Robertson Grant: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:21075] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Just to pick up where Mr Hipkins left off I say that it is quite clear to me that the transitional provision in the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is not adequate. It is not adequate for two main reasons. One of them is the one Mr Hipkins has raised—that is that we are now here in this Chamber in September looking at passing this bill. I acknowledge that this side of the Committee has strongly opposed this bill and we stand by that opposition. But if members on the other side of the Committee are true to their word that their goal here is not to destroy students associations then they will accept a change to these transitional provisions that would allow for a longer period before this law came into force. The truth is that students associations and certainly those in the university environment will now need to negotiate with institutions in relation to which services will be provided. 
Institutions themselves are concerned about this. Members should bear in mind that all bar one of the polytechnics all of the universities and all bar one of the wananga came to the Education and Science Committee and said: “Please don’t pass this legislation.” This legislation is actually opposed by the institutions because they know about the value of the work that students associations do. Institutions are now being placed in a position of having to negotiate—or not—with the students associations about the services that will be provided. We know from around the country that institutions are struggling with this. Students associations are not able to engage with them in the way they would like we are heading towards the exam period and it is getting towards the end of the year. The transitional provisions need to be updated to take into account where we are in the year and how long it has taken to complete this debate. As I say members on this side of the Committee fully accept that we have been part of trying to vigorously oppose this legislation. But if the members on the other side of the Committee are true to what they said to submitters in the select committee in the public sessions and if they are true to what they have previously said about students associations they will change the date this bill comes into force. 
Unfortunately they are sitting there in silence having listened to the submissions in the committee. At the end of that process the National members knew that this bill was wrong. It was unworkable it would undermine the services that students got it would undermine the advocacy that students got and it would undermine the educational experience of students. They all knew that—the National members of the committee—and there were possibilities for compromise. It seems it is now too late for some of those compromises to be put back on the table but one thing members on the other side of the Committee can do is think about when this bill comes into force and about the students who will be coming in on 1 January 2012 who are not already enrolled and covered under this transition provision. They can think about those students they can think about the institutions that are trying to organise which services are going to be provided and they can create a transitional provision that actually acknowledges the reality of where we are. 
If members on the other side of the Committee do not do that then it calls into question everything they have said about their belief that students associations do valuable things and provide important services. It undermines that and it aligns those members with the ACT Party’s ideological opposition to students associations. That is what has driven this—the views of a small number of students who could not even get the 10 percent of students required to run a referendum. The ideological views of the ACT Party tail are wagging the National dog again. Members on the other side of the Committee have the ability to ensure that this bill does not come into force on 1 January 2012 and that there is a proper transitional provision put in place that will actually facilitate a smoother transition to what we on this side of the Committee continue to believe is wrong. We continue to believe it is the wrong thing to do for students and for tertiary institutions. But if members on the other side of the Committee are so determined to push this bill though then at the very least they should put in place a transitional provision that actually gives some time to those institutions and to those students to adjust to a new reality. The truth is that if the bill is rammed through in the form it is now it will cause significant upheaval services will be lost 75 percent— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You should have thought about that a long time ago. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: We oppose the bill I say to Mr Henare because it is the wrong thing to do. It is the wrong thing to do. Mr Henare knew that. He knew that in the late 1990s when he negotiated the compromise that has been undone today. This is what is being done today—we are undoing Tau Henare’s legislation of the late 1990s.