Hodgson Pete: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20306] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I have the privilege of representing the good people of Dunedin North wherein lie more students than in any other electorate in the country nearly all of whom come from Otago University. Most of the remainder come from Otago Polytechnic and the remainder of those who are not in secondary school are from a number of private tertiary education institutions in town. 
The student body in Dunedin tonight is not best gruntled; they are not happy. The leadership of the Otago University Students’ Association does not think this bill the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is a good idea and they do not think the unusual behaviour in the Chamber this afternoon is good for democracy. They are about to express their viewpoint in the way that they know best as the days and weeks go by. They are not best gruntled. 
However what it does mean is that if this bill does go through then an important institution in the electorate of Dunedin North the Otago University Students’ Association will almost certainly become very seriously weakened. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Because given the choice of freeloading given an opportunity— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am being invited by the shout-back host of a party in this House of Representatives Mr Tau Henare a man who has decibels sufficient to drown out a 737 to answer one question. He repeats it endlessly. It is “Why?”. Let me tell him. Given an opportunity— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Come on tell me. Tell me I don’t know anything about freedom of choice! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: He is not going to let me tell him. He wants to shout me down. Let it be said that I am being shouted down by a halfwit. A half-head on the other side of the Chamber has decided to raise his voice to try to stop me. It is silly stuff. It is silly immature boyish behaviour. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am compelled to bring some order at this point. I think there should be an exchange of ideas. I invite the member to do that. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I was invited by Mr Tau Henare to answer his question. His question was “Why?”. Why would it be that on the passage of this bill the Otago University Students’ Association might become seriously weakened? It is an important institution in Dunedin. My answer is that given the choice to freeload most people will take it and certainly if they do so from a position of ignorance. If they arrive in Dunedin to undertake their study and find that there is an opportunity to reduce their fees by 100 bucks or whatever it is they will ordinarily take it especially when they do not know what they are missing out on. That is in the nature of collective responsibility. It is in the nature of collective provision. The Otago University Students’ Association is responsible for the collective provision of a vast array of services from medical services to social support services to advocacy services to— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What stops them now? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member opposite Mr Tau Henare has asked me again ‘What stops them now?” What do I do Mr Chairperson? I need your advice. Do I repeat myself? I do not repeat myself. Do I invite the gentleman to get another brain because the one he has got at the moment is lonely? Do I invite him to raise his voice still further? What am I to do? Let me see whether I can try this technique. Let me try to be the gentle cop and address my remarks to the member in the chair the Hon Heather Roy. 
This time I address my remarks to the Hon Heather Roy in respect of clause 8 of the bill. I say to her in seriousness that a case can be made that there is a mistake in this clause. Let me spell out my reasoning if I may. Clause 8 takes a section of the principal Act from memory section 236A of the Education Act and says in respect of one of the subsections let us remove the words “any students association fees”. In fact I will read clause 8 in case I have made a mistake. It states: “Section 236A(1)(a)(i) is amended by omitting ‘ and including any students association membership fees’.” What does this mean? One needs to go to section 236A of the principal Act which is the Education Act 1989 to find out. Section 236A of the principal Act requires every private training institution to basically be honest and upfront about costs. It basically says that when a student approaches an institution the institution has to tell them what all the costs are. 
Let me now read from the principal Act and show what the costs are that must be made available in black-letter law as it is at the moment. Section 236A(1)(a)(i) states: “the total fees for each course of study or training including fees for class or lecture materials books special clothing safety equipment tools and any other items that are or may be provided to students enrolled for that course and including any students association membership fees;”. Of course there may not be lecture materials. Of course a student may already have books from their older brother older auntie or something but if they have not the costs of those books need to be made available. They may already have the special clothing but the costs of the special clothing must be made available to them. The same rule applies whether or not they already have the safety equipment or whether or not they have the tools. So this subsection is a transparency kick. This subsection in the principal Act is a transparency kick. Whether the student will have to buy those things or whether the student wishes to buy those things including the student membership fee which will now be voluntary they are to be told in every case what the cost is. 
If clause 8 were to be passed the student would be told everything about the costs for his or her plumbing course English language course or whatever except any student association fee. Of course if there is no student association fee there is nothing to report or make transparent. But if there is there is no requirement for the private training establishment to tell the student about that. 
I wonder if we are on such a transparency-free formal freedom-of-choice kick whether we could require a private training establishment in the event of there being a students association which the student may or may not wish to join to have the cost of that students association membership made available to them compulsorily. I submit that it is inconsistent to say that any costs for special clothing tools or course fees must be made available but any costs relating to a students association fee if it exists do not have to be made available to the student. What is going on here? Surely this is a simple mistake? 
I ask the member in the chair what is happening to make it a matter of law that every conceivable or reasonable cost except any students association fee is to be made transparent. What is going on? It seems to me that ACT Party philosophy has stumbled a little at the edges. I wonder whether the member would be kind enough to give us the benefit of her wisdom as to why it is that the ACT Party legislation has done this. I do not see it as consistent. I do not think it is sensible for us to require in law as we have done for the last 20 years— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Right oh you’ve had your fun. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I just say to the Hon Tau Henare in brief riposte that if he would like to take the call and explain why it is that special tools have to be costed and provided to— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Sit down and I’ll take the call. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Will the member take the call? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I’ll take the call. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Will the member undertake not to provide the Committee with yet another closure motion? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I’ll take the call. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Ah so no undertaking is being offered. The member is asking me to sit down in order that he can attempt to shut down the entire debate and the question I reasonably ask goes unanswered by a group of people on the far side who have become specialised in the art of arrogance. Well I am not about to resume my seat without such an undertaking from the member. If he gave me an undertaking that he would attempt to answer this reasonable question— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh hurry up. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am sorry? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How boring. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Did I hear the member say that he would attempt such an answer? No. I heard him say “hurry up”. I say to the honourable member that it is inconsistent for us to decide that the costs of special tools special clothing safety and different fees must all be made available to the student but the costs of any students association fee need not be made available. That is inconsistent. It is not the transparency kick that the ACT Party prides itself on. I enjoin the member in the chair to take a call to offer us her views on that matter. I do not think the question is an unreasonable one. I think it does need to be addressed. I think the Committee would benefit were the member in the chair to let us know what she thinks is behind that or were she to seek advice from her officials in order to say what they think might be behind it.