re-formed into the way it is now there was a big debate about that—about whether that aspiration should stay. To act as a critic and conscience of society goes to the heart of the independence of our tertiary sector and my concern here— 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek some clarity from you and some assistance. It seems to me that we are debating clause 3 which is the principal Act being amended; therefore I wonder whether we should be detailing the amendments to the principal Act rather than the broadest term of the principal Act which is not under debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member raises an interesting point of order. This is functionally a debate about why the principal Act needs to be amended. It does not bring the whole principal Act into it. We have skirted into some stuff that was not part of it but I think the member was getting back to the point at the time. But I am monitoring very carefully what is being said and members will note that I have a response if we do stray too far—if we stray at all actually. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Thank you Mr Chairman and as always we are so grateful for the procedural expertise of Mrs Goodhew who no doubt is co-authoring the next edition of  
McGee 
 such is her expertise in this matter. 
The point about the Education Act 1989 is that it has to sit in a consistent way for any subsequent amendment. The argument the Opposition is putting forward is that this bill undermines one of the central themes of that principal Act in a way that almost introduces a foreign concept to the Act. The point I was trying to get to was that the responsibility in the principal Act in addition to its broad theme of being a critic and conscience of society is its requirements as set out in its clauses to ensure quality across the education system—and I do not have the numbers here but it is in the 200s from my memory. Our contention is that this amendment bill runs foreign to the Education Act 1989 by undermining the students associations’ role in the way that it will do and the role that Mr Hipkins discussed in terms of the associations’ ability to monitor and advocate on behalf of students for the educational quality of particular programmes in tertiary institutions. This amendment to the principal Act renders irrelevant some of the aspirations goals and objectives of the Education Act 1989. 
If Government members do not get that then there is something wrong with them because this is a major change in the ability of users of the education system to ensure quality in the system. We hear a lot from Government members opposite about how primary schools should not be under the control of teachers—because of course what would teachers know—and that at primary level it should all be about what is best for the consumer. Yet here we are through this amendment to the primary legislation—the principal Act the Education Act—taking away from consumers at tertiary level the ability to be able to deliver to them a consistently high-quality tertiary education. The undermining of our students associations is something that we are very very worried about. 
These are not light decisions for the Committee to have to consider. If the Committee passes this clause it alters the Education Act and that is a major piece of social legislation in our country. I know that our Labour members on the Education and Science Committee put quite a lot of thought into what that would mean and that came up in their minority report—I cannot find the correct reference to the services linking back into the Education Act; I am sorry but I cannot find in my notes where it was—but the main point is that we do not believe that the change in this clause is consistent with the objectives of the Education Act. It is the job of the Committee to consider this law but also to defend the principal Act. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Like my colleague Mr Hipkins I am also a former students association president. Unlike Mr Hipkins I did not have my own copy of the Education Act under my bed. Obviously I was not working hard enough. But I have managed to get my hands on a copy of the Act and I will argue two points really. One point is that this bill is contrary to the principal Act which the bill amends. It is contrary to the provisions relating to tertiary education in section 159AAA. Also if we look at section 229B of the principal Act—the Act that is being amended as noted in clause 3—which relates to initiating change relating to compulsory membership of students associations this bill is actually unnecessary. 
The objectives of provisions relating to tertiary education are that we develop a tertiary education system that contributes to the development of cultural and intellectual life in New Zealand and responds to the needs of learners stakeholders and the nation in order to foster a skilled knowledgable population over time. It will come as no surprise that I want to focus on the area of responding to the needs of learners and stakeholders because that is actually what the students associations allow universities polytechnics wananga or private training establishments to do. 
Students associations offer a voice for the students and they also offer a single point of contact for the tertiary institution to ensure that it is responding to the needs of learners and stakeholders—those particular stakeholders. By undermining students associations—and let us be honest that is what this bill actually does because if we did not want to undermine students associations then the Government would have agreed to our amendments on the commencement date so that is clearly the goal—and making it more difficult for them to operate this bill is contrary to that requirement that the institutions are able to respond to the needs of learners and stakeholders. If we have no organisation that represents those students then we have no way of the university actually being able to understand the views of all those stakeholders. There are thousands of students at most universities and there is no way that the university will want to waste time trying to survey those students to get an idea whether it is responding to their needs. It needs the students association to be the conduit for that point of view. 
In that way I think this bill is quite contrary to that particular part of the principal Act. But I think the main point is that this bill is completely unnecessary. If we look at section 229B which relates to initiating change relating to compulsory membership of students associations it states: “(1) The students of an institution at which membership of a students association is compulsory may request the council to conduct a vote of all students at the institution on whether membership of the students association should continue to be compulsory.” If it turns out that the result of that referendum is that most of the students at the university want membership of the students association to be voluntary then it goes voluntary—the job is done. There is absolutely no need for this bill whatsoever. Indeed the contrary proposal is true. If there is no students association at a tertiary institute or at least if there is no compulsory one and the students request a referendum on that question and more that 50 percent of the students want to introduce a compulsory students association then that can happen too. It can happen only if there is a petition with 10 percent of the student vote. 
That is actually far more legitimate than what we have right now. This bill has come about only because a tiny tiny very narrow section of the student population—that is ACT on Campus—has lobbied the member in the chair the Hon Heather Roy and managed to get her to push this legislation through. There were no petitions from 1 percent 2 percent 5 percent 10 percent or 20 percent of students in tertiary education. There was no call for this. It is currently stated in legislation without any need for change at all that any changes to the status of students associations can be initiated only if there is— 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will put the closure. The question is that the question be now put. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am surprised that the closure motion has been accepted although I do not want to cause problems by challenging the Chair. The Greens have a perspective that I want to hear. The Green members have sought the call every time. They have not had a call on this clause. I seek leave for you to review your decision. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have been listening very carefully to the debate and looking ahead at what is in the bill. The purpose clause and the requirement as to the constitution of councils are largely what the debate so far has been about. This is a very narrow debate and the points about which members have been debating slot into the debate on clause 4 and clause 4A particularly. I am persuaded by the quality of the debate. I have listened to it and I have accepted the closure. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Clause 4 Purpose 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I call the honourable—oh not the honourable—Chris Hipkins. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 Give it time Mr Chair; I have been here only a little while. I am very happy to talk about the purpose clause clause 4 and clause 4A of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. Clause 4 states: “The purpose of this Act is to uphold students’ rights to freedom of association by removing any requirement for students to join students associations.” There is a huge amount of material. This is where we get down to the guts of whether this bill is desirable. 
First of all the question becomes under the purpose clause whether this bill is actually required—whether it is actually necessary. Its purpose is to uphold a student’s right to freedom of association. First of all let us look at whether the provisions in the current Act infringe on a student’s right to freedom of association. I put forward a pretty compelling case that in fact they do not and that they do not compel students to associate. One could mount a convincing case—and I am sure that one of my colleagues will do so further down the track—that being a member of a wider collective body such as a students association even if someone has to be a member does not actually infringe on a student’s right to freedom of association. This is in much the same way that the compulsion for me to pay taxes to the Government does not infringe on my rights to freedom of association either. We will address that argument as we get further down the track. 
But the question that I will turn my attention to particularly at the moment is whether students have no option other than to join a students association as the law currently stands. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that that is the case; in fact it is definitely not the case. Under the law passed by the then National Government in the late 1990s stewarded through the House by Tau Henare who was at the time a member of New Zealand First and supported by people such as Deborah Morris in order for there to be universal membership of a students association all of the students at that institution had to participate in a vote to say they wanted there to be universal membership of that students association. Those votes took place at the beginning of 1999 and only two university students associations opted for voluntary membership: the Waikato Student Union which was already voluntary—and in a subsequent referendum there students opted to go back to a universal system of membership—and the Auckland University Students Association. Those were the two voluntary ones. 
At all of the other universities—and we will talk about polytechs and institutes of technology shortly—all of the students voted in quite large numbers to retain a universal system of membership. At Victoria University where I was a student at the time from memory about 78 percent of those who voted in the referendum voted to retain a universal system of membership. One of the arguments put forward by those in favour of voluntary membership is that those who vote in students association - related activities are a small number and are not representative of the wider student population. In fact more than half of all of the students who were enrolled at Victoria University voted in that referendum on whether there should be a universal system of membership for the association and 78 percent voted in favour of having that. 
There is a provision within the Act that if students become dissatisfied with their association having a universal system of membership they can call another referendum and they can make the membership voluntary. They have that ability at the moment. Having watched the Victoria University students association in the last 3 or 4 years I think there were probably a few instances where many students may have felt compelled to call such a referendum because I do not think the behaviour of some of the elected representatives at the Victoria University students association in the last few years has been particularly acceptable. Actually one of the disciplines that the referendum option puts on students associations is that if they become unresponsive to their members if they lose touch with what their members want then they know that the members can take away their ability to continue to levy them and can remove that universal membership provision. 
That is already there under the current Act and it was an Act passed by a National Government. National’s position going into the last election was that it would not change that. Paul Hutchison went around the country saying National would not change this legislation. This is another broken promise from National—a bit like its promise not to increase GST. National members promised that they would not touch this legislation but they bowed to the pressure from the ACT Party to do just that. That is the second point that I raise. 
The third point that I will raise given all of those arguments is whether if there is a universal system of membership at a students association there is an ability to opt out. If a student feels so strongly offended by the notion that they are associated with the students association at their institution—polytech university or otherwise—can they opt out? Under the current law yes they can opt out. So to say that the current law infringes a student’s right to freedom of association simply is not true; a student can opt out now. I would say to Heather Roy the member in charge of this bill that those provisions could actually be strengthened. There is a legitimate cause to say that under the old law that existed before the current law it was almost impossible to opt out of a students association and one of the changes that happened in the late 1990s was that the provisions were strengthened somewhat. I think they could actually be strengthened a bit more without going the whole hog and having totally voluntary student membership. In some cases individual students clearly do not want to be members of an association and they could opt out. 
The difficulty that I have with this bill is that it goes all the way to the other extreme and makes it almost impossible to have a large-scale students association at a tertiary institution that is largely reflective of the composition of the students at that institution. I think that a students association without the ability to claim representative status will have all of the good work that it does eroded. Many of the things that students associations do simply do not get noticed and the associations will not be able to do them under a voluntary regime. 
Another one of the arguments put forward by the proponents of voluntary membership is that some students particularly those involved in activism on political issues such as voluntary student membership typically come from a right-wing perspective whereas a students association would be arguing in the old-fashioned terms from a more progressive left-wing perspective. Those students would say that a students association does not represent them and ask why they should have to join that association. I think that argument is a red herring. First of all those students can participate in the process and if they can get themselves elected to the students association executive they can change the policy of that association. Students associations actually operate on a very democratic basis; it is not hard to call a general meeting. It is not hard to get elected to a students association executive; I managed to do it four times— 
Moana Mackey 
: So humble. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I know. It is not hard to do that. 
Of course the candidates who put up the argument that they do not agree with the politics of the students association never manage to get themselves elected because students actually largely believe in the position put forward by students associations. It is a position that is supported by the majority of students at the institutions and that is reflected in the fact that they vote for the executive and for people who espouse those views. When I was the president of the Victoria University students association we did surveys to get students’ views on things—and I am not talking about small-scale surveys; I am talking about surveys of large chunks of the campus population—to make sure that the views we were putting forward on students’ behalf actually represented what they thought. Overwhelmingly they favoured the arguments that we put forward around lower-cost access to education and so on. 
We know that the National Government does not like the arguments put forward by many students associations because it made all sorts of promises up and down the country that it does not intend to keep. I remember a very famous promise that students associations have continued to remind this Government about: the promise made by the then National spokesperson on education to abolish student fees altogether. That was made in 1990 by National’s then spokesperson on education Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith who went up and down the country and signed his name on those pledges at every students association in the country. The students associations got him to pledge to do that and they continue to remind him time and time again that he broke that promise and that they are now paying much much higher fees increasingly so every year. 
Students associations have played an important role in keeping both National and Labour Governments honest. I was the president of the students association at Victoria University when the previous Labour Government was elected to office. It would be fair to say that we did a little bit to try to keep that Government honest and to push for policies that advanced student interests further than that Government might have been willing to go. It is good for us that the previous Labour Government respected the position of students associations even though it did not necessarily agree with what we were arguing for. It was unlike the current National Government which would prefer to do away with students associations altogether rather than to listen to the position that they put forward on behalf of their members. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. It is good to be part of the third largest party in Parliament and to take a call on this very important bill the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill—I am losing a bit of weight from jumping up and down constantly. I will put my cards on the table. I have never been a student politician. Unlike Mr Lees-Galloway or Mr Hipkins I have never been a student executive member or president but I still have some important views that I want to pass on about what we are doing tonight. 
The whole purpose of the bill the whole crux of the debate is freedom of association. I want to touch on what this bill is amending which is the Education Act. I want to bring forward the principles of that Act which are about building a smart and prosperous economy. This is what every single member in this Chamber wants to build for our country. It is about informing Kiwi citizens and Kiwi kids as they grow up and also about being a critic for our Parliament and our society. Our Government has made a whole host of changes in this sector over the last 2 years which have made tertiary education less accessible less affordable and for those students who cannot go to university because there are not enough places downright impossible. It is dumb economically and it is not part of the step change for building a smart prosperous economy. Why are we amending this Act in the name of freedom of association? Why are we being such an outlier? I am looking at information about students associations from the Ministry of Education which states the countries that have voluntary student membership—Australia. We know that Australia is changing because voluntary student membership just has not worked. Which countries have compulsory student membership? I can see the United Kingdom Sweden Norway—a whole list of other countries. Why are we doing it in the name of freedom of association? 
The basis is a fundamentally flawed argument. We are talking about one narrow-minded ideological interpretation of what freedom of association is. We are talking about students’ freedom of association but we have not talked about what students want. Luckily a UMR Insight poll of the general public has found that 77 percent of respondents support students having the choice. Only 16 percent support the Government having the choice and 6 percent had no view. The clear message from students is that they want the choice. The irony of this bill is the ACT Party supported by National is taking away students’ choice to organise themselves. The real reason of course is that the tiny ideological minority ACT on Campus and Student Choice could not get a few members to form a petition. They could not get the 10 percent needed for their members to argue with their student body. 
We are amending section 229A of the Education Act which shows that freedom of association is still provided for under the current status quo which I call the compromise agreement reached more than 10 years ago and is the current environment we exist in. Currently students can opt out. No one is compelling a student to join a students association. I would like to point out and put it on the table now that frankly some of the comments from ACT on Campus about sexual violence have been quite tasteless— 
Sue Moroney 
: And a disgrace. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: —and a disgrace. They are the worst examples of the arguments for this bill. Currently section 229A(6) of the Education Act gives students the opportunity to opt out. Section 229A(5) also gives students the opportunity to be exempt from paying membership fees on the grounds of hardship. The fact is their freedom of association is currently protected. 
We know that students associations are not like the crochet club they are not like a political party and they are not like a union. Students associations are their own unique body more akin to a council or a nation in the sense that members come together pay their taxes and have a democratic say. This bill is trying to protect freedom of association but instead it is doing the exact opposite and taking away students’ choices. I think one submission of the thousands we saw at the select committee deserves to be read again and if I can seek leave to table it I would ask members opposite to read it. It is the Human Rights Commission report. I think when we look at the conclusion it says plainly and simply that the purpose of the amendment is not achieved through this bill. The Human Rights Commission in its submission said that the commission considered that sections 229— 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 It gives me a lot of pleasure to speak to the purpose clause of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. We actually have something to discuss here rather than hearing the delaying tactics that the Opposition have engaged in on the last two clauses and during the rest of the part of the day that we have just had. The purpose clause is very clear: “The purpose of this Act is to uphold students’ rights to freedom of association”—and that is the crux of the matter—“by removing any requirement for students to join students associations.” 
There have been all sorts of discussions about freedom of association and whether it exists on campuses. Opposition members clearly think it already exists. They talk a lot about the provisions in the Education Act as it stands at the moment that refer to an opt-out provision. But to be frank the opt-out provision is a farce and nothing more than that. It is a farce—not because it is not spelt out in the Act; it clearly is as people are saying. It is a farce because students associations over a large number of years now have steadfastly ignored what should have been a right. They have not taken the opt-out provision seriously. They have refused in many cases to even engage with students when they ask to opt out. They have refused to engage with students when the fee is to be given to a charity. The students association gets to choose the fee not the students themselves. 
Despite the fact that over time— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Change that bit. Don’t destroy the whole thing. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: The member clearly has not listened to this part of the debate because over time things have been strengthened and not capped at all. We are in favour now of having true freedom of association for students. Why are students the only sector in our community that is immune from freedom of association? In the workplace in 1993 compulsory unionism was abandoned. Of course unions are the funders of that side of the Chamber. But guess what? The sky did not fall in. 
It is saddening to sit here and listen to former presidents of students associations—Hipkins and Lees-Galloway. Unfortunately the Hon Darren Hughes as he said did not quite make those lofty heights although I seem to recall from campaigning that there was a role with a student council at Horowhenua College. Would that be right? Did he join voluntarily or was he compelled to be a member? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I was drafted by the people; I had no choice. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: There we go. Did he put his hand up to do it? I suspect so. But it is saddening that these former presidents of students associations do not have any confidence in what the students associations currently provide because they have already conceded there will be devastation when this bill passes. What it will do is prevent students associations from being the focus. It will be about the rights of individual students to choose what organisations they wish or do not wish to belong to. Freedom of association is about the right to associate with any organisation one wishes and what goes with that right is the right to dissociate from any organisation that one wishes. That is true freedom of association and for too long students have had the right to real freedom of association taken away from them. As things currently stand students cannot study at a tertiary institution if they do not join a union. They get to choose the tertiary institution to study at but they cannot study there if they do not join a union. That in this day and age is completely wrong. 
The purpose of this bill is very clear. It is about allowing students the only group in society now that does not have this right to have real freedom of association. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I start by saying to the member in the chair that it is a bit galling to be told that we are not allowed to debate things in Parliament. That might be the way the National-ACT Government runs things but it is not the way the Opposition sees Parliament running. It is not our fault— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I bet they have debates in their caucus. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I bet those members do have debates in their caucus particularly on the fact that Paul Hutchison and the National Party promised at the last election that they would not vote for this legislation and tonight they are. I am sure there are debates on that. 
I say to the member in the chair that it is not our fault National and ACT members are sitting opposite like dried arrangements not taking a call. We would love them to stand up and debate this bill instead of sitting there muttering under their breaths. I recognise the efforts of the Hon David Carter who has had two successful closure motions out of two tonight. That is a very good evening I say to the Minister. Perhaps a press release to acknowledge all his work and success this evening would be in order. 
I will concentrate on two things in this purpose clause: one is the inaccuracy of the purpose clause as it sits and the second is the fallacy of the purpose clause. This purpose clause is not about upholding students’ rights at all. This purpose clause is about the fact that opponents to students associations cannot even get 10 percent support among students to force a referendum on campus so they have come to Parliament to pass legislation that a party that sits on 1 percent in the polls wants passed. One percent of the population of New Zealand is forcing this legislation on 100 percent of the students. 
If students want voluntary student membership they have to get only 10 percent of students to call for a referendum. That is clearly impossible apart from in those universities where they have had the referenda—and we have talked about Waikato University which went voluntary then went back because it was such a disaster. The ACT Party which is sitting on 1 percent support has said that it does not think the students at Waikato know what they want. ACT does not think the students at Waikato are able to hold a democratic referendum and decide for themselves. The 1 percent party will tell them what is best for their organisation their university and their students’ association. It is astonishing from the party that claims to be about freedom and personal rights. 
We have a bill here that is in this Chamber only because through democratic processes ACT has been unable to kill off students associations and student membership of those associations. I think that is an embarrassment for this Committee of the whole House. The member in charge of the bill should be ashamed of it and members of National and ACT who are voting for this legislation should be ashamed of it because this is not what students want. 
If there are issues with the referendum provision and if ACT Party members on campus are finding it too hard to find 10 percent of students to force a referendum we can change the threshold to 5 percent. We could have done that. If as the member Heather Roy said the ability to opt out is too difficult why is she not addressing that? I know that students associations came to the Education and Science Committee and said that they were happy to look at making the opt-out processes easier if that was the big burning issue that was requiring this sledgehammer legislation to be forced through Parliament. 
I find it astonishing that the party of small government the party of not having the State involved in everything has now come to Parliament in order to get the Government and the New Zealand Parliament to pass a bill because it has not been able to argue its case on the campuses of New Zealand. I think that is embarrassing for the member in charge of the bill and I want to hear from a National member about why National has changed its position on this legislation and why it has broken the promise made at the last election that it would not support this legislation. Any National member will do. Sandra Goudie was very loud before; she is now ignoring me and that is fine. They all have their heads down working very very hard because they do not want to have to answer— 
Colin King 
: Oh come on Moana. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Maybe Mr Colin King can answer the question as to why National has broken its promise on this issue. The fact is that the purpose clause states: “The purpose of this Act is to uphold students’ rights to freedom of association by removing any requirement for students to join students associations.” 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 The purpose of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is completely incorrect in terms of what its outcomes will be. It states: “The purpose of this Act is to uphold students’ rights to freedom of association by removing any requirement for students to join students associations.” In other words the bill makes it compulsory for students to have voluntary student membership of their students associations. 
I look forward to debating the purpose of this bill not only here in this Chamber but also out on the streets during the general election in Hamilton. I will be contesting the seat for Hamilton West against Tim Macindoe and I know that the students at Wintec will be very concerned about the passage of this bill. They will know that Tim Macindoe voted to take away their freedom to decide whether they have a students association on their campus. They will know that Tim Macindoe has said that students cannot make this decision for themselves and that the Government will dictate to them that they cannot have a vibrant students association on their campus. 
On the other side of the river Sehai Orgad Labour’s candidate for Hamilton East will be thrilled to debate with David Bennett the purpose of this bill because the students at Waikato University know what it means to have a voluntary union. They know that the purpose stated in this bill does not match what the outcome will be. When the Waikato Student Union went voluntary—voluntarily—in 1996 it was asset-stripped and it had no infrastructure left at the end of that process. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: That sounds familiar. 
SUE MORONEY 
: It does sound familiar; it sounds like John Key’s plan for the entire country. It happened at Waikato University. I will go through a few of the facts because a very very fine submission was put forward by the Waikato Student Union. It told us that in 1996 it had membership levy revenue of $730593. That is what it was collecting in student levies which meant it could have a very robust organisation. In 1997 that revenue fell to $593000 and that was before it even went to voluntary student membership. In 1998 the first year of voluntary membership for the Waikato Student Union its membership levy revenue fell to $23253. 
One can see the immediate impact that this bill will have on the voice of students right throughout this land. It will be forced on them; it will not be voluntary. The students of Waikato volunteered to make that decision and they realised after 3 or 4 years that they had got it badly wrong. They had a vote and decided to become compulsory again because they knew what the impact had been. They lost their student representation on the university council at Waikato University. They lost all of the assets that many generations of students had saved up for including student radio campus movies and a whole range of other things which they will never ever get back. The radio station they had and the frequency they broadcast on have been sold for ever and they will never get that frequency back. The Waikato Student Union also made all of its staff redundant so it had no one in a paid position who could provide professional advocacy for students on the issues they faced. 
In the second year of voluntary membership the union’s membership levy revenue fell to just $3442. For goodness’ sake the local bridge club would operate on more money than that every year and any other club— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: The stamp collectors. 
SUE MORONEY 
: It would cost the stamp collectors more than that to operate their club. The entire student membership levy revenue fell to $3442 and I think at that stage students realised that they had made a bad mistake. The final year of voluntary student membership was in 2000. They returned to universal membership in 2001. They voluntarily and collectively made a decision because they could. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I will speak on the purpose clause of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I believe that the purpose clause will have a very chilling effect on student government for tertiary institutes in New Zealand. Effectively the Committee of the whole House is being asked to legislate over the top of rights that students currently enjoy and that have existed for them in law for the last 12 or 13 years because some members of Parliament have decided they do not like what students associations do. Those members have a chilling agenda to try to stop the ability for students associations to advocate for students across our tertiary institutes in New Zealand and to take away from students the rights they currently enjoy to change any aspect of student government. 
The purpose of the bill is not the words written in the purpose clause of the bill. The real purpose of the bill is firstly about adopting and pursuing a right-wing agenda to try to end student government and make it a far less effective force in New Zealand and secondly—on a more personal level—about being nice to Heather Roy. The National Party members like many Labour Party members believe she was treated absolutely shoddily by the ACT Party and the bullies in that organisation. When this bill was in the name of Roger Douglas the National Party MPs were totally dismissive of it. They thought it was a step too far. They thought some changes could be made to the current legislation—and Labour and Green members have been open about debating that aspect of it but we do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater—but after seeing the way Heather Roy was treated last year by the blokes in the ACT Party all of a sudden the National Party decided to be nice to Heather by supporting her bill to undermine and try to end student government at tertiary institutes around New Zealand. 
Heather Roy is a nice woman but she is not so nice that she should be the person responsible for getting rid of student government at tertiary institutes across the country just to make her feel better. We will take her for coffee; we will buy her a glass of wine. We will do whatever she likes. We will all sit around and say how much we think Rodney Hide is a terrible person. We will join in on that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: “Kumbaya”. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Mr Mallard suggests we could sing “Kumbaya”. That is all fine; we will do that. But to make the member feel better by supporting this law whose purpose clause undermines student government across our tertiary institutes is just plain wrong. 
I ask the member in charge of the bill some questions. I ask her whether she believes in her heart of hearts that the kinds of services that all students get to enjoy now which have been built up over 100 years of fully participative student government across our universities and polytechs would exist if her bill had been law 100 years ago. 
Hon Heather Roy 
: It’s hard to predict. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: She has such faith in her legislation! Of course the answer to my question is no. Generations and generations of students in polytechs and universities have benefited from the work of students associations that have been built up due to the fact that everybody is part of them. For a number of years students all had to belong to a students association—no question about it. But since the 1990s they have not all had to belong to a students association. Students have had the ability to trigger referenda as other colleagues have said. They can vote on the issue—I will come back to that point. Students have had the ability to object to being a member of a students association and to not participate if they object to being a member. That ability is in the legislation. 
On both of those areas there is room for debate. Grant Robertson has put forward amendments to try to find a common ground certainly with ACT and more latterly with National as it changes its position. For a while National honoured its election commitment not to bring in or support legislation like this bill but it has forgotten about those commitments. 
All it takes is 10 percent of students to trigger the referendum in order to pursue the sorts of things Mrs Roy tells us are important to her. Ten percent is not much. Admittedly I know that 5 percent feels like a mountain to the ACT Party at the moment. I can see that ACT members might look at that 10 percent figure and think it is almost mission impossible. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Especially with Rodney leading them. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Let us not be mean about Rodney; let us leave that to the people of Epsom. I think that getting 10 percent of students to sign a referendum is not difficult at all. In our tertiary institutes students already have the ability to choose. That choice is what this bill is taking away. 
In a weird back to front way this National-ACT Government is putting its nanny State political views on to students. It wants to try to destroy student government. It cannot come out and just ban it because World War II was about that kind of thing so instead it will put in place every possible impediment to student government being a success. I think that is plain wrong. The purpose clause of the bill should reflect the real desire of the right-wing rabble. Helpfully for the Committee I have put forward three amendments to the purpose clause. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Darren Hughes really hit the nail on the head. The real purpose of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is very very clear. The purpose is to suppress the student voice suppress student activism suppress student politics and kill off student life so that when the National Government—next year if it is re-elected—rolls out its next round of anti-student anti-democratic cuts such as removing the clause on interest-free student loans there will be no students left to protest and demonstrate against it. That is what this bill is about. It is about trying to suppress democracy and kill off student politics so that when the Government rolls out some of its awful policies there will be no students left to demonstrate against them. 
Like others in this Chamber I was a member of the student executive of Victoria University; I was a member for 2 years. It was the most politicising experience of my life. But that is what the Government does not want. It does not want to have a student executive that politicises people. I got on to the executive as a rather naive young woman of 18 and I became quickly radicalised. We had marches on Parliament—of course in those days it was a political place—and we had anti - Viet Nam protests. It was very exciting. It was certainly the highlight of my days at Victoria University and it radicalised me. That is what the bill is intended to suppress. Admittedly some student unions are not very political at the moment but they have the potential to become so. The Government wants to kill off that voice and suppress student life so there will be no one left. Like getting rid of all those councils in Auckland and like getting rid of Environment Canterbury it is just another way of suppressing democracy and suppressing dissent in New Zealand. 
Students are extremely poor so if they are given a choice whether to pay voluntarily to join the student union the chances are they will not. They would probably rather spend the money on a keg of beer or on paying for their accommodation. When this bill goes through the student union will slowly wither away—like the Communist State—and with it student life and many of those wonderful services that student unions provide: the student gym health services student representatives on the university councils and all of those things. Those things are integral to student life are part of the whole campus and give the campus vibrancy but will slowly disappear. 
I remember going to Victoria University in the 1990s at the height of Rogernomics. I went around the campus and it was as dead as a dodo. I did an interview for a magazine and there was nothing. The only club that really had any members was the tramping club. There was nothing else. It was just awful. People said it was boring it was dull and there was no student life. That was the effect under Rogernomics. That is what will happen again under this legislation. Mr Hughes talked about the chilling effect that will happen on our campuses. There will be no one left to protest against the appalling policies that the Government has on the back-burner ready to roll out after the next election. 
There is no need for the bill. As others have said there is already freedom of association. Students can have a referendum but they do not want the bill. It is yet another example of the Government bulldozing through its changes and refusing to listen to people particularly to the students. It is causing cynicism and alienation amongst New Zealanders that a Government is successively ignoring the wishes of the people—87 percent of students do not want this bill. Students want a student union. They do not want the bill. They do not want this so-called freedom of association bill. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 There are a number of proposed amendments to clause 4 the purpose clause. Before I address them I really must come back to some of the comments the member in the chair made. She told us when she took the opportunity to speak on the clause that for her it all hangs on the ability of students to opt out of students associations. As a former students association president I have to say again—as Chris Hipkins said—that I have some sympathy for that position. I think the situation is currently a little bit nebulous and that there is some opportunity for students associations to shirk their responsibilities. Students associations came to the select committee on the bill and said they were prepared to work on it and were prepared to look at some options. In fact really if the purpose of the bill which is stated in clause 4 is to “uphold students’ rights to freedom of association by removing any requirement for students to join students associations.” then that is all we would need to do. That is the one amendment the one change we would have to make to the principal Act to achieve the purpose in clause 4. But the fact is as we all know that is not actually the purpose of the bill. The purpose is to kill off students associations. 
How will the bill achieve that? An issue that I do not think has been addressed much—or at least the reason why there is so much concern from this side of the Chamber that has not been addressed exactly—is that students are faced with their course fees and tuition fees then further down the list there will be a student services levy and then further down the list there will be various other fees. If at the bottom of that list there is an optional fee for a students association that they have never heard of they do not know what it does they have no material to understand what it does and they do not understand the benefits of being a member of they will say they are paying so much already that they will save themselves $100 $200 or whatever it is the students association is asking for. They will opt out of it. They will say no thank you very much. They will arrive at the university and they may or may not then discover that they would have preferred to be a member of the students association. 
I can say I would have been one of those students. I was not particularly impressed when I saw the part of my invoice that stated that I was paying for a students association because I did not know what a students association was. I did not come from a family— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s because you came from King’s College. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: That is right; the member hit the nail on the head. That is exactly why I did not know what a students association was. I needed to learn a few things. In fact Massey University had its referendum. Ten percent of the students at Massey managed to sign a petition—the university managed to get more signatures than the ACT Party is able to get in an election—and it had a referendum. By the time the university had the referendum I had changed my view because I had had an opportunity to see what the students association did. I was particularly fond of the extremely low gym fees but I enjoyed orientation as well and I quite liked the paper. I did not often listen to the radio station but I certainly was aware of the advocacy service and I thought maybe some day I might want to use it. That was a long time before I became involved in the students association. That is exactly the response that students right across the country have. 
Going back to the purpose of the bill which states that it is to “uphold students’ rights” if it was upholding students’ rights then this would have been a change that there would have been an outpouring of emotion for. There would have been petitions and letters to parliamentarians and there would have been a huge campaign for students to have the change but there was not because people actually respect and understand what students associations do. The purpose of the bill is to pander to a very very narrow small section of the student population at the expense of the bulk of the students associations. It is something for the few at the expense of the many—the vast majority of students on campus. That is the actual purpose of the bill. Students associations do a lot of good for their students but the member in the chair seems to want to overlook that completely. 
We have a number of amendments to clause 4. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 Listening to the debate on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill I get the feeling that it is basically an ideology looking for a problem. In a sense it is not really a problem; it is simply an ideology that is trying to create or manufacture a problem in order to change legislation that at the moment is working particularly well. 
When it comes to the purpose of the bill—and I will address it specifically—I think the member who put forward the bill Heather Roy has characterised the problem wrongly. She kept calling the students associations unions as she might refer to a union such as the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union or the Service and Food Workers Union. Students associations are simply not that sort of organisation. Students associations are not like those kinds of organisations; they are associations that have two basic fundamental roles. 
The first role is financial. A number of members spoke earlier about this issue. If the finances are not paid then the resources that students enjoy at the moment will not be available to them. The services they have at the moment will not be available to them. Iain Lees-Galloway brought up an interesting point that in a sense there is a tipping point. If everybody contributes a range of services are available whether or not they use them. As soon as those services start withering away the ability to understand the importance of those services for students associations starts to diminish. In a sense it is then a self-fulfilling prophecy that the students associations will wither and die. That point is extremely important. 
The second role is representational. I was not part of the students association or one of the elected officials at university. In fact I found them to be pretty dull to be perfectly honest. I was much more enamoured with the gym the orientation the fact that I could go to a health service the fact that I had an advocacy service and the fact that I had a newspaper. All of those other services attracted me to the university. But also I had a students association that was able to go out and represent me and my interests at a higher level. I did not necessarily always agree with the students association but nevertheless it represented the body of students. 
I think this comes to the crux of the mistake that Heather Roy has made in interpreting the purpose of the legislation—that is students associations are not unions; they are associations. We pay a tax or a levy for services we enjoy and if we do not pay that levy—if we all do not pay that levy—then the services deteriorate to a point where we actually do not get any value out of them. The example of the University of Waikato was brought up. A $700000 budget went down to a $3000 budget. A $3000 budget can provide an absolutely insignificant degree of service. Nobody understands its value and therefore students will not opt to contribute to it any further. 
The conceptualisation of the bill is completely wrong. Even if I am generous and accept that the ACT Party has the conceptualisation wrong I still believe that it is really about politics and ideology before it is about the welfare of students. It is not about the freedom of students; it is about the ideology of the ACT Party and it is more about Heather Roy existing after she was ousted from her ministerial portfolio. I very clearly remember her saying on the  
Close Up  
television programme that she was really looking forward to getting into this particular bill because that was the end of her life as a Minister. That is the reason we are here arguing this matter today. 
I know for a fact that National was willing to consider some compromises over the legislation that would have ensured that it endured beyond another Labour Government. As soon as another Labour Government comes in this legislation will be gone. 
This bill is a piece of ideology. It is a piece of politics. It is looking for an issue a problem that simply is not there. It is simply not in existence. As a result of that the real losers from this bill will be students who will lose their students association. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on this bill this unfortunate bill that seeks to undermine a system that has worked very well for a very long time. I have had the occasional pleasure and occasional pain of studying and teaching at three institutions—at two universities and a polytech—and I have observed at firsthand that students associations have been a fundamental touchstone and a significant base ensuring a good experience for students in our tertiary institutions. This bill will diminish that. This bill undoubtedly will reduce and diminish the quality of the student experience in our tertiary institutions. 
The alleged purpose of this bill which is to uphold students’ rights to freedom of association is a fairly dubious proposition but in seeking to protect students’ rights allegedly what it will actually do is reduce the likelihood of students getting a good educational experience while they are enrolled at a tertiary institute. The almost certain unintended consequence as I have said is the diminishment the degradation of that critical experience. It is a life-forming experience not only in terms of students—young people and not-so-young people—gaining a tertiary qualification but also in terms of their gaining experience refreshing their attitudes and understanding world views. The richness of a tertiary education will be undermined by some of the elements of this bill if this unfortunate bill is passed. 
We have heard a great deal this evening about the negative impact on students and that is entirely appropriate because it will be very real and will be felt by students but the institutions equally have cause to be worried if this bill is passed. Clearly the institutions rely on funding to survive and thrive and part of that funding has a student achievement component. We know that institutions can lose funding if they do not get sufficient pass rates—if students do not stay engaged and enrolled in the courses that they begin. Eight institutions are suffering funding cuts this year because they have failed to meet the standards imposed by the student achievement component of the overall funding of the tertiary sector. 
There are three ways in which we can endeavour to retain students and thereby protect the income of the institutions. Clearly the academics have a key role in ensuring that students remain engaged have a positive experience and stay within the sector. Academics are now struggling with the demands of the Performance-based Research Fund the obligation to research—to publish or perish—even if that research often does not serve any particular practical end. At the same time that academics have been obliged to do more research they are also experiencing increased teaching loads. In my experience all academics—and I have talked to a lot of them—are finding that they have an increased demand to teach more. They are having to spend more time in front of students as well as having to deal with more expectation of research. 
Academics are also being obliged to undertake administrative tasks because the general or non-academic staff at the institutions have had the axe taken to them in recent years as well. The whole sector is creaking. It is under stress. This misguided legislation with the likelihood that it will diminish the student experience and reduce the likelihood of students staying engaged with their studies is also likely to lead to a reduction in funding for the institutions. After all who else does that leave? The academics have no capacity to engage with their students at a higher level than they are now doing. They are facing larger classes more research requirements and more academic expectation. They have no capacity to provide that one-on-one support that can and often does make the difference between a student succeeding and completing a degree or a course or not succeeding. The general staff do not have that capacity either. 
We must not forget that the general staff are critical in the student experience and do a great deal of often unrewarded and unrecognised work in terms of protecting student interests. Effectively that leaves the students associations which have a long history and dare I say it a very proud history of providing the range of services and experiences to students that keeps them engaged and increases the likelihood of their success. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I was not planning to take a call tonight on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill but I heard the member in the chair Heather Roy speak a little earlier and it sparked something in me that caused me to want to make some comments. It was the comment she made on the issue of coercion. 
In Heather Roy’s view students are being coerced to pay funding that they do not want to pay. My mind was taken back to last year and the difficulties within the ACT Party which saw that member go home for a couple of days and then reappear at a press conference sitting very uncomfortably alongside the leader of the ACT Party. She was being asked to confirm whether she was really happy to be sitting there alongside that member and I guess effectively she was being forced to say through gritted teeth that she was. If ever I thought that I had seen an element of coercion going on it was watching that coverage that night. I felt for that member at the time because I think she is a good decent and honourable member but if ever I thought that there was coercion going on I saw it on my television screen that night. 
When we talk about freedom of association I think we also have to acknowledge that where there is a balancing of rights it comes between the rights of individuals and the rights of the collective but it is not simply an issue of the rights of individuals über alles. I think people will generally acknowledge that collectively they can gain things if they work together if they come together and if they pool resources together. If we want an example of that within our economy we could look at Fonterra which is effectively a collective where people come together and pool their resources. Collectively that company is a $10 billion export company and is upheld as an example by some members opposite even though it might sometimes seem a little bit too collective and maybe even—to use the “s” word—socialist in its intent. It actually works well in the best interests of its members and it works extraordinarily well in the interests of New Zealand. 
We can put up against that the issues of narrow self-interest that I think this bill represents in respect of a handful of people with connections to the ACT Party who say that they do not want to fund any of the activities of students associations but would rather look after themselves. Well that is all very well but obviously students have the option already in existing legislation. If they want to they can force a referendum—although that does not seem to be happening on much of a basis—and therefore that mechanism provides them with some protections. 
I know the realities of what students associations can provide because I spent 8 years as a member of the council of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology. I sat on the council of a small polytechnic straddling across the two provinces of Marlborough and Nelson. The students association had to provide services across about 2500 equivalent full-time students or “EFTS”. Many of those people were part-time students. There were lots of sole parents—mums coming back and doing some training part-time. There were lots of short seasonal-type courses. There was not that much in the way of degree courses. Often people were there for only 6 months or a year on a diploma course or a foundation course. Usually 2 years at most was the time that people spent there. But those students needed access to services. They needed to know that if they had a health issue they could go to a subsidised doctor service. They needed to know that if they had issues with sexual health there was somebody who could provide them with those kinds of services. Those services came through the student association. 
I ask a question of members opposite who have indicated they will support this bill. If we look at the current pressure upon the tertiary sector for educational funding we are told there are no spare dollars currently available for any services across the whole panoply of Government. Yet here we are by inherently suggesting that by doing away with the current compulsory regime with the option for referenda effectively we are likely to see this bill used in one or two instances I suspect to try to force those votes and disestablish students associations. What does that mean? Does that mean that in these very difficult financial times we will see student services close down? If that is the situation what will it mean? Will it mean in fact that the Government will have to stump up and provide extra resources because students simply will need to have access to those provided services in terms of things like Student Job Search student health services and the like? 
I think one other important point to recognise is that students associations often give young people their first taste of democracy. It can often be the first time they have stood for a representative body. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The typescript amendment in the name of Grant Robertson is ruled out of order as it is inconsistent with the principles of the bill. I refer members to Standing Order 292(2). 
The next amendment is in the name of the Hon Darren Hughes: a typescript amendment regarding not providing for referenda decisions. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This amendment you read out is in my name but the amendment I submitted referred to omitting the words that you mentioned and substituting the words “remove the right of students to decide whether or not their student association membership is compulsory by not providing for referenda provisions.” You said just now “decisions” and I want to know whether my amendment has been changed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No it has not. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Did you misspeak? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I did not misspeak. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Did I mishear? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member did not mishear. I summarised and in contracting the amendment to its very essence I may not have used the same words just like the member when reading it out. I was just making sure; I could simply have said “a typescript amendment in the name of Darren Hughes” and left it at that. But people would have wondered which one it was so I gave a brief descriptor so that members were aware which one it was. You have now clarified it. Is everybody clear? 
Hon Members 
: Yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No offence has been taken? The member is quite happy to support his own amendment? All right we will put the question. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Darren Hughes to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit “uphold students’ rights to freedom of association by removing any requirement for students to join students associations” and substitute “remove the right of students to decide whether or not their student association membership is compulsory by not providing for referenda provisions”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Darren Hughes to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit “uphold students’ rights to freedom of association by removing any requirement for students to join students associations” and substitute “undermine students’ associations and reduce the services they provide for students”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Darren Hughes to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit “uphold students’ rights to freedom of association by removing any requirement for students to join students associations” and substitute “to increase student fees by removing value-for-money services provided by student associations”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Clause 4 agreed to. 
Clause 4A Requirements as to constitutions of councils 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I ask whether you could please give us the  
Reader’s Digest 
 version of the clause 4A debate. I think there is a bit of confusion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No there is none at all. It is just a matter of form. Normally when the question comes up the Chairperson says: “The question is” and then we go on to debate it. There is no problem. We are debating clause 4A. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I was hoping that the member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill the Hon Heather Roy might have taken a call on this particular question first of all to explain its meaning to the Committee of the whole House. It is not enormously clear why the Education and Science Committee has recommended that this clause be inserted. The commentary on the bill makes a reference to the need for new clause 4A to be inserted which would make a consequential amendment to the principal Act. But there is no rationale for why the Education and Science Committee chose to make the change at this time. It would be useful if the member in charge of the bill could let us know the rationale for that change. 
To put an uncharitable view on what that change might mean it is a continuation of what Labour considers to be the chilling effect on student government across our tertiary institutions in New Zealand which is being made to pursue an agenda that the political parties concerned have not been able to achieve in any other way. New clause 4A takes away the rights of student governments to use their own process to put in place their representatives on the councils of universities polytechnics or other tertiary institutes. Those are the institutions the bodies or the vehicles that govern how an institution will run. Critically from the point of view of most students they are the body that will determine the fees that are paid by students. Therefore it is very important that students are represented and well represented on those councils. But in this bill we have seen a change to the way those individual autonomous institutions are able to select their council representatives. That is how it looks. 
I ask the member in charge of the bill to speak to this issue and let us know what she intends by that change and just as critically why it is necessary. You see all these independent autonomous institutions already have their own processes in place for how they ensure students are represented at council level. Mostly it is through a very well-established relationship with the student government which this bill represents a direct attack on. 
National is now supporting this bill having promised at the previous general election that it would not support it. Here we are tonight debating clause 4A which National members are right behind in lock step with the ACT Party—both wings of the ACT Party. There is a unity in that sense on this issue. We need to know why they are trying to change the way autonomous institutions are able to make up their councils. Left unexplained it seems to be just another attempt to reinforce this Government’s opposition to student government. 
Students have the choice to shape student government now. Students can at any stage using the provisions of their constitutions make a decision to call a meeting to alter their election provisions for selecting their representatives. They can call a meeting to change the philosophy of their own student government and to change how they want it to run. They are also of course as other members have said in a position to change that arrangement if 10 percent of students sign a petition saying they want to have a referendum on the way their student government is made up. If that happened they would already in existing law be able to change the way their representation is selected. But here we see in addition to a bill that throws the baby out with the bathwater the Government introducing this clause in the select committee in order to determine how the councils are made up. 
This could easily be part of a wider agenda. The architect of the existing compromise Tau Henare has walked in to watch his finest work being destroyed by his own colleagues. Politics is a strange old thing. We need to know exactly why Government members have gone down this path. They say that the current arrangements of student government are anti-democratic because there is an element of compulsion to those arrangements yet they are not prepared to participate in the debate to discuss it. They want to ram the legislation through. They have had all of their hard workers moving closure motions because they are not interested in debating this issue. By their own actions in the Committee tonight they have shown exactly what their agenda is in pursuing this legislation. I am concerned that the councils which control huge amounts of taxpayer money are having their make-up changed by the member’s insertion of clause 4A and I think the Committee needs a thorough explanation from the Hon Heather Roy about why she has decided to do that. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on clause 4A of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill which changes the constitutions of tertiary institution councils. I think it would be quite useful at this point for the Committee to understand in greater detail how the existing legislation has been put into effect. Under the existing law a tertiary institution council includes students staff alumni business employers and representatives appointed by the Government in the case of universities. The Government has changed the rules in relation to polytechnics and institutes of technology. I will deal primarily with universities because those are the councils I am most familiar with. 
A university council has between one and three student representatives between one and three staff representatives and a variety of other representatives in statute. Under the existing legislation the student representatives are nominated and appointed by the students association. In the case of the Victoria University of Wellington Students Association there are two representatives on the university council one of which the students association has decided through its constitution will be the president of the students association. That person is of course by definition elected by the students at the institution. 
The second position set aside for students at Victoria University is elected by the student populace at large in an election administered by the students association. At this point I point out—and I am looking forward to hearing Tau Henare’s views on this issue; he seems to be very eager to take a call—that the election at large administered by the students association is a very cost-effective and cheap way of getting the student representatives elected to the university council. Students associations run those elections. All students are eligible to vote in them already so adding another slot on the ballot paper to elect another representative position is a very cost-effective way of getting a student representative for the council who is elected by all students and therefore is representative of the student body at large. 
I believe quite firmly that an election administered by the university would probably have a lower turn-out than an election administered by the students association. As evidence for that I look at the alumni representatives on the councils. There is a very very low turn-out in the elections for the alumni representatives on university councils in comparison with the turn-out for the election of student representatives in students association elections. So I think it is really important that we understand how that works at the moment. 
Other institutions work a little bit differently. Massey University for example I think has three student representatives on the council; I think it had an extramural representative when I was involved a representative from the Maori students and the president of the Massey University Students Associations Federation. The federation of the students associations of Massey University allows it to incorporate the student representatives from the different campuses where they have separate students associations—[ 
Interruption 
] What was that? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: No not you; the dark one. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Oh right—discrimination that is what that is! There are different rules depending on which institution we are talking about and I think it is important that we understand those. Under the amendment put forward by Heather Roy to the bill the elections of student representatives will be solely the responsibility of the tertiary institutions concerned. It does not actually prescribe how they will conduct those elections. It simply says they will have to conduct the election in accordance with the statutes made by the council. Of course the council could make a statute saying that it will have an election and only the people the vice-chancellor picks will be eligible to stand in the election. Under this legislation that would be perfectly acceptable. I think that would be totally outrageous but it would allow the council effectively to hand-pick which students it wanted to be represented on the council and therefore severely diminish— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Yawn! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I say to Mr Henare that I know it is late and he wants to go and have his little nap but he will have to bear with us a little bit longer. 
I think one of the really important parts of having the students association appointing or nominating the student representatives to council is that it is very democratic. 
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. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I agree with the previous speaker Catherine Delahunty to a certain extent. Clause 4A seems to be an odd clause to have included in the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. It would be interesting to know what the member in the chair actually thinks of it given that it was included by the Education and Science Committee. But I want to talk from my experience at Massey University about why I think this particular clause simply will not work in real terms when we think about it in practical terms. At Massey University there are a number of different campuses and each campus has its own students association. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported progress on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and no progress on the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. 
Report adopted.