Mackey Moana: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:16873] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I start by saying to the member in the chair that it is a bit galling to be told that we are not allowed to debate things in Parliament. That might be the way the National-ACT Government runs things but it is not the way the Opposition sees Parliament running. It is not our fault— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I bet they have debates in their caucus. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I bet those members do have debates in their caucus particularly on the fact that Paul Hutchison and the National Party promised at the last election that they would not vote for this legislation and tonight they are. I am sure there are debates on that. 
I say to the member in the chair that it is not our fault National and ACT members are sitting opposite like dried arrangements not taking a call. We would love them to stand up and debate this bill instead of sitting there muttering under their breaths. I recognise the efforts of the Hon David Carter who has had two successful closure motions out of two tonight. That is a very good evening I say to the Minister. Perhaps a press release to acknowledge all his work and success this evening would be in order. 
I will concentrate on two things in this purpose clause: one is the inaccuracy of the purpose clause as it sits and the second is the fallacy of the purpose clause. This purpose clause is not about upholding students’ rights at all. This purpose clause is about the fact that opponents to students associations cannot even get 10 percent support among students to force a referendum on campus so they have come to Parliament to pass legislation that a party that sits on 1 percent in the polls wants passed. One percent of the population of New Zealand is forcing this legislation on 100 percent of the students. 
If students want voluntary student membership they have to get only 10 percent of students to call for a referendum. That is clearly impossible apart from in those universities where they have had the referenda—and we have talked about Waikato University which went voluntary then went back because it was such a disaster. The ACT Party which is sitting on 1 percent support has said that it does not think the students at Waikato know what they want. ACT does not think the students at Waikato are able to hold a democratic referendum and decide for themselves. The 1 percent party will tell them what is best for their organisation their university and their students’ association. It is astonishing from the party that claims to be about freedom and personal rights. 
We have a bill here that is in this Chamber only because through democratic processes ACT has been unable to kill off students associations and student membership of those associations. I think that is an embarrassment for this Committee of the whole House. The member in charge of the bill should be ashamed of it and members of National and ACT who are voting for this legislation should be ashamed of it because this is not what students want. 
If there are issues with the referendum provision and if ACT Party members on campus are finding it too hard to find 10 percent of students to force a referendum we can change the threshold to 5 percent. We could have done that. If as the member Heather Roy said the ability to opt out is too difficult why is she not addressing that? I know that students associations came to the Education and Science Committee and said that they were happy to look at making the opt-out processes easier if that was the big burning issue that was requiring this sledgehammer legislation to be forced through Parliament. 
I find it astonishing that the party of small government the party of not having the State involved in everything has now come to Parliament in order to get the Government and the New Zealand Parliament to pass a bill because it has not been able to argue its case on the campuses of New Zealand. I think that is embarrassing for the member in charge of the bill and I want to hear from a National member about why National has changed its position on this legislation and why it has broken the promise made at the last election that it would not support this legislation. Any National member will do. Sandra Goudie was very loud before; she is now ignoring me and that is fine. They all have their heads down working very very hard because they do not want to have to answer— 
Colin King 
: Oh come on Moana. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Maybe Mr Colin King can answer the question as to why National has broken its promise on this issue. The fact is that the purpose clause states: “The purpose of this Act is to uphold students’ rights to freedom of association by removing any requirement for students to join students associations.”