Goodhew Jo: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21547] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 It gives me real pleasure to at last take a short call in this third reading of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I do so as a member of the Education and Science Committee. What a fascinating philosophical debate we have had here tonight. We are seeing it all hang out are we not? Over here we are talking about freedom of association not compulsion and that certainly has come through all of our speeches tonight. 
Tonight I pay tribute to one of the many people who have really supported this bill and that is one Holly Ford an ardent supporter of the bill who is celebrating not only the bill’s progress tonight but also her birthday. So I say to Holly that she is in the right place celebrating the progress of this bill. Good on her. 
National philosophically believes in getting the most out of every dollar that is spent in tertiary education whether the individual puts the dollar out there or the taxpayer—not the Government; always the taxpayer—puts the money out there. There are our two choices: it is either an individual or the taxpayer via Government funding who pays. 
Getting the best value for money is also about accountability so when this bill was pulled from the ballot I took it upon myself with the assistance of my then intern Seonah Choi to look into how in the financial accounts of each of the students associations they were spending their money. Fascinating reading it was absolutely fascinating. Although I could understand some of the money that was being spent there seemed an inordinate amount of gravy-training going on. There were a lot of “nice-to-haves” as we would put it but there was also some stuff that clearly was a bit suspect. We have heard repeatedly over the years about the misuse of students association funding—it is actually legend. It is not every students association and I am sure the individual students associations are not proud of that misuse of their funding but in fact accountability was not there. On the part of those who belonged to those students associations it certainly was never acceptable but it was compulsory that they must belong to the students association. It was very very very difficult for them to opt out and we have heard repeated examples of that. With students associations being compulsory students felt they were actually supporting the rorts—unwillingly but supporting the rorts. 
Ultimately this bill is all about choice and of course National’s philosophy is to encourage choice and personal responsibility. When a young person decides they need exercise they will make some choices. They will either go for a run climb on a bike or they may decide to join a gym. But if they need exercise will someone say they must join a gym? Of course they will not. When they head to university they are actually brighter than Labour thinks they are. We know that from the number of them who voted National. 
When they get to university they will make a choice. They will look at what is on offer from the students association and a number of them whom I have actually spoken to will tell you that they will join. However they will want value for money and they will want accountability. They will want to know they are spending their money wisely and they will vote with their feet if they think that is not happening. This bill allows that to happen. 
This bill provides that no student or prospective student in an institution is required to be a member of the association and it actually prohibits anybody exerting undue influence on them at all which seems to be a really good idea. Students who believe they have been under undue pressure may lodge a complaint and it will be heard by the council of the institution. Again it seems like a good safeguard. Are we getting to some accountability here? I think we are. 
The bill states that no person is required to pay a membership fee to a students association or any alternative fee to the membership fee unless the person chooses. It sounds like a basic right does it not? It is hard to believe that the Opposition members can fight so hard for compulsion. When we see the best in New Zealand—and we have certainly seen it this year—when we see the best come out in the students and other New Zealanders we see it come out in voluntarism. I say now to the Student Volunteer Army that it is so good that they had “Volunteer” in their title because that is what it is all about. They volunteered to put themselves out to spend their own time energy and probably money on achieving something really good. That is what it should be about: volunteering. 
This bill will not destroy good students associations. They will still be able to offer the services they currently do including advocacy and lobbying but they will attract their members on merit. What can be wrong with that? Freedom of association and personal choice are things all New Zealanders should enjoy. I am proud to say that from tonight students up and down this country will know that a choice to join a students association is coming their way. I commend this bill to the House.