Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:21074] 
Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 3 August. 
Clause 9 Transitional Provision 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am happy to take a brief call on clause 9 of this bill. It is the last clause to be debated in the Committee stage before the bill is up for its third reading presumably on the next sitting day. Clause 9 is a transitional provision. In the view of the Opposition it raises questions around the date that this legislation will come into force. 
When we first debated the commencement clause of this bill some months ago it was quite conceivable had it been passed at that time that the bill could be implemented without causing any difficulty to the institutions involved. We are now into September. Many of the institutions will have set their tuition fees for the coming year and will have begun to enrol students. Many more students will be covered by this transition clause than would have been had this bill passed earlier in the year. Many many more students will be in programmes that will be ongoing past the commencement date of this bill than would have been had it been passed when we debated the commencement clause. Therefore it is actually quite legitimate I think to ask whether the commencement of this bill should be delayed. 
As I said many of the institutions will already have set their tuition fees and begun enrolling students for next year and we think it would therefore be reasonable to delay commencement of this bill overall until the beginning of January 2013. It is a logistical nightmare for some of the institutions to try to change their procedures at this late stage in the proceedings. I accept of course that the bill has taken as long as this to get to this stage because we the Opposition have over the last few months been fully arguing this bill and other bills that have come before it on the Order Paper. 
It looks like this bill will pass before the election. Therefore I think it is legitimate to ask whether this transition clause should be expanded or whether the Committee could potentially go back and reconsider the commencement date for the bill. This transition clause will probably be insufficient to meet the challenges that are posed by the passage of this bill at this late stage in the year when students have already begun enrolling for their studies. 
Also of course there is the question of how long it will take the institutions to put alternative systems in place. They will have to put systems in place for student representation on their governing bodies for example which is currently covered under the law by the students associations. Universities polytechnics and institutes of technology will need to put alternative systems in place for those matters from next year. And of course they are coming up to exam time and a time when many students will not be in the institutions. Is it therefore feasible for them to put those things in place in time for a commencement date of 1 January 2012? I argue quite strongly that it is not. 
Therefore the transitional provisions currently provided in the bill are insufficient if this bill is to be passed and it will be judging by the number of votes that have gone through so far. Despite National promising before the election not to vote for the bill National has in fact been voting for it all the way through. This makes it more likely that this bill will pass into law before the election despite National not having sought a mandate for it. National claims that it seeks a mandate when it changes its policies. Well it changed its policy on this matter but it does not seem to think it needs to go back to the electorate for a mandate on this particular legislation unlike some of the other things that it claims to be seeking a mandate for. That is another example of National implementing policies without seeking a mandate despite claiming that it intends to do so. Therefore I think it is quite reasonable for us to go back and consider whether this transition clause should be expanded. 
It simply will not be feasible to implement this legislation prior to 1 January next year. It will be a nightmare for the institutions to implement. It will be difficult even for the students associations to establish alternative systems for signing up students as members and making sure that many of the valuable services that they currently provide are catered for in a voluntary membership environment. 
I ask the Committee to reconsider whether this transitional clause is sufficient and whether we should go back and reconsider the commencement clause and extend the date for the commencement of this bill by a further year. We first considered the commencement clause as I said some months ago—some months ago. A lot has changed in that period of time. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Just to pick up where Mr Hipkins left off I say that it is quite clear to me that the transitional provision in the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is not adequate. It is not adequate for two main reasons. One of them is the one Mr Hipkins has raised—that is that we are now here in this Chamber in September looking at passing this bill. I acknowledge that this side of the Committee has strongly opposed this bill and we stand by that opposition. But if members on the other side of the Committee are true to their word that their goal here is not to destroy students associations then they will accept a change to these transitional provisions that would allow for a longer period before this law came into force. The truth is that students associations and certainly those in the university environment will now need to negotiate with institutions in relation to which services will be provided. 
Institutions themselves are concerned about this. Members should bear in mind that all bar one of the polytechnics all of the universities and all bar one of the wananga came to the Education and Science Committee and said: “Please don’t pass this legislation.” This legislation is actually opposed by the institutions because they know about the value of the work that students associations do. Institutions are now being placed in a position of having to negotiate—or not—with the students associations about the services that will be provided. We know from around the country that institutions are struggling with this. Students associations are not able to engage with them in the way they would like we are heading towards the exam period and it is getting towards the end of the year. The transitional provisions need to be updated to take into account where we are in the year and how long it has taken to complete this debate. As I say members on this side of the Committee fully accept that we have been part of trying to vigorously oppose this legislation. But if the members on the other side of the Committee are true to what they said to submitters in the select committee in the public sessions and if they are true to what they have previously said about students associations they will change the date this bill comes into force. 
Unfortunately they are sitting there in silence having listened to the submissions in the committee. At the end of that process the National members knew that this bill was wrong. It was unworkable it would undermine the services that students got it would undermine the advocacy that students got and it would undermine the educational experience of students. They all knew that—the National members of the committee—and there were possibilities for compromise. It seems it is now too late for some of those compromises to be put back on the table but one thing members on the other side of the Committee can do is think about when this bill comes into force and about the students who will be coming in on 1 January 2012 who are not already enrolled and covered under this transition provision. They can think about those students they can think about the institutions that are trying to organise which services are going to be provided and they can create a transitional provision that actually acknowledges the reality of where we are. 
If members on the other side of the Committee do not do that then it calls into question everything they have said about their belief that students associations do valuable things and provide important services. It undermines that and it aligns those members with the ACT Party’s ideological opposition to students associations. That is what has driven this—the views of a small number of students who could not even get the 10 percent of students required to run a referendum. The ideological views of the ACT Party tail are wagging the National dog again. Members on the other side of the Committee have the ability to ensure that this bill does not come into force on 1 January 2012 and that there is a proper transitional provision put in place that will actually facilitate a smoother transition to what we on this side of the Committee continue to believe is wrong. We continue to believe it is the wrong thing to do for students and for tertiary institutions. But if members on the other side of the Committee are so determined to push this bill though then at the very least they should put in place a transitional provision that actually gives some time to those institutions and to those students to adjust to a new reality. The truth is that if the bill is rammed through in the form it is now it will cause significant upheaval services will be lost 75 percent— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You should have thought about that a long time ago. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: We oppose the bill I say to Mr Henare because it is the wrong thing to do. It is the wrong thing to do. Mr Henare knew that. He knew that in the late 1990s when he negotiated the compromise that has been undone today. This is what is being done today—we are undoing Tau Henare’s legislation of the late 1990s. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I would like to follow on from what Grant Robertson was arguing and it is about something that students associations have mentioned to me in a number of meetings I have had with them over the last few weeks. They are concerned about the transitional arrangements that are to take place as a result of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill coming into force. Unfortunately it looks as though it will even though we have tried the best we can to argue against it and debate that. 
We have met with both National and Heather Roy herself to look at a compromise alternative that might have actually been able to get through. That alternative could have enabled this legislation to get through with an opt-out clause—an opt-out clause that would mean that students who were signed up to a students association would in the first month of signing up be able to get out of it pretty much as we currently do with KiwiSaver. We believe—and the students associations do as well because they announced this in a press release a few weeks ago—that in fact this opt-out clause would enable us to do two things. Those with a pathological dislike of students associations who do not want to be part of one could get out of it yet the legislation would not undermine and gut students associations which we know has happened in every other jurisdiction where legislation has done the same thing as is proposed here to students associations. In those places that legislation has meant that the students associations are undermined. 
But unfortunately that compromise and those discussions collapsed when ACT realised that it could possibly get the bill through the House before the end of the year. I think that is a real shame because what we would have had was legislation that had some durability. It could have continued on without becoming a legislative ping-pong game between different Governments as they come and go out of power. 
Having said that I do think there are some real issues around the transitional arrangements mentioned in clause 9. There is one thing I would not mind some elucidation on. Now as we all know many students join an organisation or an institution halfway through the year; with the semester system people do not always join at the beginning of the year. If people join halfway through the year under the current regime and suddenly on 1 January they shift to a different regime according to this legislation—as I understand it anyway—those people would stay part of the students association having paid their full entitlement for the course of a year. This is the question: should they be eligible for a pro rata refund should they decide to opt out of that students association because they do not want to be part of it? That is a legitimate question. I am not sure whether that is completely covered in the transitional arrangements but it is one of the questions that will arise I think should this legislation come into force on 1 January 2012. Clause 9 alludes to a number of transitional arrangements but perhaps does not fully cover them as a result of the way that the legislation is written at the moment. 
The second point regarding clause 9 that I want to raise is about the implications of the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) which passed into law a few weeks ago. As we know as part of that legislation our students associations will have to sit down with universities to look at any increase in levies. I submit that if this bill goes through and it goes through on 1 January 2012 a number of students associations will basically fall over and some of the services that some of them are currently providing will not be able to continue to exist simply because the finances for those services—be they counselling or medical or sporting or— 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party would strongly support the proposal by Labour to amend the transitional provision. We agree wholeheartedly that it is absurd to have this Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill come into effect on 1 January next year and that a much longer transitional period will be needed if there is to be a smooth transition once this rather unfortunate bill passes in this Parliament. As previous speakers have said there is no question that some of the services will fall over. The universities are very worried about trying to negotiate and take over some of the services from the students associations. There is a huge amount of work to be done and it is completely unrealistic to expect it to be done by 1 January next year. Therefore we need to change the transitional provision. 
One of the Labour speakers said that if the intention of this bill was not to destroy students associations then the Government would readily agree to amend the transitional provision. Unfortunately I am afraid that that is the ambition not just of the ACT Party but indeed of the Government and that is what this bill is about—destroying students associations in New Zealand. As we said in our Green Party minority review undermining the membership and financial viability of students associations will reduce student democracy reduce student participation and reduce students’ voices on university and polytechnic boards. Let us be absolutely clear that that is what this bill is about. It is about trying to destroy student democracy student participation and the student voice. 
Like many people in this House I was on a student executive—the Victoria University student executive—and that was a very radicalising positive political experience for me. That radicalised me. I participated fresh from a private school for young ladies. I found myself on a student executive and it radicalised me. I was involved in student protests student marches on Parliament and so forth. 
That is what the Government does not want to happen. The Government does not want students to be radicalised or to be involved in student politics. It does not want students to have a strong voice. Indeed once the Government has destroyed the student unions and the student voice it knows that its next proposals are to undermine universities and university funding. The Government anticipates it will not have opposition if for example it were to do things like change the student loan scheme because by the passage of this bill it will have undermined students associations it will have undermined the student voice and it will have undermined student radicalism. That is what this bill is about. 
Let us not have any pretence that there is any other purpose to this bill. Let us not pretend it is about freedom of association or some vague ACT principles. That is what the bill is about—trying to destroy student democracy student participation and the student voice. But unfortunately in setting out to destroy those things it will also destroy some extraordinarily valuable university student services. Many of them will fall over. They will be a further burden on the universities which will have to pick up these services particularly if we do not amend this transitional provision clause and this is all supposed to happen somehow in a couple of months’ time by 1 January. 
I cannot understand—well I suppose I can really—why National would be so intent on destroying student democracy student participation and the student voice. Perhaps it feels that students might be the ones who oppose the market economy or oppose some of the Government’s policies such as selling off our State assets. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak on clause 9 of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. As my colleagues have pointed out we are discussing the transitional provisions. I think a really important point has been made in terms of the suggestions that we have put forward to the member in the chair Heather Roy on the transitional provisions—that this is an opportunity to prove that this is not an ideological issue and that if some of the amendments we have put forward were adopted that might go some way to alleviating that concern. I give that a heavy caveat because ultimately I would still probably believe this is purely ideological. 
There are two quick points that I want to make. Clause 9(2)(a) states: “a student to whom this section applies continues to be a member of the students association until the expiry of his or her current term of enrolment;”. Obviously the impact of that will be that we will have potentially a gradual depletion in students association numbers and that will impact on the ability to keep students association services up to the level that would be provided if we had full membership. 
Probably the best example I can give of that is to ask what would happen in New Zealand if only a quarter of the country was contributing to the services that require universal provision—if only a quarter of the country was contributing to roading to schools and to health services. 
Health services are actually a direct parallel. If we suddenly have the phasing out of students contributing to those services—if economies of scale require that we have no less than one nurse or one doctor available—we can almost guarantee that despite those students still being enrolled in the students associations and requiring those services and expecting those services the depletion of resources going into those areas will gradually mean that they will not be able to be provided to the same level. 
The transitional provisions I think will ultimately lead to the gradual decline of those services as will this entire bill. This bill is denying only to a certain degree the ultimate inevitability of the depletion of services and advocacy for students on campus. However as we have already pointed out that is ultimately the purpose of this bill. 
I turn to some of the amendments proposed by my colleague Grant Robertson because I think they require a response from the member in the chair. I reflect that if we are treating this as a true democracy then the most important part of a true democracy is the ability to communicate with those who have an interest in the details of student union membership. If it is impossible to communicate with the individuals in question then that is an erosion of that democratic principle. 
I think it is absolutely pertinent that Grant Robertson has put forward an amendment that suggests we add to clause 9 a subclause (3) which states: “The institution”—obviously the tertiary provider as it were—“is to provide its student association with the following details of students for whom any membership fee of the kind prescribed in section 229CA(1) is currently collected from: (a) The student’s full name; and (b) The student’s contact address; and (c) The student’s contact phone number; and (d) The students email address.” 
Just like in elections whereby we are able to make contact with individual constituents via an electoral roll for the purposes of communicating in a general election I think it makes absolute sense that students associations are able to communicate with potential members about the services they can provide via membership. If this were truly about giving students choice then surely a fundamental principle of that is providing the information in order to make said choice. I cannot see how anyone would have a problem with such a common-sense clause. Second and equally as important is the ability to provide information about the services themselves. Having the contact details of the person one is communicating with is one thing but the ability to provide adequate information is another which is why Grant Robertson very wisely has put forward another amendment. 
Grant Robertson 
: Name-dropper. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I am a terrible name-dropper I say to Grant Robertson. I am yet to mention other learned colleagues in the House. I see that Paul Quinn is here as is Simon Bridges and I am sure they will make contributions on this bill as well. 
Grant Robertson’s next amendment to clause 9 inserts subclauses (3) and (4). Subclause (4) states: “The type of information referred to in subsection (3) includes: (a) the services the association provides members; (b) the services the association provides non-members; (c) the fees and levies which apply to joining an association; (d) the process of electing representatives of the association.”. 
So not only does it set out the type of information which of course is incredibly important. If students are to be contributing a fee or levy they deserve to know what they will receive for that fee or levy in the same way that someone who is putting himself or herself forward for election is able to provide for their constituents information about what they are able to provide as an elected representative. There are similarities there which are just basic principles of democracy. 
I think it is important also to point out that in the fourth area he has also added the process of electing representatives of the association thereby indicating that from the outset those who are opting in to an association—because it is exactly what this entire bill will prompt—will have the ability to see from the very outset the process they can expect for electing representatives of the association. It is a good common-sense clause. 
Prior to subclause (4) though he has also added subclause (3) which states: “Despite sections 229A to 229CA information must be provided by the institution to both prospective and current students about any student association at the institution for the purpose of informing the student about joining the association.” 
If the member in the chair is unwilling for us to explicitly set this out in the legislation what information can we expect students to receive? Essentially without this subclause we could expect them to receive nothing: absolutely no information about those services their rights their access to them as advocates and the process that is undertaken for electing representatives. That is just not good enough. So I ask the member in the chair to demonstrate to us that in her mind this bill is genuinely about democracy. I have already given the caveat that I am unlikely to believe that in any case but I ask her to demonstrate to us that by adopting these simple common-sense provisions about information and the right of access to information this is about choice for students. 
Under those criteria these provisions should be adopted. If they are not adopted I think this Committee deserves an explanation. I do think though that in broader terms the use of the term “democracy” has been bandied around and misused by members on the other side of the Chamber in regard to these provisions in the bill generally. As the member who spoke before me said if this bill really was about democracy there were already provisions that allowed students to trigger a referendum if that is what they wanted. That has not happened which is why in debating clause 9 I ask that the member in the chair directly address why it is that at the eleventh hour you are unwilling to add a provision that would enhance what you claim to be the ultimate principle of this bill— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Me? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Not you Mr Chairperson. There are double Roys in the Chair today which means that probably I am OK. I look forward to the female Roy—Heather Roy—responding to that challenge. I think that Grant Robertson has crafted these provisions with care. I think he has put some thought into how we can improve these last transitional provisions of the bill. 
It looks as if Heather Roy—the female Roy—is about to get to her feet I hope and tell me whether she is likely to adopt those provisions. I did see the whip come over so perhaps that means that she is corresponding with him about how she can introduce those provisions. Thank you. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I will take a moment to respond to some of the concerns that have been raised this afternoon and I hope that the member who has just sat down Jacinda Ardern is happy with the Roy who is on her feet. 
I will start with the comments that have been made about democracy. The Green member Sue Kedgley said that the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is an attack on democracy and in fact some Labour members also made that accusation. This could be an attack on democracy only if students were prevented from joining a students association. If members choose to read the bill carefully they will see that it is about voluntary membership which is a right that all students should have in a free and fair society. Nobody should be forced or compelled to pay a fee to join an association. Students should not be forced to join an association in order to be able to study which is the situation we have at the moment. In fact this bill just goes back to the original intent of students associations when they were first formed to be voluntary organisations— 
Grant Robertson 
: What? 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: I can tell Mr Robertson that they were not compulsory when they started and this bill takes them back to the original intent. 
There was some commentary from the member Jacinda Ardern about communication with members. In fact of late we have seen appalling communication from students associations with their membership. Incorporated societies decide for themselves what information is given. So the clauses that Jacinda Ardern was promoting in the name of the member Grant Robertson are not necessary because incorporated societies will decide for themselves what information is communicated with members and how democratic elections will be run. 
Some comments have also been made about the transitional provisions in clause 9. If a concern is that the transition time is now too short Labour members need only look at their own behaviour over the past 8 months. 
Grant Robertson 
: That’s a silly thing to say. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: They can say all they like that it is a silly thing to say but in fact everybody in this House and the public know that that is exactly the case. They have lobbied long and hard for referenda to be put in place and for students to be able to decide for themselves through referenda. As to when that happens we need only to look at the Auckland University example. When a referendum happened there the organisation became voluntary in 1 month. There are several months yet before these provisions will come into being. In fact by the time students return for the beginning of the academic year there will be an additional 2 to 3 months before the invoices need to be paid for their student organisation fees. 
The last point I would like to make while I am on my feet is about the discussions with the New Zealand University Students’ Association. I think it was Mr Shearer who noted that the students associations were keen to talk. We have talked on a number of occasions—on quite a handful in fact. At the last discussion I had with the co-presidents of the New Zealand University Students’ Association I left things in their hands. They were adamant that there was too short a time frame to put this legislation in place both for the organisations and the student councils. I left it with them to get back to me with written information about the detrimental effects that this would have on students associations collectively and individually and with the councils. This meeting happened about 3 weeks ago and so far I have heard nothing—not a word from them. 
Grant Robertson 
: Go talk to your colleagues. They have a letter. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: That letter went to National members but not to me or the ACT Party members. If the New Zealand University Students’ Association was absolutely serious about amending that date I would have thought it would make some effort to get back to me and to some National members that they had the same discussion with with the details necessary to allow me to make an informed decision. 
I look forward to the passing of this Committee stage today despite the best efforts of Labour members to delay this bill inordinately and actually put students associations in a very awkward position as they describe it. They need to take some responsibility for their behaviour over the past 8 months. Many students in New Zealand are looking forward to voluntary student membership. They are very keen to have the democratic choice to decide for themselves whether they want to belong to a students association not for the Labour Party to compel them to do so. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 What a load of puffery and nonsense from Heather Roy who has demonstrated once again that she has absolutely no idea about what students associations actually do and how they actually operate. In fact a lot of the assertions she made in her speech are just blatantly untrue. The University of Auckland students voted for voluntary membership and the seven other universities when given the choice to vote on whether it should be voluntary or compulsory membership voted for compulsory membership. Overwhelmingly at the polytechs and institutes of technology when students were given the choice about whether they wanted a students association that everyone was a member of or a voluntary membership regime they voted for it to be universal—for every student to be a member. They did not vote just in small numbers. More than half the students at Victoria University voted the last time they were given a referendum and something like 80 percent of them voted in favour of a universal system of compulsory membership for their students association. So what Heather Roy has just claimed is absolutely untrue. 
If the ACT members did believe in democratic process then they would not be afraid of campaigning for voluntary membership but they are afraid to campaign for voluntary membership. They are afraid to give students that choice because they know that they would lose. They know that if the students were given a choice ACT would lose because that is what has happened in the past. In fact in Waikato—where the ACT Party got organised; it campaigned and it won a referendum to make membership of the association voluntary—it was a disaster. The students voted to put it back the other way because it simply did not work. The ACT Party knows that if democracy were allowed to serve as it should then ACT would lose. What does it do if it loses democratically? It wants to just legislate over the top of it which is what it is doing. 
I come back to the point I made about Heather Roy having no idea about how students associations operate and I will talk about that in the light of one of the amendments put forward by Grant Robertson which would require institutions to provide the associations with names addresses and contact information of students enrolled at the institutions. In the instance where an association moves from a universal system of membership in which all students are members—as will happen with all of them if this bill is passed—to one that is voluntary the association may wish to communicate with those students who have previously been members and invite them to join. I am sure Government members would be in favour of that. They claim that the association should be allowed to sell itself to its current members but they will deny its getting the contact details for its current membership because the institutions hold that information. 
I used to be the president of a university students association. If we wanted to communicate with our members we would get the contact information for them from the institutions. We did not hold a separate database of that information. There was no need to; they were our members. Actually the most up-to-date and accurate information about our members was held by the university because its staff dealt with the enrolment. They collected the membership fee and they passed it on to us. If we wanted to communicate with our members we would go to the institutions and get that contact information. 
If the National-ACT Government votes against this amendment put forward by Grant Robertson students associations will be prohibited from communicating with their existing members and from trying to recruit and retain them as members. It is loading the dice against the students associations even keeping their existing membership and against them going to their existing members and giving them the opportunity to stay members. It is a relatively simple amendment that would require the institutions to provide students associations with contact information for their current members who are the students who study at the institution. The ACT Party through Heather Roy is saying that it will not do that. That is absolutely ridiculous. 
If Heather Roy actually believed in all of the rhetoric that she has been espousing about choice she would not be afraid to give associations the membership contact details that they should currently be able to get because then they could communicate and they could give students that choice. Heather Roy does not want to do that. She wants to load the dice in favour of students not being members. 
Of course that comes back to the wider agenda. National and ACT know that the students associations have campaigned against some of the policies that they are promoting and will promote and they want to silence them. Those members want to take as much influence away from the students associations as possible. Those members know that after the next election they will break all of the promises that they previously made on things like interest-free student loans capping student tuition fees and so on. They will break all of those promises. They want to get rid of those pesky students associations before they do that so that the major voice that would be arguing against them is taken away. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I too will respond to some of the comments made by Heather Roy. In particular I will respond to her suggestion that an attack on democracy comes from the current arrangements that students have. Well the current arrangements that students have allow students to have control over student affairs. They are allowed to elect their representatives. They are allowed to approve a budget that includes what services will be provided. The situation that we will be left with now if this bill passes is that the decisions about those things will go out of the hands of students and will go into the hands of administrators within tertiary institutions. How is that promoting democracy? How is that helping students to have control of student affairs? 
The word “choice” has been bandied around a lot by the member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and on the rare occasions that National members have got up to speak about why they are supporting this bill. Well choice means nothing if it is not informed choice. That is what Chris Hipkins was just talking about. Informed choice about whether to join a students association would see the amendment in my name passed because it would allow students associations to communicate with their members. It would allow students to actually be aware when they arrive at a tertiary institution of what services are on offer and what advocacy the students association provides. But instead the real agenda of the member in charge of the bill is to destroy students associations for political reasons. The bill is not actually about choice because if it was about choice—if it was about real choice—then information would be provided to students so that they could make that kind of informed choice. 
Only one person is responsible for students associations and institutions being faced with transitional difficulties and only one person is responsible for an attack on democracy and that is the member in the chair because she is the one who has promoted this bill. It is all very well to attack Labour for having delayed the passing of this bill but there would be no danger to students associations if the bill had not been put forward in the first place. It is righting a wrong that is not there. It is an ideological attack on the rights of students to organise themselves and to decide what services they will get. Instead institutions will be in the situation where they will be making up their minds about that matter rather than the students. 
I was fascinated to hear Heather Roy say that she wanted to return to the original intent of students associations so I presume that she will be advocating for lady vice-presidents and for port to be served after all meetings. Things have changed. Students associations are different entities now. They are the providers of professional services. That is why all bar two institutions came to the Education and Science Committee and said: “Please do not pass this bill.” The institutions know that as time has worn on students associations have become even more important to the quality of education that is delivered in tertiary institutions and to the well-being and welfare of the students at those institutions. This bill in fact takes away choice it takes away democratic rights from students and it hands on to the institutions the decisions about what kinds of services students will have. 
I will also refer to the question of how this bill relates to polytechnics. I have in my hand a letter from the students association of Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology which has raised the concern that the commencement date and the transitional provisions—which we believe should be expanded—do not actually take into account the situation for polytechnics. Heather Roy said that it was months before universities get going. Well that might be true. It is certainly not true for polytechnics. It is all very well to have in the transitional provisions something for polytechnic students who are part-way through a programme but students will be starting right away from 1 January 2012. I look at the letter here from the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology students and they are saying that in actual fact enrolment forms and invoicing for 2012 have already been generated by the institution. So here we are. We are in a situation now where the institution is already getting itself ready and this bill comes along and causes huge drama for them over that. 
The associations will have to change constitutions. A number of the institutes of technology and polytechnic students associations have quite different arrangements to universities because they tend to be closer to their institutions in some cases but they also have constitutional arrangements that give them independence. All of that is trampled on by this bill coming in in this way. Heather Roy said in her comments that she was waiting for the New Zealand University Students’ Association to come to her. I do note that it has been lobbying for some considerable time not only ACT but also National on this. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports the amendment put forward by Grant Robertson to the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. His amendment is intended to make sure that details are provided to students associations of the people who might become members and people who are members. I think that is critical. If we look at other associations such as unions and professional associations we see that part of the standard arrangement—particularly these days when people are quite mobile and change addresses and all the rest of it—is that the employing agency often provides those details to the association or union. I think that is the appropriate thing. The Green Party will be supporting that amendment. 
Heather Roy said that way back—and it would be interesting to know how far back—student unions were voluntary. Of course tertiary institutions and universities have undergone a lot of changes. At one time they were very much elite organisations. I would imagine that the students associations would have had to battle for recognition battle for rights battle to get a more comprehensive membership etc. and there has been a very positive evolution over the years. The speeches given earlier prompted me to think back to when I went to the University of Canterbury many years ago and joined the students association as I think everyone did at that stage. The services provided were not terribly wide ranging if I recall correctly compared with today when one goes to a university and there are all sorts of counselling services and a myriad of other services available to students that were not previously available. That is a step forward that is progress and now it seems that after this bill we might be going backwards where there would be less provision of services by student unions. Sometimes that slack will be taken up by the university administration as a whole but probably in a less adequate way. 
As other speakers have pointed out those services will not be under the control of the students association and will not be informed by the students association. Students associations better understand the needs of the students in order to shape these particular services. I think that is important particularly for people who are sometimes a bit alienated and might not necessarily join the student union first off if it is a voluntary system. They might be a bit alienated and there only for certain lectures or whatever but they are often the very students who get into financial and emotional trouble. They need professional help the student services and the community of the students association to support them and now they might be the very people who miss out. To have a well-resourced students association will help enable everyone to be part of the students association and to understand that they have access to the services because they are being informed of them—perhaps all the time with modern communications emails and all the rest of it. That will lead to a much better situation for individuals and for the students association as a collective entity. 
All round I cannot see why we are changing the status quo. I have not really heard an argument explaining why we need to make this move except if there is a political agenda to weaken the political heft of students that is currently in evidence through students associations. That is very important because universities and students in particular are often the conscience of society. We see all the former students association officials around this Chamber and we see that they are very much making a contribution to our democracy. If we knock off that channel of people into public life and into Parliament by weakening the students associations then we will have a much less informed and vibrant society and indeed Parliament. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou e te Whare i tenei po. I want to take a call on clause 9 “Transitional provision” of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill as other speakers have and in particular the direction that this clause applies to any student with regards to having an establishment date of 1 January 2012. 
I think it is very important to say that while we are debating a provision of this bill tonight critical action is taking place before the Waitangi Tribunal at the instigation of Te Mana Akonga. What is Te Mana Akonga? It is the national Maori tertiary students association. This is an urgent action which has come to bear only because of the significance given to it at Te Huinga Tauira 2011. What is Te Huinga Tauira? For many years now Maori students have been getting together to debate issues that happen to be current and to talk I suppose all about student life. Last week over 250 Maori students gathered for Te Huinga Tauira at Nga Whare Waatea up in Mangere in Auckland. 
Part of the discussions at that hui included the news—the breaking news at the time—that Te Mana Akonga had lodged a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal against this bill. The students have asked that this Parliament tonight do what is necessary to ensure that they are heard and indeed that the case is heard by the Waitangi Tribunal before this bill becomes an Act. I know that those are pretty tight time lines but things can happen in a short space of time if we really want them to happen. 
At this point then I guess I am calling on the compassion and understanding of all the parties in the House to listen to the views of a number of the Maori students organisations that have been in touch with the Maori Party over this issue. I am talking about Te Mana Akonga which is the national association; Ngai Tauira from Wellington; the WelTec Students’ Association; Manawatahi from Massey University; Nga Tauira Maori from Auckland; Te Akatoki from Christchurch— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Did you go to the hui last week? I didn’t see you there. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: —Te Roopu Maori from Dunedin; Te Awhioraki from Christchurch; Te Waka o Nga Akonga Maori; and all of the alumni of Maori students associations throughout the country. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: The Maori Party weren’t there. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: We cannot be everywhere I say to Mr Henare. The claim has from all Maori students tauira Maori. It has come from whanau hapu and iwi. Importantly it comes from the perspective of their being stakeholders in and beneficiaries of the New Zealand tertiary education system. It is their claim that Te Mana Akonga and all Maori tertiary students have been and continue to be prejudicially affected by policy and practices adopted by the Crown and exercised on its behalf by successive agencies and now in particular by this bill. 
Fast tracking this legislation to take effect from 1 January 2012 as in this transitional provision is in effect a massive slap in the face for tauira Maori. I know that Mr Henare was at that hui because obviously we heard about that and he pretty much had to defend this legislation. But in this case we have clearly been lobbied by the Maori students associations and we are fully behind them. 
I will lay out as simply as I can the case that has now proceeded through to the Waitangi Tribunal so that every member in this Committee can go on record and vote knowing full well that they are voting against the claims put to Parliament by tauira Maori. It is their contention that this bill will diminish: “1. … the right of tauira Maori to form ropu; 2. … the right of those ropu to exercise Tino Rangatiratanga over Maori student issues including representation Whanaungatanga Manaakitanga Tuakana/Teina Kotahitanga me ona Tikanga; 3. … the right of tauira and ropu to form a national representative entity to ensure fair and just tertiary education policies in Aotearoa New Zealand.” These are very important points which I hope this Parliament will give sufficient time to address. Te Mana Akonga concludes: “the policy and practice of the Crown stemming from this Bill fails to protect Maori students’ rights as stated above and that this is contrary to Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840 and Te Wakaputanga o Nga Rangatira o Niu Tireni 1835.” 
The claimants have therefore sought two very clear requests: firstly that this bill be abolished and secondly that provisions be made to protect tauira Maori their local ropu and their national representation Te Mana Akonga. I think that their case is pretty clear. The Crown’s failure to consult with tauira Maori is a breach of the Crown’s duty to act reasonably and in good faith as directed under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That is important for them and for us. It is the very strong view of the students that this bill will result in prejudicial effects against tauira Maori in the tertiary sector and will impact on the overall framework provided by students associations which assist in strengthening the support of tauira Maori. They contend also that the Crown’s inaction in terms of including and/or providing research and analysis into the impact of the bill on tauira Maori and their whanau hapu and iwi development and advancement is sufficiently dire to warrant that this bill be thrown out as an order of the day. 
This bill will stop the much-needed national Maori student representation which assists in helping to contribute to inform and change Government policy and legislation into the future. As I say it should be pretty clear that the Maori Party opposes the bill in the strongest possible way. I seek leave of the Committee that this bill be suspended immediately. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: I seek leave of the Committee that this bill be referred in its entirety to the Waitangi Tribunal under section 8 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 That was a very interesting turn of events and I thank the previous speaker Te Ururoa Flavell for putting that to the Committee and for the brave attempt at preventing this Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill from passing through. 
I start by commenting on a couple of points that Heather Roy mentioned in her contribution just before about the students associations going to her and—as she intimated anyway—their lack of ability to get back to her on a number of issues. I think that was a bit unfair. I think the students associations have come to her on many occasions to talk through this bill with her and to try to seek a compromise as have we. What they realised was that at the point when there was a possibility that this bill would not get through Heather Roy was willing to listen and to compromise. When she believed that the bill was unlikely to be prevented from passing she closed that down. That in some ways is in complete contradiction to what she said on  
Back Benches 
 the other night. She said that some of the best legislation that she had got through had been when parties sat around and compromised—that is exactly what she said. I think it is somewhat sad that she did not take that advice those ideological words she talked about on  
Back Benches 
 and put them into action particularly with this bill. This bill could have had a much better outcome that would have been durable and long-lasting and it would have respected the students associations and the ability of people who wanted to opt out and not be part of a students association. Instead we have the situation as it is today. 
Let us be quite frank about this: at the point that we were looking for a compromise with Heather Roy Labour’s point of view was that we thought we could defeat this bill. We thought we had sufficient time to defeat this bill and it would not come forward. We were willing to compromise and put up an opt-out clause because we felt we could get much better legislation out of this and it would stop this whole issue being ping-ponged around the place which is to the detriment of students. I want to put it pretty firmly on the table that when Heather Roy pops up and says that it is all Labour’s fault that we are looking to extend out the transitional arrangements to 2013 so that students associations have an opportunity to get themselves ready we can say that there was an option on the table to have different legislation to the bill we are debating today. 
The second thing that Heather Roy says of course is that it is Labour’s fault that students associations will face an inordinate problem to get ready by 1 January. So therefore we are not looking at trying to do something to ameliorate the position of the students associations; we are simply blaming Labour. Well Heather Roy can blame us if she likes. I submit that in fact she is equally as uncaring about what will happen with the students associations as she is in blaming us. I think there is a very strong case under clause 9 to put together a transition clause to enable students associations to get ready much more adequately. 
I will refer to a point I made in my last call. Under the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) there are some real restrictions on universities increasing their levies to meet the services that students associations will no longer be able to provide. This is a very serious issue. We all know what will happen when this bill comes through. We all know what will happen when clause 9 is enacted. What will happen is that the students associations will run short of money which happened in Waikato and at Auckland University and every single Australian university where the same sort of legislation was put in place. When that happened the universities had to step up and pay the students associations or contract out the very services that the students associations once provided. It is ironic and I hear Sir Roger Douglas call out “freedom” or “democracy” or whatever he calls out from time to time. 
Grant Robertson 
: It’s hard to say. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: It is hard to say but there is a grunt over there in the corner that sounds a little bit like “freedom”. But effectively students will be levied money for the services they receive now from the university without any representation. Taxation without representation is supposedly something that the ACT Party upholds higher than just about any other value that its members espouse—perhaps no taxation would be one—but they are not willing to examine that in the light of this legislation. 
I come back to the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). It puts in place a number of stipulations for universities to consult with their student bodies. It puts in place some regulations on the degree to which a levy can be raised. We know that in the case of Auckland University—let us take that example—the levies went from more than $100 to more than $500 to meet the costs of services that the students association there once provided. Now the students association quite frankly is a contractor to the university. It does not have the same ability to represent students as it did before. 
In my reading in this area I came across a quote from the UK Conservative Party which at the moment as some members may know is raising the cost of universities considerably and stripping away basically a free university education there to huge protests. The Conservative Minister for Universities David Willetts praised the contribution of students associations in a recent speech saying that students associations “are playing their part in their local communities. To local schools hospitals charities friendly societies I would add student unions.” He does not call them a union in the sense of a workers’ union; he calls them a union in the sense of an association like those other societies that he referred to. He says: “We value student unions. We salute them and what they achieve for and on behalf of students. Without them universities would be much poorer institutions as would the employers causes and political parties who take on their alumni.” That was a Conservative Minister in the throes of making universities in the UK much more expensive to go to yet he is valuing students associations and ensuring those students associations stayed there. 
Mr Locke as did Ms Roy in her contribution talked about the fact that students associations were in fact voluntary early on in the New Zealand university experience. According to my colleague Grant Robertson who actually did a thesis on this issue which I did not know—it does make him something of an expert on the matter; just in case he does not get another call I just want to say that he reflects from that thesis and I think he should make it into a book—students associations became compulsory when the University of New Zealand was split up into the various universities that we largely see today. At that point there was a clause put in the legislation that created our universities from the University of New Zealand and said that students associations should be compulsory. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No I will hear about the thesis from Grant Robertson. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It will take somewhat longer than 5 minutes to read it but I am sure an extension of time will be granted by the Committee which will no doubt be enthralled by it. It was a dissertation; I should not overstate what it was. I am sure it has been one of the highest interloans the University of Otago library has ever had! 
I will talk about two additional clauses that are being proposed by Labour. In particular I want to talk about an amendment to clause 10 in the name of Trevor Mallard. It was an issue that was raised numerous times during the select committee process and was around the question— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Clause 9. We cannot talk about clause 10; we are not on it. We are on clause 9. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I will return to clause 10 in the future I hope. 
Sue Moroney 
: You don’t want to rush through it. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right. The other matter I want to raise is about clause 9 and it is about the question of the timing of the transitional provisions. I note that there has been a wide-ranging debate on clause 9 which is a good thing because the act of transitioning to this proposed new regime is a significant act and it impacts on everything students associations do. One of the things it impacts on is the ability of students associations to communicate with their members and to get across to members what services are provided and what additional services could be provided in the future if students associations were allowed to carry on. Unfortunately because of the unwillingness of both the member in the chair the Hon Heather Roy and National to actually consider bringing in this bill in an orderly fashion students associations—as I mentioned before like at the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology—are now faced with a situation where the enrolment forms for students have already been printed and are about to be sent out. They have on them the fees that students have to pay. What will happen now to those institutions? 
The polytechnic students associations play a very important role in their institutions. Part of the nature of students associations in universities is that people will perhaps take 2 to 3 years of time on a students association contributing—they are often at the institution for 3 to 4 years. There is some institutional memory and some continuity. In polytechnics people are often there for quite a short period of time on courses of perhaps only 6 months or even less or maybe a year or 2 years. One of the things that polytechnic students associations do is to establish themselves in a way that they can provide some continuity for members. That continuity is at risk with the absence of a decent transitional provision in this bill because those associations have as I said in an earlier call constitutional arrangements. They mean that the students associations need to make changes to be able to continue to operate as they do now. I think the institutions themselves as we know from the submissions they made really will struggle to be able to put in place those services for students immediately upon the passing of this bill if that is what happens. 
Clause 9 is inadequate. It does not allow for the different nature of students associations which has been a feature I might say of this bill. It really does cut to the heart of the fact that this is an ideological crusade. It is an ideological crusade against university students associations on behalf of those who have issues with some of the political stances that have been taken by students associations. That is what this boils down to and it really does ignore in many ways the role of polytechnic students associations many of which will not be able to negotiate the service agreements that some of the university students associations will. 
Fundamentally the absence of a proper transitional clause re-emphasises the ideological nature of this bill. It re-emphasises the taking away of student decision-making rights in what will be provided for students in the future. So it is a real shame—and I know I have exhausted my calls on clause 9 in this debate—that in debating clause 9 we have not heard a single peep out of National members to justify their support for this bill. Not a single peep— 
Simon Bridges 
: Peep! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: There we go—Simon Bridges has given the best contribution of the year: the word “peep”. That is it. We have not heard a single thing from National members to justify their support for this bill other than Mr Henare’s interjections and they are not actually justifications; they are sounds—they may be words; they are certainly sounds. That is all we have heard from National members. We have not heard from them an actual justification for this bill because they know from the submissions they heard in the Education and Science Committee that this bill should not pass. 
Louise Upston 
: You obviously haven’t been listening Grant. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I have been listening. Louise Upston says I have not been listening. I have been listening to a lot of speeches in this debate. They have come from members on this side of the Chamber and occasionally from Heather Roy but they certainly have not come from National members to justify why they are passing a bill that will destroy students associations. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to the heading to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit the heading and substitute “ 
Two classes of students provisions 
”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Kris Faafoi to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “This section applies to any student who on 1 January 2012” and substitute “This section will not apply to any student who on 1 January 2012”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Moroney to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “student” and substitute “person”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Moroney to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1)(b) “institution’s” and substitute “establishment’s”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of David Shearer to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1)(b); and 
to omit from subclause (2)(a) “a member of the student association” and substitute “subject to compulsory student association membership”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Whip—Maori Party) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Just listening to my colleague Mr Locke with regard to the votes for the Mana Party and bearing in mind that the Mana Party has not voted for some time and Mr Locke is exercising that vote I am just checking whether that is right—especially in respect of this bill because we did not have any discussion earlier. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will just ask the Green member who holds the proxy for the Mana Party I understand. Is that correct? 
Keith Locke 
: Yes I have just received a communication that we are. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The vote is in order. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (2)(a) “or 31 December 2015 whichever comes later” after “enrolment”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Mana 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclauses: 
(3)Despite sections 229A to 229CA information must be provided by the institution to both prospective and current students about any student association at the institution for the purpose of informing the student about joining the association. 
(4)The type of information referred to in subsection (3) includes— 
(a)the services the association provides members: 
(b)the services the association provides non-members: 
(c)the fees and levies which apply to joining an association: 
(d)the process of electing representatives of the association. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Mana 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(3)The institution is to provide its student association with the following details of students for whom any membership fee of the kind prescribed in section 229CA(1) is currently collected from— 
(a)the student’s full name; and 
(b)the student’s contact address; and 
(c)the student’s contact phone number; and 
(d)the student’s email address. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Mana 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 9 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Mana 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Clause 9 agreed to. 
New clause 10 Funding services 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: There is an amendment in the name of David Clendon to add new clause 10 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 203. This is out of order as a financial veto certificate has been lodged and therefore no question will be proposed. 
New clause 10 Implication for Student Loan 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to add new clause 10 is out of order as a financial veto certificate has been lodged and therefore no question will be proposed. 
New clause 10 New section 229D 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: There is an amendment proposed by Grant Robertson to add new clause 10. This is out of order as it relates to a subject area dealt with earlier in the bill and should have been proposed when the Committee was considering amendments to Part 16A of the principal Act in clauses 6 and 6A. 
New clause 10 Charges for non-members 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: There is an amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to add new clause 10 “Charges for non-members”. This is out of order as it is the same as an amendment that has already been lost. 
New clause 10 Review of Sections 229A to 229CA 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 New clause 10 that is in my name is an important addition to this Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill because by extending the debate around clause 10 we are trying essentially to make sure that students have all the information they need to be members within students associations. It is important in saying we are putting forward a new clause 10 that the bill gives us the opportunity to ensure that students associations can survive. That has been the concern raised on this side of the Chamber and it has been accepted by National on the other side of the Chamber that the bill is not about destroying students associations. So if the bill is not about destroying students associations then we need to provide a way in which students associations can continue to exist. The new clause 10 I am proposing will insert in the principal Act a new section 229D “Institution to provide association funding” which states: “Every institution where a student association exists— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: A point here to the member: he is speaking on the wrong new clause 10. The one he needs to be talking about which is in scope and which I have agreed to have debated is “Review of Sections 229A to 229CA”—review of sections. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I was not aware because when you announced the new clause 10 Mr Chairperson I was not sure which of the excellent new clause 10s we were allowed to debate. This one allows for a review of the changes that have been made because one of the things we have noted in the past when changes have been made to membership of students associations is the use of referenda and the use of review of provisions after a certain amount of time. This again is something that National has previously said was an acceptable thing to have happen with students associations and this particular clause 10 would allow for reviews of the passing of particular clauses that have previously been in the Act. This allows students to continue to have a voice in how they are organised because we have to remember that fundamentally what the previous clauses we have agreed to in this bill do is actually take away choice from students. The current clauses that are within this new part have in the past given students the ability to have some control over their affairs but by removing those clauses and bringing in the new clauses that have been passed that choice is actually taken away. We have to have the capacity to review those clauses and to be able to say to students that they have an opportunity in front of them within 5 years to see whether the provisions are working to see what their impact has been on the provision of services and also to make sure that students have a say. 
The new clause 10 that we are debating as opposed to a future clause 10 that we may debate shortly requires a review of sections 229A to 229CA which have been included. Proposed new clause 10(1) states that the Ministry of Education will run this review and that it will be 5 years after the date on which the legislation receives Royal assent. Clause 10(2) states: “The review shall assess the impact of the provisions on students and the tertiary sector in accordance with the terms of reference established in subsection (3).” Proposed new clause 10(3) states: “The terms of reference for the review shall be set out by the Minister of Education.” and proposed new clause 10(4) states that the Ministry of Education will then report back to the Minister of Education and the Minister for Tertiary Education. This clause is about a 5-year review of this change. 
It is important because the evidence we have internationally is that student services disappeared when voluntary student membership arrived—in particular in Australia. Seventy-five percent of the services provided by students associations disappeared under voluntary membership. That had a huge impact on the experience that students had in their institutions. So the new clause 10 I am proposing would allow for a review to see the impact of the legislation on students. There has been a lot of debate. We believe that the evidence internationally shows us what the impact will be. But here is the opportunity for the National Government to say: “Alright we accept that we need to look and see what will happen when this legislation passes. We accept that there could be detrimental effects on students.” National members might try to argue that in fact it will be a positive thing for student services. Let us have a review and look at that. That is what new clause 10 does. I suggest that after 5 years is a good length of time to be able to do that. 
Now that I am on the right clause there are a few more points to make. It may well be that some of the impacts of this bill will not appear immediately. Students associations may well be able to survive for a period of time based on their reserves in an attempt to try to attract some members. It is perhaps difficult to do that at the start of a calendar year. The impact will emerge over a period of several years and what this clause does is allow for a review after 5 years from when the legislation receives its Royal assent. It is important we do this because what is being done tonight will effectively change the nature of student experiences right across the tertiary sector. It is no small thing. It is not as some would say just a technical change that allows students the freedom to do whatever they want; it fundamentally will undermine the experience of students in tertiary institutions. 
We have already heard tonight from Te Ururoa Flavell about the action that is being taken by Te Mana Akonga. Te Mana Akonga is addressing a very specific matter which is the role that the Maori students associations on campuses and at a national level play in the experience of Maori students. Not every student arriving at a tertiary institution is in the same place. Not every student arriving at a tertiary institution knows what will happen to them when they are there. I know from my time in students associations and in more recent times from working in the tertiary education area that the strength of Maori students associations and indeed of some other student groups that help support groups within tertiary institutions is the key to the success of those students. Having a body of students that is able to support other students of the same ethnicity or in the same experience group has made a real difference to the lives of those students. So the change that is being made tonight merits a review clause of this type because it is a significant change. It is a change that will affect the very well-being of students who attend tertiary institutions. I think the issues that Te Mana Akonga is raising within its claim about what kind of experience students from different backgrounds have when they come into a tertiary environment are very very legitimate. Students associations over the years have worked very hard to be able to provide support to those students. 
It is also the same with international students. There is a different experience again for international students coming into a foreign environment and not only not always understanding exactly how the institution works but also not understanding the customs and the interactions that they are not familiar with that go on between students. Students associations have provided a vehicle for that and it is a significant vehicle. It is also the other services that students associations have created over the years. Student Job Search was essentially created by students associations and on the initiative of students associations. The very existence of things like Student Job Search has made the difference to some students being able to stay and finish their studies. 
The changes that are being proposed tonight in this bill fundamentally alter the experience of many students and the legislation deserves a review that will take into account what has happened if this bill passes. As I say all the evidence we know about from overseas is that the legislation will be detrimental but in New Zealand we need to see it for what it really is and for the impact it will really have on students. 
The other part of the clause is about exactly who will be doing this review. It should be the Ministry of Education. The ministry will be impartial and will not take into the review any baggage around the past activities of students associations. That is not politicising the review; it is saying that the Ministry of Education will look at the legislation. There is an important point in that. The Ministry of Education should do the review because what students associations do is support the educational outcomes of students. This is a very important signal to be given that actually what students associations do is about educational outcomes. There has been a lot of talk in this debate about unions and about why if we do not have compulsory unionism outside of the tertiary sector we should have it inside. It is because that is a fundamental misunderstanding of what students associations are. They are democratic bodies of students who make the choice to be students and at that point become part of a greater whole which is the student body. By law since as Mr Shearer said earlier the late 1950s and early 1960s we have made the decision— 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 If National and ACT members actually believe the rhetoric they have been espousing during the debate on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill—if they actually believe what they have been saying—they will be voting in favour of Grant Robertson’s proposed new clause 10 “Review of Sections 229A to 229CA”. They have argued that if the bill is passed all of the services all of the representation and all of the things that we on this side of the Committee have argued will be at risk are in fact not at risk and will still continue to be provided. 
They will therefore be quite happy to have a review in 5 years’ time and demonstrate all of those things. They will be quite happy for the Ministry of Education to take the politics out of it and to review it and say “Yes this service is still being provided this service is gone and this is the way institutions are choosing to manage student representation.” or that student representation has disappeared altogether. An independent review—and I think the Ministry of Education would be sufficiently independent—would establish whether the rhetoric being put forward by National and ACT members is true or whether it has simply been a move by them to remove from the political process and the democratic process organisations that have in the past been very vocally opposed to many of the changes they have tried to make. I would certainly argue the latter whereas they have argued the former. 
The reason I would argue that is if we look at the limited experience we have had in New Zealand of voluntary students association membership—and it has been limited because overwhelmingly when students have been given the choice as to whether they have a voluntary or a universal system of students association membership they have opted for the universal system—we see that many of the services previously offered have disappeared. At Waikato University the students lost just about everything so much so that they opted to go back to a compulsory system because the students at that institution valued those services and wanted to see them restored. 
I think there is a really good cause to say that if we pass this bill today in 5 years’ time we should reflect on it. As a matter of fact I think that as a broader principle for the House in general it would be very useful for us to review much of the legislation that we pass 5 years after enactment to consider whether the laws are working in the way they were intended to or whether the House needs to reconsider them. I think it is probably quite good practice for Parliament to make sure that laws are reviewed regularly to determine whether they have had the desired effect. I do not think anybody should be afraid of this amendment. I think that if National and ACT members believe the things they have been arguing through the debate of this bill then they will be very happy to support this new clause. 
What the new clause would do is allow the Ministry of Education to report to the Minister of Education and the Minister for Tertiary Education with the terms of reference for the review set out by the Minister of Education. The review would assess the impact of the provisions on students and the tertiary sector in accordance with the terms of reference that would be established. I guess it is important to note that this review would be 5 years after the date on which the bill receives the Royal assent. We are not talking about something that would come into effect straight away. It would allow a period of time for the claims that have been made by the people proposing this bill to be tested. A review would allow students the institutions and other interested parties to have a say on whether the claims made by National and ACT were in fact true or whether they were misguided as I think they must be. 
It would also allow the consideration of evidence from international jurisdictions. There is probably more evidence from Australia on the impact of voluntary student membership than there is in New Zealand. Like I say the New Zealand experience in universities has been relatively limited to simply the association at Waikato University which has gone back to a universal system of membership and the association at Auckland University which built up a very large asset base under a compulsory membership system. That is one of the things that has helped that association get through despite having voluntary membership. It would be interesting in this review to consider for example the respective positions that students associations go into the voluntary system in. Some of the university students associations have very large asset bases. 
The associations at Canterbury University and Auckland University have large bodies of assets and large cash flows from trading operations with which they will go into this voluntary regime; others such as the association at Victoria University go into it with very few assets and therefore the impact of a voluntary system on them may be significantly greater. They will lose their revenue very quickly. They do not have trading activities to support them that they can continue to cross-subsidise from. A review in 5 years’ time would allow those impacts to be assessed. Although I am very strongly in favour of this amendment by Grant Robertson he probably should have given us a few options. Rather than a 5-year review it would have been useful to have some options as to whether it should be after a year 2 years or 5 years. I strongly contend that for the associations that I have mentioned that have a very low asset base and no trading activities the impact will be quite immediate. For the associations that have a large asset base and have built up large reserves the impact will potentially be felt in the longer term. 
One of the things that a review after 1 year would do is assess how associations that have built up those large asset bases and large reserves have behaved and what they have put those assets towards. One of the things I am a little concerned about—it has not actually been touched on much at all in the debate—is the potential under a voluntary system for asset stripping of the students associations once they become voluntary. It is quite possible that when we move from a system where membership of these associations is totally universal to one where a very small number of students could effectively take over a students association they could asset-strip them spend the money however they choose to change the constitutions of those organisations and spend up the money at large and not necessarily for the purposes for which it was originally collected. This bill does not make any provision for that. That is one of the reasons why I think it is very important that there be some systematic form of review. In fact I argue that 5 years is too long to wait to do that. 
We are not talking about inconsiderable sums of money; it is in the millions for some of the larger university students associations. They have assets and reserves in the millions and there is no protection of those once this bill passes. There are no transitional measures that mandate for example any democratic process or any protection in terms of what happens to those assets once these organisations become voluntary. That has not been canvassed in the debate by any Government member or by the member proposing the bill. I am genuinely concerned about that. These assets have been built up over a number of years. 
In the case of my old students association the Victoria University of Wellington Students Association it has been in existence for about 110 years—maybe 111 years I think—and a lot of assets have been built up over that period of time. A lot of interests have been built up over that period of time that are not immediately tangible assets and we potentially need to think about how they would be transitioned to a voluntary membership environment. For example the student union building at Victoria University does not belong to the students association because the students association in its benevolence gifted it to the institution but the association continues to have a significant interest in that building. That is based of course on the current settings where all students are members of that association. What happens to the beneficial interest in that building that the students association currently has when it no longer represents all of the students at the institution? How will the institution manage that? There is no mention of that in this bill and no systematic process is set up in this bill for addressing those issues. 
I think that is a good justification for there being a fairly thorough and comprehensive review of it. Again I argue that 5 years is too late but at least after 5 years we would be able to establish where some of the money has gone if in fact it has disappeared. At the moment it is quite possible that the money will disappear and we will never hear anything more of it because there will be no review to determine where the money has gone. I am very concerned about the significant asset base that these associations have built up about how they could potentially be abused and about the fact that this bill does not make any provision whatsoever for dealing with that issue. 
So a review after 5 years—as set out in new clause 10 proposed by my colleague Grant Robertson—is a very prudent and sensible move and I think that National and ACT would be very well advised to vote in favour of this provision. It is a sensible provision and it will not delay the progress of the bill. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I also support the amendment put forward by Grant Robertson for similar reasons to those that Chris Hipkins was just talking about. I think we need to look at two things here. First of all the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is a contentious one. Over the last decade and a half we have swung backwards and forwards between voluntary and compulsory membership. A review of that a review of the way that the bill is progressing and the way that the students associations are actually faring under this new regime would be a good thing to institutionalise within the context of the bill with the addition of new clause 10. Of course if and when we have the next Labour Government we will probably bring forward the review much sooner than 5 years. We will probably look at putting in place robust and enduring legislation that would perhaps depoliticise this particular issue and enable the students associations to carry on and do what they are supposed to do which is to continue to provide the services and advocacy they have been providing up to today. 
But if we were to have a review and if it were to happen every 5 years we would want that review to look at a number of different aspects. First of all what services were being provided at that time versus the services that were being provided 5 years before? If we look at the experience of both the Australian situation and what has happened at universities in New Zealand we sort of know what will happen. We will see a degradation of services we will see services taken over by the universities and we will see the universities charging students for the continuation of those services. We will see the universities not only charging students but then contracting back many of those services to the students associations which have been running those services for many many years and we will see students paying a levy but not having the opportunity to have representation in relation to what money is going to them and how that levy is being set. That is one aspect of a review of this area that I would certainly welcome. 
We could also look at some of the services that the students associations are taking an active role in right now. We as New Zealanders have an active interest in making sure those services continue. One for example is Student Job Search and the job search and careers advice that is being provided to ensure that our students go on to be productive members of and enormous contributors to the workforce of New Zealand. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Before we broke for dinner I was looking at the amendment that Grant Robertson has put to the Committee to insert a new clause 10 into the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. His thinking around this as he explained it was that after a period of 5 years—and I think the period is arguable but anyway that is what it says—we would look to review sections 229A to 229CA. That would mean that we go back to the whole concept of whether to have a voluntary students association or to make it compulsory. Actually I do not like the word “compulsory” because it is compulsory to join up but if students want to opt out there is the option to opt out as many other speakers have talked about before. But this review would look at the applicability of the bill we are looking at tonight 5 years down the track. My personal preference would have been a series of options—rather than 5 years perhaps 1 year 2 years 3 years. I think 5 years is a long time and in the course of that time an extraordinary amount of damage could be done to students associations. 
The important thing here is what exactly the review would cover. If we look at the legislation 5 years down the track we will probably want to compare the services available from the university that students accept and enjoy right now with the services being provided in 5 years’ time; to look at the advocacy that happens now versus what is happening in 5 years’ time. I guess the question in terms of services is whether the services are being provided by the students associations or actually by the universities. What has happened in pretty much every case where a bill of this nature has been brought in—in Australia in particular—is that the students associations effectively have collapsed and the actual universities themselves have picked up the costs of some of the services but not necessarily the complete menu of services that were being provided beforehand. So the universities in effect were having to charge levies were having to charge students for those costs. In my mind that would be the No. 1 issue if we were to review this legislation. I think it is a good thing to do; all legislation should be reviewed. Perhaps putting in a clause with a compulsory review in 5 years’ time is quite a good idea. 
The second part is looking at the students associations and seeing what services they provide to the students; not those services that are found around the outside of the universities—the counselling health and various other cultural and sporting services all those sorts of services which I think will end up suffering under this bill—but the type of thing students associations are doing to improve teaching and improve the various aspects of university life within the classroom. I know after going to Unitec the polytech in my electorate and talking to the students association that it has an extraordinarily good programme that actually rates the quality of the teaching. That is not terribly comfortable for a lot of the lecturers and teachers I have to say. It is not a terribly popular thing. But the chief executive officer of Unitec agreed that it go ahead and pretty much everybody accepts that it has lifted the quality of the teaching and lifted the quality of the tuition within Unitec’s various lecture theatres classrooms labs and other places. So students associations are not there to offer just the health counselling sporting cultural radio—or whatever—services that people have talked about; they are making a substantive difference to the quality of the tuition and teaching that is happening within the classroom as well. 
It would be good to look at the management of student services. This is something that I know Heather Roy has talked about before. I agree with her that some of the student services that have been offered and some of the student management that has happened in some of the universities and many of the polytechs have simply not been up to scratch. Fairly young students with perhaps very little management experience are asked to manage large amounts of money on behalf of the student body and I agree that the management of that money and the way that it is accounted for is something we should look into and something we can improve. I think the university students associations—certainly the national body—are in agreement with that. 
Lastly I would say that the review might want to look at the way that the different institutions vary amongst each other. The students association in a large body such as Otago University might be somewhat different from that in a small polytech or even a private training establishment in the way that it functions. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Taloha ni Mr Chair and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on clause 10 of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I like my colleague David Shearer want to focus on the amendment— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Name-dropper! 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: Tau Henare—how is that for name-dropping! I would like to focus on the amendment put forward by Grant Robertson—yet another name we have dropped—that will see a new clause 10 put into this bill to ensure a review of the voluntary student membership legislation after 5 years. 
I would like to support some earlier contributions that were made by Te Ururoa Flavell from the Maori Party around his concerns for Maori students with the passing of this bill. I also say that I have some serious concerns around the effects of this bill on Pacific Island students. I know that both Maori and Pacific Island students have heavily relied on the students association at the polytech in my electorate Whitireia Community Polytechnic. I know that it has had a chequered past in the last couple of years with its finances. I know that Don Campbell the chief executive may be watching and I know that he holds a different ideological position from me and that he is a supporter of the voluntary student membership bill. I think that this move by the Government in particular by ACT which is seen to be the tail wagging the dog in this instance will have serious adverse effects on both Pacific and Maori students at Whitireia Community Polytechnic. 
The 5-year review will look at how this bill which may become law very soon will have an effect on student services and I am very concerned about the effect it will have on what the students associations provide for their students such as the cultural aspects pastoral care academic support and sporting support. After 5 years the big question that will be asked is what has happened. We do not have to look too far to find out what the experience will be. As David Shearer pointed out in his contribution since voluntary student membership was passed in Australia in 2005 in subsequent years we have seen some serious degradation in the services for students at their tertiary institutions. Essentially the associations have collapsed and the services available to students have drastically reduced. In many cases a user-pays system has been introduced at the tertiary institutions across the Tasman. At the moment that can have only a negative effect for Maori and Pacific Island students who are struggling as it is just to get into tertiary education. If they are forced to pay even more for the services that are being provided under the current regime that will have a seriously negative effect on the tertiary experience of many Maori and Pacific Island students. As we have seen across the Tasman this has disadvantaged a lot of those students who come from lower socio-economic backgrounds. 
Unfortunately a lot of tertiary institutions have had to take on some of the functions the services and the assets that previously have been provided by students associations and operated by students associations. In effect although the ACT Party said that this bill will make things much easier for students that it would give them choice that it would give them freedom and that it is about democracy it will actually put the burden of the services and any assets that have fallen on those students associations fairly and squarely on the institutions. That means that taxpayers will be burdened with more costs in the long run. As we have said tertiary institutions across the Tasman have taken on more of this burden and this has resulted in many unpopular decisions being made such as elite sports teams being funded at the expense of social sports teams. There has been a noticeably large price increase in campus services and again that will be a disadvantage for many lower socio-economic groups of students. 
There has been an increase in the price of campus services and an increase in the number of campus services activities being outsourced to private sector firms. In the past we have had the student spirit behind making sure a lot of these services are provided to students at a pretty reasonable rate a pretty cheap rate but we will now find the private sector coming in and saying that it can provide that service at a profit. Of course that comes at a price. 
We have also noticed that across the Tasman a thousand jobs were lost in the student services area. There is one instance that I am concerned about— 
HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. I thank my colleague from Mana Kris Faafoi for speaking just prior to myself. Kia kaha bro. I was not going to come to the Chamber to speak to the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill but I heard the korero from the Maori Party while I was up in my office and I just had to come down. The reason why is that when I heard the Maori Party talking about Maori politicians getting in behind this Treaty claim I shook my head. 
I shook my head because I have been talking to Maori students. I met with them at their annual wananga just last week and they told me that the only reason they had to put in a Treaty claim was that they came to the Minister of Maori Affairs who is also an Associate Minister with responsibility for Maori education to get assistance with this issue the review of the provisions. They came to ask for his support for this kaupapa to ensure that Maori rights would be recognised under the terms of the provisions of the clause that we are considering now—the review of the provisions. 
Louise Upston 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My point of order relates to relevance to this amendment to the clause. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Ms Upston. I have urged the member to refer to the review. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: I did actually refer to the review of the provisions that apply at a 5-yearly term. I heard the Maori Party talk about the fact that this needs to go before the Waitangi Tribunal and whether Maori politicians should be lining up against this bill and in support of the claim to the tribunal because that claim is also about the review of the provisions and when that review should take place. In the students’ view the review should be taking place immediately. Also the students said to me that the reason why the claim has gone in is that there was no support from the Minister and no support from the Maori Party. When I look at this report from the Education and Science Committee I see a minority report from Labour and I see a minority report from the Greens. I have heard a lot of talk from the Maori Party but it never bothered to put it in the committee’s report at all. Clearly there is no sense that the Maori Party opposes this bill. It certainly is not in this committee report. 
When we asked the students themselves about this review of the provisions they were particularly concerned that they would have to wait for 5 years instead of those provisions being reviewed immediately. Hence the reason why this claim has gone in. They see no support from the Maori Party or from the Minister for students to take action. They see no stand taken by the Minister or the Maori Party in defence of Maori rights and the review of these provisions. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I find it interesting that Mr Harawira is making accusations with regard to the Maori Party on this particular clause when he was not here at the beginning of the vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No that is a debatable issue. Not only that but the member has been here long enough to know that he cannot refer to the absence of a member. Every member at one stage or another has to be absent from the House because they have other duties. It is against Speakers’ rulings to refer to the absence of a member. I call Hone Harawira and ask him please to refer to the review. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: In the review of the provisions of this particular bill there has been no support from the Maori Party or from the Minister— 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Rubbish. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: There has been no call for a special Treaty case for Maori students at all. I think the member on that side of the Chamber knows that. There is nothing mana-enhancing in this particular clause. There is nothing in this committee report. In fact in terms of the review of these provisions there is nothing in this bill but a roll-over by the Maori Party and their Minister to allow ACT and National to crush Maori development and Maori— 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I bring your attention to Standing Order 107 covering relevancy. You have brought Mr Harawira to attention on two occasions up until now. You have asked him to speak specifically to the clause at hand. He has failed to do that on two occasions. Under Standing Order 107(2) you have the ability to terminate his speech and I ask you to do that now. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Speaking to the point of order on every occasion every minute or so I have always referred to the review of the provisions which is what we are discussing tonight. At no stage have I allowed 60 seconds to go past without specifically referring to the review of the provisions in this bill. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Mr Chair I make two points to you. First you will note that there has been quite an amount of interjecting on the honourable member Hone Harawira and on a number of occasions he has responded to the interjections and the disorderly behaviour on that side of the Chamber. Second saying that you are allowing this member to speak outside the scope of the bill is in actual fact implying that you are allowing this debate to be held outside the provisions of the Standing Orders—that you are allowing the Standing Orders to be broken. I do not think that is right. I think you have a very good handle on this issue and if you were in any way concerned I am sure you would have brought the member back to order. I say that I am very happy with the way you have been chairing the debate tonight. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. I say to all members that the member has only a few seconds left to speak and the member will refer to just the review. It is clause 10 as amended and put in place by the honourable member Grant Robertson. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Thank you Mr Chairman. Party vote Mana. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the question be now put. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind members that there are to be no comments at all during the taking of a vote. It can be seen as intimidation which means that it can appear as a breach of privilege. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Mana 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson be agreed to: 
to add the following clause: 
10Review of sections 229A to 229CA 
(1)The Ministry of Education shall review the effect of the operation of sections 229A to 229CA 5 years after the date on which this Act receives Royal assent. 
(2)The review shall assess the impact of the provisions on students and the tertiary sector in accordance with the terms of reference established in subsection (3). 
(3)The terms of reference for the review shall be set out by the Minister of Education. 
(4)The Ministry of Education shall report to the Ministers of Education and of Tertiary Education. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Mana 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
New clause 10 not agreed to. 
New clause 11 Polls must be held 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: New clause 11 is out of order as it is contrary to the principles of the bill as agreed to at the second reading. 
New clause 12 Triennial Polls must be held 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: New clause 12 in the name of the honourable member Grant Robertson is also out of order as it is contrary to the principles of the bill as agreed to at the second reading. 
New clause 13 Enrolment in a Student Association 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendment to add a clause 13 also in the name of the honourable member Grant Robertson is also out of order as it is contrary to the principles of the bill as agreed to at the second reading. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like you to expand on your rulings a little bit. I accept that it is your decision and yours alone but it seems to me that if you are going to rule out an amendment on the basis that it differs from what was agreed at the second reading then it appears to me that the Committee can accept only amendments that are consistent with and agreeable at the second reading. Therefore it does tend to restrict the ability of the Committee of the whole House to amend the bill when it comes to the Committee stage. 
I would have thought that the second reading was a time when the House considered the report of the select committee when it considered the bill as amended and once that is done it comes to the Committee and the Committee itself can then make further amendments. I do not know that all the amendments have to be agreeable on the second reading. Surely if that were the case it would say so quite clearly in the Standing Orders and I do not recall that it does. It could be that an amendment is ruled out because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. If that was the case then I would accept your ruling immediately but you have made a different ruling. You have said that it is inconsistent with the principles of the bill at the second reading. 
The second reading has been and gone. It is now for the Committee of the whole House to consider the matter as the bill stands. Therefore I think the Committee is at liberty to amend the bill quite freely. I accept that the amendment cannot be inconsistent with the principles of the bill but you have ruled quite differently from that. I would like you to reflect on that because I think you are setting the Committee into new territory here. 
I would like you to expand on your decision because I do not think it is particularly good practice simply to bring down a decision without an explanation. You have given us your decision and you have given us a reason but it is not an explanation. I think you should give the Committee an explanation as to why you have ruled it out as a result of the second reading which is different from the Committee of the whole House. I would appreciate your very considered ruling Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the Hon Rick Barker for his considered views. I make the point to him that at the second reading the House agreed to the principle of voluntary membership of students associations. So any amendments that would directly overturn that principle are not in order. One can turn to Speaker’s ruling 112/6: “Any clause is out of order which is—… (4) In conflict with the provisions of the bill.” In the second reading the House agreed to the principle of voluntary membership of students associations. So I will report this bill without amendment presently. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a new point of order. I seek the leave for the Committee to vote again on clause 2 including voting on a handwritten amendment in my name to change clause 2 to delay the commencement from 2012 to 2013. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Any member is entitled to seek the leave of the Committee and the member is doing duly that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently.