Hughes Gareth: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hughes Gareth: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21539] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. We stand poised on the brink of ushering in a new dark age for students. There will be a fundamental change to what our universities look like in the coming years. The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill quite simply is an ideological solution in search of a problem. I am proud to be voting against this bill as the Green Party will do. We urge members on the Government benches to reconsider. It is not too late. I urge the Minister for Tertiary Education Steven Joyce—he has one last chance—to reconsider allowing this bill to pass. 
It is essential that we have strong students associations to deliver strong quality education outcomes to have a vibrant university culture to have a place where foreign students want to come to have a place where future Olympians have university games to perform at and to have a place where people feel safe and where there are critical evaluations like sexual health audits of the university—things like this. 
Mr Joyce cannot bring in this bill as urgently as he is doing. It is unfair it is impractical and quite frankly it is irresponsible of members on the Government benches to allow this bill to proceed with such a limited time for implementation. It is as though Mr Joyce has announced he is disbanding local government in New Zealand and telling people that if they like roads and water services they can voluntarily pay for them but they have only 3 months to prepare. It is unfair irresponsible and impractical. 
We saw the dawn of this new age 10 years ago. A short history of voluntary student membership in New Zealand tells us that we saw it across the Ditch. People are asking what the impacts will be. We do not have to theorise; we saw it across the Ditch in Australia. We saw students associations destroyed. We saw worse student outcomes and we saw the Government having to step in and bail them out with $120 million. 
In New Zealand in 1997 New Zealand First MP Michael Laws led the Voluntary Student Membership Bill through Parliament. In the end a compromise was reached because he could not get the numbers for the Voluntary Student Membership Bill which saw a referendum held across each campus in New Zealand. We saw some choose to go to an opt-in model. Many chose an opt-out model. We saw universities like the University of Waikato literally flog off their assets which had been built up over decades by students saving a little bit every year before going to an opt-out model. Ultimately this compromise for students to choose saved it. 
It is disappointing what we have not seen over that period. I think we in this Parliament should honestly reflect that some flaws were not addressed. We should have taken the opportunity earlier to look at the opt-out model for those institutions that chose to go with an opt-out model to make it easier and more universal across the country and for it to have been better explained. Perhaps the NZUSA the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations and the students associations could have taken the opportunity earlier on to critically and voluntarily review their role and their services because there have been some legitimate grievances that have not been addressed. Perhaps they could have been addressed earlier. 
I say big ups to all those people who have campaigned against this disastrous bill. I take my hat off to them. They have stayed staunch and campaigned creatively smartly and intelligently. I think they quite clearly won the debate but unfortunately what we are seeing tonight is that we are losing the war. We saw 98 percent of submitters opposed to the bill in the select committee. We have seen polling from diverse groups like Rural Women—a UMR Insight poll I believe it was—opposing it. 
On the Education and Science Committee we travelled all around the country and it was a privilege to be with the other members with the very able chairing of Allan Peachey. I thank the submitters for their submissions. We heard the experiences that students have in our universities around the country. We heard about the experiences at the University of Waikato which flogged off those student assets that were built up over decades. We heard about future Olympians being at risk from the loss of university games. 
We heard about those associations that have been forced to sign a compulsory levy with the institution. We heard from AUSA the Auckland University Students Association which is one of the only institutions in New Zealand to have the opt-in model. It feels that that it is under the thumb of the institution and it does not feel that it can critically review the institution. We heard about the Australian example and about the $120 million going in to help the transition. I ask members on the National benches where the transition plan is and where the support is be it financial or other resources. There is none. Government members want students associations to fail and it is disappointing that we are seeing that. 
The fact is that students associations do a fantastic job representing students advocating on students’ behalf and providing those services. In the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake we saw students with the organisation and the resources of their association providing a key service in their community in the days and weeks following the catastrophe there. Students play a critical role in our society. Universities need a student body that they can talk with and negotiate with. The Government needs an organised student body that it can work with to deliver key quality education. 
Students will still need services after this bill passes and the irony of this bill is that students will still be paying for their services but they just will not have a say. Instead with the upcoming legislation it will be Steven Joyce not the students who will be deciding what will and will not be funded with their student levies. 
Quality education and a smart economy should not be up for negotiation. What we are seeing from this bill is a weakening of the student culture and the pastoral care that students need to succeed. Not once have I heard from National members any mention of this bill being about educational outcomes or the big issues facing us in our economy. At the heart of it are two differing views of what our universities are. On the one hand we have a tiny ideological minority who see universities without the people and without community and on the other hand we see a strong vibrant vision of a democratic open transparent student body. 
This bill is not about freedom of association; it is simply a smokescreen. This bill is about appeasing a tiny ideological minority of ACT supporters who failed to gain any support through democratic means on the university campuses so instead went to Parliament to legislate away students’ ability to choose the system that works for them. This bill is about ACT and disappointingly National telling students how to organise themselves and in the process they will weaken and destroy particularly the polytech students associations. 
I believe that this bill is actually about weakening an oppositional voice to the terrible and disastrous tertiary education policies we are seeing under this Government. At its heart it is a philosophical question—what does being a member of a community mean? And what we are seeing is a philosophical debate. I do not see students associations as being like the Automobile Association—just providing a service. I see them more as a representative body more akin to local government or a local board at a local council level because they provide these essential representative and advocacy services. 
If this bill was actually about making sure students get the support they need we would have worked harder on the select committee. We would not have been party whipped into supporting this bill and we would have looked seriously at the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations’ compromise of automatic membership with an easier opt-out. I think we need an enduring cross-party solution to this issue and in future Parliaments we will be looking to work with the Maori Party Mana and the Labour Party to amend this legislation. 
The tragedy is that when we have a future Government—maybe in 3 months or 3 years or 6—we will be seeing a change to this legislation. We will have two decades of flux in the students association area. We need an enduring cross-party solution not an ideological partisan solution in search of a problem which we are seeing tonight. 
A few days ago we heard the Minister for Tertiary Education telling students to keep their heads down because most people think they are OK. I would like to ask the Minister for Tertiary Education whether he will keep telling students that it is OK and to keep their heads down when five of our six universities are dropping down the international rankings. Will Steven Joyce keep telling students to keep their heads down when he is telling students to organise themselves and not letting students organise themselves? Will he keep telling students to keep their heads down when his Government is ignoring the clear wishes of students and the 98 percent of submitters who oppose this bill? 
I urge National to reconsider and to save this bill. But I am not holding my breath because throughout the debate it has not shown a willingness to listen to the facts and it has literally taken an ideological partisan position. It is disappointing. Ultimately the loser in all of this is students and quality education.