Hipkins Chris: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hipkins Chris: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:16864] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill amends the Education Act of 1989. The question of course is how it amends the Education Act 1989 which is dealt with in the substance of the bill. But the wider question is whether there are unintended amendments to the Education Act 1989 and whether there are flow-on impacts to the wider Act that are not being adequately considered. The reason I raise this question is that the Education Act is a very substantial document. As a former president of a students association— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Two-term president! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —two terms actually—I used to have a copy of the Education Act sitting on my desk. 
Louise Upston 
: Oh that’s really sad mate! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I know. I can assure Louise Upston that I have read it from cover to cover. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Another one stuffed under his mattress! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I did not go quite that far. One of the roles of the students association was to ensure that the institutions complied with all of the requirements of the Education Act and ensure that the students received all of their entitlements under the law. So one of the issues I have with this bill and the way it amends the Education Act is the unintended consequence of that. Basically it lets the institutions off one of the safeguards currently in place to protect students and to protect those attending any sort of tertiary institution by having a strong students association that can advocate on their behalf. Of course the bill makes a number of changes to the Education Act. It extends wider than just the membership of students associations; it extends to the membership of a tertiary institutions council for example. So there are changes to the way institutions will be governed under this law. 
The question is the unintended consequences. Are there unintended consequences of this legislation on the principal Act that it amends? I argue that there are some unintended consequences and that in fact we need to consider very carefully whether the spirit of the Education Act is being adhered to and whether other safeguards are being put in place to ensure that students’ rights are being responsibly adhered to by institutions. I know as the president of a students association and as a member of a university council that I had a few arguments with the vice-chancellor and the management of the institution that went all the way to the university council to the governance level of the institution as allowed for under the Education Act. At one particular meeting we won and the vice-chancellor lost because the other members of the university council the lay members thought the case we put forward was sufficiently compelling for them to overturn a decision the vice-chancellor had made with regard to academic grievances. Institutions have to have a process in place for dealing with academic grievances and this is allowed for under the Education Act. The university council was not satisfied that the vice-chancellor had done an adequate job and we were able to overturn the decision. We could do that because under the Education Act there was universal membership of students associations and that gave us that ability to put forward quite a compelling argument and to argue it all the way through the university system right up to governance level. 
In conclusion I think one of the things this House should be aware of when it amends the Education Act is whether the amendments go wider than was originally envisaged. I argue there is quite possibly a strong compelling case to suggest that they do.