Hughes Gareth: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Gareth: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:16870] 
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—