Roy Heather: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Roy Heather: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17597] 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 Opposition members have made a number of claims that are just not technically correct. They have also put forward a large number of amendments to clause 6 of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. It is the substantive part of the bill and it does warrant some comment and in fact some straightening out of some of the propositions that have been made and the claims that have been put forward. So far I think during every single clause that has been debated—and we are on to clause 6—members of the Opposition have stood up and said that that was the clause that will be the end of student representation. Every single clause apparently is the important one that will be the end of student representation. But let me say that a number of things do need to be addressed. 
Addressing the comments of Clare Curran who has just sat down I find it quite sad that she said the only reason that good is done in the student community is that students associations exist. Well I say to the Opposition that one does not need laws or compulsion to do good in the community. The example that was used the Student Volunteer Army in Christchurch was not in fact organised by the students associations. They had a part to play but in fact it was organised by one National Party supporter who set up a Facebook page. Students saw that page and out of the goodness of their hearts went to help in their local community. It was nothing to do with the fact that those people had to belong to a students association. 
The claim was made by Grant Robertson I think that students have been successful only because of students associations. That claim will come as news to most students who would say their success is due to their own hard work not to the existence of a students association. 
Grant Robertson 
: What happens when things go wrong? 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: Talking about things that go wrong let us look at the referendum provision that exists in the current law. We have had that provision in place for 10 years and the sponsor of that particular provision had a conversation with me to say that the reason he now does not support it is that it has not worked. It has not worked in terms of the criticism we have had in this debate because students cannot get the 10 percent required. There is no way they will get support from students when they put forward referenda provisions in the middle of exams. That has been done in countless places. Waikato is probably the best example where referenda are routinely put forward in the middle of exams when students are quite rightly focusing on the work they are there to do. 
The other thing that has not worked is the opt-out provision. Members opposite say we should just enhance the opt-out provision. The opt-out provision has not worked because the students associations want that money; they want the guaranteed income. The opt-out system has not worked because the students associations have made students jump through hoops to do it and they give up in frustration. They give up in frustration. 
Sue Moroney 
: So fix that! 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: We are not fixing that because then other loopholes will be found. There should not be an opt-out provision. 
The financial impropriety—which members opposite have not mentioned once in the whole debate so far and which warrants comment—has been the result of the guaranteed income that students associations have because of compulsory student membership. The financial impropriety is a result of the lack of transparency and the poor accountability. If members opposite took a moment to flick past new section 229A as set out in clause 6 they would find that the lack of transparency and poor accountability are being addressed in this bill and that is extraordinarily important. The fact that Labour members are prepared to compromise on so many parts of this particular clause—and we need just to quickly look at Grant Robertson’s Supplementary Order Paper to see that—shows how fearful they are of losing control of the campuses. 
Chris Hipkins and a number of other members talked about the overwhelming number of submissions that were opposed to the bill during the select committee process. Let us be very clear about how those submissions were formatted and put forward to the Education and Science Committee. Out of the 4800 submissions 300 were substantive submissions. The rest—the other 4500 submissions—were in A4 form. Those 4500 submissions effectively made up a petition. They were not substantive submissions; they were all exactly identical. I have had students tell me that at many university campuses tables were set up in front of the cafeteria and students were not let through until they signed one of those forms which were then put forward as substantive submissions. 
Sue Moroney 
: Oh what rubbish! 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: Sue Moroney can say until she is blue in the face that that is not true but I can tell the member that a lot of students have told me that that is exactly how those forms were collected. 
David Clendon from the Green Party stood up and gave the most to-the-point and genuine speech I have heard tonight. He talked about fairness. This bill is exactly about fairness. This bill is about fairness for students who should not be compelled to join a students association in order to study. They cannot do one without the other and this bill is about fairness to students. It allows them the choice to decide for themselves whether they pay a fee and belong to a students organisation. It allows them to study and move ahead with their lives. A member asked what the problem was that we are trying to fix—I think it might have been Sue Moroney. The problem we are trying to fix is that students are currently the only group in our society who are forced to join an organisation in order to be able to do what they are there to do. The fairness aspect is being fixed and I look forward to this debate continuing with some honesty in the debating points.