Roberts AngelaANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Kia ora Madam Speaker. It's my privilege to stand and respond sensibly and thoughtfully to this bill the Education and Training (Freedom of Expression) Amendment Bill. While we appreciate the member's attempts to look after what happens in universities this goes nowhere near resolving the issues he thinks exist.He talks about protecting in law freedom of speech and academic freedom and luckily we already have more than one law that does that whether it is the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or the Human Rights Act or whether it is the Education and Training (Freedom of Expression)—oh no that one's no good—whether it's the Education and Training Act. The Education and Training Act is really interesting because it protects the freedom of speech of academics more than the other Acts that already exist.So we know that we are acknowledging in current legislation how precious it is to protect our academics' ability to challenge us as a society to bring new thinking new evidence and new science to us and to confront us and our status quo. We protect it; we cherish it.What this bill does is it doesn't protect that any further. What it does is it tells academic institutions that the politicians in this House have a much better idea of what it is they should be looking after as far as knowledge goes and science goes in their institutions. We are absolutely supportive of the idea that the law recognises academics as being a critic and conscience of society—and we've heard so many times over the last few months as we brought our bills to this House that have protected and extended how we behave as a society.Years ago those thoughts and things that are absolutely—and quite rightly—front and centre normal and regular today were at the edges of academia a generation ago. We absolutely understand the importance of academics challenging the status quo. The danger when we take away any opportunity for institutions to regulate that—because there is a tension to manage and those institutions should be free to do it—is that when we shift from dissenting views that are based on evidence and based on science and academic rigour and we shift into views that are opinions that are based on falsehoods demonstrable misinformation what that does is it actually undermines performing a role as critic and conscience of society. What happens is we're reducing the independence of our institutions to do what is best for academics for their students and for their staff.We should be trusting them; we shouldn't go Oh well it's OK if someone might physically hurt but not if there is mental injury." They should be entitled to absolutely be trusted to make sure that science has space to breathe.Academics versus speakers—and we've heard about Don Brash coming into Massey University. This is not about academic freedom. Talking about some overseas visitors bringing in their racist attitudes to public spaces in Auckland is not about what institutions do. This is not going to have an impact on what happens in a public space in Auckland.What this does is it impacts on the freedom of our institutions to do what is right to make sure that we have a safe space for science and for evidence and for progress. There is a really really good reason why we trust our institutions to bring true academic rigour to their spaces. It's really interesting that we hear that we've got people who think that the institutions should be told what they use to judge what helps keep their workers safe under the Health and Safety at Work Act.Mental duress and injury; we keep hearing from the other side of the House how important it is to support our young people and the challenges they have with their mental health—except if somebody's got a point of view that they don't like.Mental injury mental duress; why should that be any less of a consideration for these people who must care for their students who must care for their workers and must care for their academics and their freedom?By giving visitors more voice some students and staff may actually feel unsafe and it actually might reduce the academic rigour that we require. I don't know how long it's been since you've walked on to a campus and had a good debate with your lecturer. Some of us have done it as recently as last week and it's wonderful to be in that space where you feel safe to really really challenge the science—not the misinformation not the baiting but the discipline about academic rigour. It's a beautiful place to be and I'm sure many of you remember it some of us more recently than others. But it's wonderful and by bringing this Act to fruition we are going to limit an institution's obligation to protect that space.The ability for visitors to have a greater right to bring misinformation—to bring viewpoints that actually undermine science—isn't helpful. Like I say it can constrain true academic rigour and debate and it can impact on a prospective learning decision to study in a particular field.We should be making institutions safe places—safe places—for academic rigour not places where we bring in misinformation and it gets the same status. This bill actually stops institutions from making a solid academic response that's well-rounded and in the best interests of their workers their students their academics and of course because they challenge us to be better for all of us.So it is because of that that I will be opposing this bill and I will not be recommending it to the House."