Shearer David: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Shearer David: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21525] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I start by asking how we ended at this very unhappy point because all the way along the line we had the opportunity to get a much better Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill than the one before us today. I think back to a few months ago when many of the National MPs and we were talking together about how we were able to put through legislation that not only would be better and would provide an element of choice but also would be able to endure the test of time rather than be completely—what Mr Peachey just said was erroneous—overturned as soon as a Labour-led Government comes in. The interesting thing is that National MPs—and some of them are in the House today—were in agreement that this legislation would not go through in its present form. They also told the NZUSA the New Zealand University Students’ Association that the bill would not go through in this sitting period—that it would not go through and instead we would have something different. On top of that we have Michael Woodhouse in the House today who is actually on YouTube saying exactly that. So to say that National is not exactly committed to this legislation is a huge understatement. 
The real reason we are here today is politics. It is the politics of the ACT Party needing to be propped up by National. That is why we are here. Heather Roy got rolled by Rodney Hide. Rodney Hide got rolled by Don Brash. Don Brash is probably rolling something as we speak. But the point is that the booby prize for all of this was that Heather Roy took over the voluntary student membership bill. She took over the voluntary student membership bill and National had to get in behind ACT and pretend it actually wanted to get this bill through instead of what it really felt which was in fact that it wanted a compromise along the lines of what we were producing and had actually put up. 
This legislation is completely unnecessary—completely unnecessary. There has been a lot of talk about choice and the freedom of choice which we heard from the previous two speakers. Let us look at the current legislation at its choice. Students currently have the opportunity if they can muster 10 percent of the student population to have a referendum on students associations. They have the choice to be able to do that. We are taking away that choice with this legislation. We are removing that choice from those students. That is not about democracy that is just about a piece of ideology being rammed through this Parliament dressed up to look like a problem and using this Parliament to put through legislation that denies students choice—it actually denies students choice it takes away that choice. So do not come the “we need freedom and we need choice” thing with me. There is no party more committed to democracy and choice than Labour but we do not want to sit here and be told that somehow we are giving people choice as a result of this odious legislation. 
The other thing I raise is the total mischaracterisation by parties on the other side of the House that somehow a students association is a union. It might be called a union but these are not employees. They are not workers. We have left compulsory worker unionism behind us. This is about students going along to an institution. They are not compelled to attend a tertiary institution; they are compelled to contribute to the relevant costs of that study. These are relevant costs—health care counselling and creche facilities. The types of things we are looking at are career advice employment opportunities sporting clubs and cultural activities. These parts of the university are an essential element of our university system. These are the things that sustain students through their university careers. They are essential parts of the university system. 
What will happen with this legislation? We know exactly what will happen. With the exception of the University of Auckland—which I would argue is an exceptional case because of its size but we will come to that in a minute—what will happen is that the fees going to students associations will dry up. They will dry up as they have in just about every other place where this measure has been tried and when they dry up all of those services that I have just mentioned will also dry up and be put at risk as well. That is what will happen with this legislation. And what will happen then? Well it will be no surprise because the services are essential to the university and student life. It will be no surprise: the universities and polytechnics will pick up some of those services and they will charge the students for them. They will charge the students more than the students are paying now to the students association for the same services they were receiving before and that is the nonsensical part of this legislation. That is the absolutely nonsensical part because the students will end up paying but they will not have a say. They will pay but they will not get a say on how their services and which services exactly will be put up. That will be up to the university or the polytechnic. Those institutions will dictate what students will have and the students although they are paying for those services will not get the say they once previously enjoyed when they belonged to a students association. So this legislation fails on so many counts. It fails on so many counts. 
Then we have the extraordinary arrogance of the process. I have to say that 4500 submissions came before the Education and Science Committee—4500. Two percent of submissions were in favour of this legislation; 98 percent were in opposition. Ninety-eight percent opposed this legislation and they came from right around the country. They came from all of the students unions—yes I guess you could say that is true. But they also came from all of the polytechnics and universities bar one. The institutions themselves do not want this. They do not want to take on having to provide all of these services for students. They do not want to do that. The arrogance of this bill is to ignore that evidence. The arrogance is to ignore those submissions. The arrogance is not to listen to good evidence not to listen to the institutions not to listen to the students themselves about what they want. Instead we have a dodgy shonky deal which will not last going through our Parliament from a group of ACT MPs who will not even be here when this legislation comes into being. Is it not extraordinary that we have over on the other side of the House National MPs who do not agree with this legislation and we have ACT MPs who will not even be here when this legislation comes into being? We are here in the second-to-last week of Parliament’s sitting in this session voting on an incredibly unpopular waste of time the voluntary student membership bill and the party over there with five members and sinking fast will not even be here to see the fruits of their labour.