Lees-Galloway Iain: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17595] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 As other members on this side of the House have said we are absolutely opposed to clause 6 of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I will start by covering the change to insert new section 229A “Membership of students associations voluntary” in the Education Act 1989.  
This legislation is unnecessary. There is no problem that it is trying to fix. It is not in the interests of the majority of students—ordinary students who are just trying to get through their qualifications and trying to live from one week to the next. They are not interested in this legislation. They did not call for it. In fact this change—especially new section 229A—will drive up their student costs. Their tertiary costs will be driven up by this change. Their cost of living will go up even further than it already is doing. And for what reason? To satisfy the whim of a small number of ACT on Campus members. That is it. This change was not called for by thousands of students. It is not a response to many many students across the country coming forward and asking for this change. It is a response to a tiny number of students who are aligned to the ACT Party and who for some reason want to put ideology over common sense. That is all the change is about. 
New section 229A inserted by clause 6 of the bill states: “No student or prospective student at an institution is required to be a member of a students association.” There is a very simple solution to this problem which the Education and Science Committee seemed to be looking at until the very persuasive Mrs Roy returned to the select committee. That solution is simply to give students clearer options for opting out of a students association. That would solve the problem. If that really is the problem that option would solve it. 
I think we really see what the bill is all about when we look at the changes to clause 6 that were made by the select committee. I am particularly interested in the change to insert new section 229B which refers to undue influence in the Act. I think the changes made by the select committee to new section 229 are very good. They are appropriate because they balance the issue of undue influence by the multiple parties that might be involved in influencing someone to become or not become a member of a students association. The original wording of new section 229 was all about how students associations—those nasty evil horrible students associations—were not allowed to exert undue influence on any student. That is what this bill is all about. It comes from an ideological position that students associations are bad: that they are a bad thing that they exert pressure on students to become members of students associations and that Parliament should be doing something to undermine students associations and get rid of them. 
The change made by the select committee I think is appropriate and balances things out. The new wording states that prospective students cannot have influence exerted on them to become members of a students association but nor can they have undue influence exerted on them to not become members or to leave a students association. That change appropriately reflects the fact that there is a range of opinions out there for students or institutions. There is an important amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 191 in the name of Grant Robertson to include institutions in new section 229B. Institutions may also be guilty of exerting undue influence either to get students into students associations or to keep them out depending on the institution’s philosophy towards students associations. 
I can absolutely understand why a tertiary institution may want to influence students to join the students association. It gives the institution a point of contact with which to relate to students. It is much easier for institutions if they have a strong students association not only to provide the many many services that students associations provide but also because the institutions themselves have acknowledged that they will have to pick up those services if the students associations are weakened. That is one reason why a tertiary institution may want to influence students to join a students association but I think it is absolutely appropriate that that amendment should be included to ensure that institutions cannot influence a student to go into a students association or out of a students association or encourage them not to join a students association. I appreciate the fact that the select committee has looked at the ridiculous original—