Hughes Gareth: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hughes Gareth: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20321] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I just got a tweet that said the Committee has been spending more time debating parliamentary procedure than it has debating this Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. It has sure been interesting. 
I had to rise to take a call when I heard the member Louise Upston’s speech because I too was on the Education and Science Committee. I was a student probably more recently than the member Louise Upston and I am still paying off a student loan. I had to take exception to her characterisation that this bill which will be passed tonight is the voice of students because that is patently untrue. We heard 180 oral submissions 98 percent of which were opposed to the bill. We received 4837 written submissions by students and the vast majority of them were opposed to this bill. We heard from editors and students. We heard from postgrad students and former students. We heard from students association presidents student radio DJs and student editors. We heard from institutions and from local bodies. They all vigorously opposed this bill because they know what the impact will be. 
It was interesting to hear from the member Louise Upston because hearing those submissions at the select committee from all those thousands of students was an important period. They were unified in their call to not pass this bill. The National members on the committee went into the hearings with an open mind. They heard the submissions they asked some great questions and we had some good discussions about what we could be doing about real transitional measures which is what we are debating now with clause 9. The real transitional measure would be a more explicit opt-out provision. 
The Human Rights Commission said of course that there is no issue of human rights and no problem here with the freedom of association. But what National members have done by deciding to vote for this terrible legislation is paint themselves into a corner. Now they have to come up with extreme comments to try to back up their position because the evidence is that students do not want it. I refer to the UMR Research poll of students which showed that 72 percent of students were opposed to the changes. The fact is that this bill is not a question of choice; this bill is simply an ideological solution in search of a problem. It is damaging. What we are seeing now with clause 9 is a confusing mess. It is a confusing clause to go with a confusing and damaging bill. 
I ask the member in the chair Heather Roy to take a call to explain exactly why this transitional clause clause 9 is needed and what it will actually mean for those students who are currently enrolled or those who will enrol. I agree with the member Grant Robertson. If first-year students enrol after 1 January 2012—which is only 4 months away; let us not forget that this bill is passing so close to the start of the next university year; they may leave Gisborne like I did and go to the big smoke—those students will not have hundreds of dollars burning holes in their pockets not when they have to buy books pay bond and pay the other student levies that this Government is also administering. Many of these students do not know what to expect at university. They do not expect to need student advocacy support if they run into a lecturer who mismarks their grade or is abusive in class. They do not think they will need to use student medical services. They do not ever think they will need to use the student food bank. That is what first-year students do not realise when they first go to university. 
The fact is that because this bill is taking away the universal aspect of the student membership fees students cannot put their membership fee on their student loans any more. They have to put it on their course-related costs. Let us not forget that the course-related cost amount the $1000 that students can borrow each year has not been changed since 1992. That is as old as  
Shortland Street 
 yet students are expected to buy more with less and to now also put the student membership fees on their course-related costs. 
I invite the member Heather Roy to take a call to help explain this clause because I think a lot of institutions and students associations will be confused about what it means. That is quite a good example of how this bill is damaging and confusing. We are 4 months away from 1 January 2012. Most institutions and most students associations have already set their budgets for 2012 yet in a fit of irresponsibility because of National this Parliament is passing this bill which will damage institutions that have not been able to plan for adequate transition methods. We should be discussing instead—but we cannot because we are rushed—what the adequate transition methods would be if we were going with it. I would prefer a conversation about the opt-out provision which I think everyone could live with.