Woodhouse Michael: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21527] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call in the third reading of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. This is the first time I have spoken on this bill in this House but of course I have followed the debate quite closely given how important it is to students in Dunedin. I have actually asked to speak in the third reading given the calls to me by the New Zealand University Students’ Association to cross the floor to vote against this bill on the basis of some comments apparently made by me and reported today. I give my thanks to my colleague Colin King for subbing out and allowing me to make a contribution and to clarify my position. I begin by addressing that call. There is not a hope in Hades of me crossing the floor and voting against this bill. I support this bill completely—no whipping no shoehorning into voting for it. I said so last year I said so earlier this year including in an op-ed piece in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 and I will say it again: I support this bill. No amount of clever video editing by Labour apparatchiks or ranting press releases from the New Zealand University Students’ Association will change that. The video clip omitted my introductory support for voluntary student membership it missed bits in the middle and it did not add text to the top of the video when I was clearly saying things that did not suit the Labour view. 
But there are a couple of things that do require clarification and the first is my statement that it was highly unlikely that the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill would pass in this term of Parliament. I did say that to Logan Edgar at the Otago University Students’ Association and to David Do of the New Zealand University Students’ Association. It is however complete nonsense to conclude from those comments as Mr Edgar did that this was a verbal assurance of National’s support for deferring the bill until after the election. If one was to ask members of this House—including Heather Roy I suspect—whether they thought that this bill would pass in this term of Parliament they would all have said that that was extremely unlikely. The reason for that was the outrageous filibustering by Labour on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill at a cost of nearly half a million dollars per hour—half a million dollars per hour. Members’ day has been debased by that party and those members should hang their heads in shame. This is a day for members’ bills—not that Labour has any—and it is an absolute shame that this day means so little to that party. The crocodile tears that Labour members have shed for the passage of this bill are in large part because they were simply outthought by Mrs Roy. 
The second clarification is in relation to comments I made about whether the bill could be improved. Earlier this year I did say that had the bill been introduced in my name I think it would have looked a little bit different albeit the thrust of the bill would not have changed. At that time I thought a form of life membership should be considered. I thought that an opt-out was worth considering and indeed that was touched on by the Education and Science Committee with not joining requiring no explanation. I had one or two other ideas that were not material to the bill but I was not on the select committee so I kept in touch with my colleagues who were informing me of progress in that respect. 
But here is what I understand also to have occurred. The New Zealand University Students’ Association was approached by members of that association—that is student presidents in 2010 supportive of a compromise position—who recommended that that position be put into the New Zealand University Students’ Association submission. The New Zealand University Students’ Association refused to consider that compromise. It remained defiant against the bill in any form and buried its head in the sand pretending that the bill would go away. Well it did not go away and the offer of compromise recently made was a desperate attempt to remedy things when the association realised that the bill was likely to pass. It was too little too late. It should have considered what its association members were saying—some of them at least—more carefully when it was talked to last year. 
Here is the kicker for me. At the same time that the New Zealand University Students’ Association was railing against voluntary student membership it was fighting a rearguard action against some of its own members who were threatening to resign. Otago University Students’ Association and Otago Polytechnic Students’ Association I understand both served notice of their intention to resign from the New Zealand University Students’ Association. Otago University Students’ Association said as much in its written submission on the bill. So the New Zealand University Students’ Association is strongly opposed to choice for students but its own constitution enables its members the choice of membership. That is a double standard if ever there was one. It still has not been explained—despite Mr Peachey further asking for it—how compulsion encourages choice. 
The rates analogy is flawed. Rates are the equivalent of student fees. If I choose to go to a university the cost is the student fees. If I choose to own a house in the city the cost is the rates. The question not answered by anti - voluntary student membership proponents is this. If students associations are so important and they represent such good value for money why the morbid fear that students will take flight when association membership is made optional? The students—our brightest young and our future leaders—are labelled as lacking the simple skill of deciding for themselves whether joining an association is appropriate for them. If they do associations should be more worried about why students see such low value in membership than about maintaining compulsion because at the end of the day this comes down to a simple principle of freedom of association. No New Zealanders should be compelled to join an organisation of this nature against their will. On this principle alone I support the change to voluntary student membership. 
I will also touch on a couple of comments that I made in respect of that op-ed piece in the  
Otago Daily Times  
on some of the reasons why people do not want to be members of their students associations. One of them was high-profile financial misappropriations by students association executive members. I do not need to relitigate them although I did hear Mrs Roy talk about them in earlier speeches. The fact is that the accountability mechanisms on students associations are not strong enough for there to be compulsion. Regardless of what happens in the future—whether Labour does have an opportunity to repeal this legislation or whether it stays—I think there have to be greater accountability mechanisms built into students association constitutions. At the end of the day I think this comes down to the question of freedom. 
I post a political quote of the day on my Facebook page. My Facebook friends will be familiar with it but anybody else who wants to read it—other Facebook users—can friend me and read it and other daily updates. 
Hon Member 
: What a blatant pitch. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Never let a chance go by. Today’s quote is from the 14th century poet Dante and it reads: “Mankind is at its best when it is most free. This will be clear if we grasp the principle of liberty. We must recall that the basic principle of liberty is freedom of choice which saying many have on their lips but few in their minds.” I cannot really articulate it any better than that. Freedom is actually a scary concept for some. We have heard from members of this House who are worried and who want to hold on to compulsion much like a drunk holds on to a lamp post. But it is time I think to treat our university students like the adults that they are. We ask them to vote. We ask them to fight and die. We allow them certain other freedoms. Well I think that they should have the freedom to choose whether to be members of their students associations. 
I support freedom. I support voluntary student membership. I very strongly support this bill and I commend it to the House. 
Debate interrupted.