Upston Louise: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Upston Louise: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21544] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 There are some pieces of legislation where the divide between the left and the right is more obvious than it is on others. The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is one such piece of legislation. I am very proud to say that the values of the National Party include freedom of choice. Part of balancing freedom of choice is of course responsibility. The left however have been clinging to compulsory student union membership and they have fought this bill like they have not fought any other single piece of legislation in this House. One would think that they would strongly fight changes to labour laws to taxation and to welfare reform. But no this is the one piece of legislation that they have held up in the House for nearly 2 years. This is the legislation they choose to die in a ditch over. This is what matters most to them—not to the majority of New Zealanders though I might add. Members on this side of the House will not tell students what to do. We will give students the choice. 
I applaud the ACT member Heather Roy for bringing this member’s bill to the House. I applaud her work and her efforts—the tag team of her and Sir Roger Douglas. They got this member’s bill through the select committee process so that we are here today for the third reading. 
In no other sector in New Zealand is union membership compulsory so why would members expect that we would discriminate against students? Compulsory student unions are the last vestige of a bygone era of compulsory unionism and of course it was going to change. But the point is that in the same way that trade unions are still strong and still active students associations will still be strong and active without the coercion of their members. I believe that voluntary unionism will actually improve the performance of students associations because it will actually make them more responsive to what the students want. It will provide a mandate for advocacy based on engagement with the issues at hand. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Those members hate choice. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: Absolutely they do hate choice. They cannot stand it. It was really interesting that the Leader of the Opposition said this week that this bill would compel voluntary membership. I thought that was such a fascinating turn of phrase from a party that is obsessed with compulsion and cannot handle the fact that this party values choice. 
If we look at this bill we see that students associations will still be able to support students they will be able to tender for commercial contracts from institutions and they will advocate on behalf of their students. But most important is that their students’ rights will remain unchanged. I want to bring to the attention of the House the New Zealand University Students’ Association submission which clearly talks about the value of students associations. I agree. I agree that they do deliver value to students. What I do not agree with is their concern that students will not value their services. I disagree with that because if they value their association’s services they will join it and that is exactly how it should be—just as people join advocacy organisations or professional organisations. This bill will not destroy student unions. They will still be able to offer all the services they currently do including advocacy including lobbying but they will have to attract members on their merit—not from legal force but on their merit. Some argue that voluntary membership does already exist. But if it does already exist as some claim then why would they fear these changes? 
Choice for students will also mean greater accountability for student unions. Again I do not think that student unions have anything to fear from this. Students should not have to vote in a referendum to receive the basic right of freedom of association. Unions that demonstrate value to students will continue exactly as they are. Opponents say that students can leave the association if they wish. But the submitters who came before us told us how difficult that was in reality. A very interesting thing to note is that in the last 18 months some students associations have changed the way that people exit if they choose to do so. Funny that! It is funny that it happens right about now. Tertiary institutions will still be required to ensure that students are looked after. They will take note of customer feedback and concerns. 
One of the other things that opponents have talked about is the quantity of submissions opposing this bill. Heather Roy went through this in detail so I will not cover it much other than to bring the House’s attention to emails I received from so-called students who were opposing the bill. When I replied to these emails I got puzzled responses from some students. They had absolutely no idea that emails had been sent in their name from their email accounts opposing the bill. 
Part of the difficulty in understanding the opposition to this bill is the changing phrases used by the student unions. The student unions have been changing their tune because they cannot decide who they are like. First of all they said they were like trade unions. But trade unions became not compulsory so the student unions had to change their thinking. Then they moved on to saying they were like professional bodies like the Medical Association. But it has changed. It has now gone into two parts: the Medical Council and the—surprise surprise—voluntary New Zealand Medical Association. Now since the student unions lost that one they say they are like local government. They think they can take money off people against their will and have no accountability no feedback mechanisms no safeguards for their doing exactly that. 
The one I love—this is probably the best for me—is the argument that student associations are the only true independent voice. One very large concern raised by those who support the bill—and they gave examples—was the use of student association money to fund political campaigns. And this is so-called independence. Some of the associations are clearly not independent at all. One of the New Zealand University Students’ Association press releases before the last election said that the National Party was out of touch with thinking voters when in reality National got more votes in the 18 to 24 age group than any other political party. So I wonder who was out of touch if it was not the students association. 
As a result of this bill will students think twice about joining a student union? Probably. Will students get value from their students association? Most likely. Will students get to choose? Absolutely.