Hughes Darren: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:16865] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on clause 3 of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I apologise to my colleagues who were also seeking the call because I know that a lot of Labour members take this bill very very seriously and are keen to put their views—[ 
Interruption 
] Sorry? 
Shane Ardern 
: Some of them might even have had some speech notes. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Oh there is always a chance of that. A bit of preparation does not hurt I tell Mr Ardern. I am always keen to do a tutorial on this particular legislation before we speak on it. 
I want to follow on from the comments of former student president Hipkins who regaled us with stories about his copy of the Education Act that he kept so close to him. 
Chris Hipkins 
: How many terms did he serve as president? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Oh no—you see I was never up at such lofty heights; indeed it is unfulfilled ambition in that respect. If it were not for the fact that night schools have been cancelled in this country I could do a bridge course to get myself back into a university. But sadly this is not the case. 
The principal Act though is the 1989 Education Act; Mr Chairman you need to be aware of this because that is the clause we are debating at the present time. I saw by that look on your face that you were confused where the Committee of the whole House was at the present time. That Act is the legislation that of course our entire system is founded on and built on. One of the key phrases in that legislation that all members of Parliament should be very much concerned about and have their minds focused on is the role of universities and tertiary institutions to be the “critic and conscience of society”. Those are very lofty words. New Zealand legislation is not often given to lofty concepts. We are very practical people and we write our legislation in terms of what we want to see happen. We do not always write into law such aspirations as that one but when the original 1989 Education Act was re-formed into the way it is now there was a big debate about that—about whether that aspiration should stay. To act as a critic and conscience of society goes to the heart of the independence of our tertiary sector and my concern here— 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek some clarity from you and some assistance. It seems to me that we are debating clause 3 which is the principal Act being amended; therefore I wonder whether we should be detailing the amendments to the principal Act rather than the broadest term of the principal Act which is not under debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member raises an interesting point of order. This is functionally a debate about why the principal Act needs to be amended. It does not bring the whole principal Act into it. We have skirted into some stuff that was not part of it but I think the member was getting back to the point at the time. But I am monitoring very carefully what is being said and members will note that I have a response if we do stray too far—if we stray at all actually. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Thank you Mr Chairman and as always we are so grateful for the procedural expertise of Mrs Goodhew who no doubt is co-authoring the next edition of  
McGee 
 such is her expertise in this matter. 
The point about the Education Act 1989 is that it has to sit in a consistent way for any subsequent amendment. The argument the Opposition is putting forward is that this bill undermines one of the central themes of that principal Act in a way that almost introduces a foreign concept to the Act. The point I was trying to get to was that the responsibility in the principal Act in addition to its broad theme of being a critic and conscience of society is its requirements as set out in its clauses to ensure quality across the education system—and I do not have the numbers here but it is in the 200s from my memory. Our contention is that this amendment bill runs foreign to the Education Act 1989 by undermining the students associations’ role in the way that it will do and the role that Mr Hipkins discussed in terms of the associations’ ability to monitor and advocate on behalf of students for the educational quality of particular programmes in tertiary institutions. This amendment to the principal Act renders irrelevant some of the aspirations goals and objectives of the Education Act 1989. 
If Government members do not get that then there is something wrong with them because this is a major change in the ability of users of the education system to ensure quality in the system. We hear a lot from Government members opposite about how primary schools should not be under the control of teachers—because of course what would teachers know—and that at primary level it should all be about what is best for the consumer. Yet here we are through this amendment to the primary legislation—the principal Act the Education Act—taking away from consumers at tertiary level the ability to be able to deliver to them a consistently high-quality tertiary education. The undermining of our students associations is something that we are very very worried about. 
These are not light decisions for the Committee to have to consider. If the Committee passes this clause it alters the Education Act and that is a major piece of social legislation in our country. I know that our Labour members on the Education and Science Committee put quite a lot of thought into what that would mean and that came up in their minority report—I cannot find the correct reference to the services linking back into the Education Act; I am sorry but I cannot find in my notes where it was—but the main point is that we do not believe that the change in this clause is consistent with the objectives of the Education Act. It is the job of the Committee to consider this law but also to defend the principal Act.