Robertson Grant: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20304] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Clause 8 is a continuation of what is clearly the agenda behind the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. It is not this rhetoric about choice. The excellent work Mr Henare did as the leader of Mauri Pacific to give students associations the choice of whether they would be compulsory or voluntary has been taken away tonight with this bill. 
We have a further example of that in clause 8. Clause 8 means that if someone enrols at a private training establishment there is now no way that a private training establishment is able to give them information about students association fees. The agenda is not about choice; the agenda is about— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Don’t talk rubbish. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is exactly what the bill says I tell Mr Henare. That is exactly what it says. That is because the agenda of those promoting this bill is not about choice; it is about the destruction of students associations. One way of doing that is to make sure that information about students association fees is not available to those people who are enrolling at a private training establishment. 
This clause is instructive in relation to the whole question of what would be possible to ensure that we could get an enduring settlement around the question of students association membership. Members on this side of the Chamber know that in the discussions that took place in and around the Education and Science Committee it was quite possible that an enduring settlement could be found. 
One of those ways would be around what is possible in terms of withdrawing from membership as noted in the title of this particular clause around the withdrawal of membership. One possibility that was floated in that debate was the question of an opt-out clause a KiwiSaver-style clause that would allow students as part of their enrolment—and this is the very point of having students associations; it is part of being a student—to opt out of that if that was their choice. That was a possible compromise or solution to make sure that we were not as either a National-led Government or a Labour-led Government was elected simply swapping around over the question of membership of students associations. But National walked away from that deal; it walked away from the possibility that we might be able to have something around the withdrawal of membership which is noted within the title of this particular clause. 
This clause emphasises the point that the agenda being driven by the ACT Party is not actually about choice; it is fundamentally about destroying students associations. It is not about students actually having access to quality services and it is not about students having the ability to have advocates; it is about taking to students associations. It is an ideological agenda. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What is it about? It’s about choice. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Mr Henare interjects as he has throughout this debate with “It’s about choice.” This bill takes away choice I say to Mr Henare—this bill takes away choice. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: We won. You lost. Eat that. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It is a remarkable thing to have Tau Henare interjecting about a change to a bill that he created. He has now swapped over completely; he has flicked the switch and he has decided that the bill he brought in was fascism—the bill that he brought in. Does Mr Henare remember when he was the leader of Mauri Pacific? Does he remember? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What? Sorry? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: He does not remember when he was the leader of Mauri Pacific and he shepherded in the clause that tonight the Government and the ACT Party are taking away which is the choice of students associations as to whether they are compulsory or voluntary. 
The Auckland University Students Association went through the process the process that Mr Henare helped create and its members decided after a referendum that they would go voluntary. That was the choice that students associations and students had. Tonight this bill takes away that choice. It takes away the choice of students associations to actually decide whether they are voluntary or compulsory. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: It gives people choice. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Mr Henare is saying that it gives people choice. The option taken by the Auckland University Students Association is no longer possible with the bill that is being put through tonight. It is taking away choice. 
This clause is essentially making it impossible for information about students association fees to be provided to people who are enrolling at private training establishments. One of things discussed at the select committee was the question as to whether even if this bill went through it would be possible for students to be at least made aware of the services that were available and made aware of what students associations do. 
If members on the other side of the Chamber were genuine about the fact that they think students associations do good work which they told us they believed during the select committee process then they would have said: “All right we will give information to students when they enrol about what a students association does.” I say to Mr Henare that that would be a fair choice would it not? That would be a real choice—a choice made when people have all the information available to them about a students association. Clause 8 is saying that students enrolling at a private training establishment will not get all of the information about a students association; they will not know what the fees are. That means that the real agenda of this bill is exposed in this clause. The real agenda is to shut down students associations and to not give people enrolling—in this case at a private training establishment—information about a students association. 
Why would the people on the other side of the Chamber not want to do that? Why would they take away an informed choice for students? Why would they take away an informed choice? When students arrive at an institution they do not know everything about what a students association provides. They do not know about the welfare services the advocacy services the sport and recreation services the clubs and the health and counselling services. Students do not know about that when they show up on their first day. If they are to make an informed choice about whether they will join a students association as Mr Henare seems to want them to do why would they not be given information about a students association? Clause 8 is taking away that information. 
That is the question for Mr Henare: should students be given an opportunity under this new regime to make an informed choice about whether they join a students association? An informed choice would mean students would be given information when they enrolled about the services of students associations and about the fees that they need to pay and then they could make the choice. I ask Mr Henare whether that is not an informed choice. Should not students be given that option? No! Not even under this brave new voluntary world will students be given information. In fact the ability to do that for private training establishments is actually completely removed by this clause. 
The members on the other side of the Chamber stand up and tell us that this bill is about choice. That is rubbish. If this bill was about choice—informed choice—we would not have this clause in it. If this bill was about real choice for students associations then we would be sticking with the excellent work that Mr Henare did in the late 1990s which he has had a memory lapse about. He has forgotten about Mauri Pacific when he was in there making sure that students— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Say it properly man! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I did say it properly: Mauri Pacific. When he was leading that party he said that students associations should continue and should be able to advertise themselves and be available to advocate for students. Yet today Mr Henare arrives in this Chamber and says he has completely changed his mind from when he did that 10 years ago—he has completely changed his mind. Now students will not have the ability to have proper representation and to have proper advocates. They will not even be able under clause 8 to have information about students association fees. They will not even be able to have information about the services that students associations provide. 
This bill is not about choice. This bill is about an ideological obsession of the ACT Party now being facilitated by National. National members sat through the select committee process and heard the submissions of all bar one of the tertiary institutions in New Zealand who opposed this bill. The tertiary institutions know the value of students associations. The students who came before us know the value of students associations. The National members of the select committee know that. By the end of that submission process Colin King Allan Peachey Louise Upston—they all knew that this bill should not pass in its current form. They knew that and they knew that there were possibilities of creating an enduring solution that meant that this bill would not come back. But because of a deal between ACT and National this bill is being promoted by National members even when they know it is wrong. [ 
Interruption 
] There is the deeply mature backbench of National taking the issue seriously I say to Mr Bridges!