Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill

I do not know whether I can say it is a pleasure to take a call on this particular bill and this particular clause, but I certainly am happy to do so. We are debating clause 2, which is the commencement clause. It was amended by the Education and Science Committee, so I think it is good to debate at some length whether the amendment would be a good idea.

The select committee’s amendment was that the Act come into force on 1 January 2012. The reason the select committee made that amendment was that most of the members of the committee were concerned that students associations and institutions would need time to prepare for a change such as this one. As we are now are in 2011, and the select committee decided in 2010 that the commencement date should be 1 January 2012, I think there are good grounds for supporting the amendment on the Table in my name. My amendment omits the words “1 January 2010” and substitutes the words “1 January 2013”.

Everybody is well aware that on this side of the Chamber we oppose this bill in principle, because we believe that it will in effect destroy students associations. That is the evidence we have from Australia, and I have not seen anything brought before the House that tells us that it would be any different in New Zealand. We believe that students associations play a critical role in the health and well-being of students and in their academic progress, and we believe that this bill should not proceed. But as we are in the position of looking at a commencement clause, we need to give the affected associations time to adjust to the change.

As I said, in 2010 it was thought that the commencement date could be 1 January 2012. We are now in 2011, and I believe we need to look at moving the commencement date further out to 1 January 2013. I know from talking to students associations at their conferences over the summer break that they are already—certainly from the university end—beginning to talk to institutions about what they would do if this bill were to pass. Those discussions will take time. Those discussions will be difficult. One of the criticisms this side of the Chamber has of this bill is that it puts in the hands of the institutions what services students will get.

When we were campaigning against this change in the 1990s we used to have posters that asked whether people wanted the vice-chancellor to choose the music for orientation.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Probably not.

No, and in the case of some vice-chancellors I know, I would not want them to do that, although Steve Maharey would be the exception. He is a man with impeccable music taste.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: What?

It is—it is very good. The point is that students associations will no longer have control of the services that are provided. Students lose control, and the institutions will decide whether there are services via the agreements they might have with associations or whatever they provide themselves. I do not believe that a commencement date of 1 January 2012 is sufficient for the necessary discussions and negotiations over this matter to take place. I think it needs to be extended out to 1 January 2013.

Should the Committee not wish to take up my suggestion of 1 January 2013 as the commencement date, there are a number of other dates through the period of December, and perhaps even further back than that. If the member in charge of this bill, the Hon Heather Roy, is serious when she says she does not want to destroy students associations, then she should at least look at how this legislation could be phased in, to enable those students associations to have some kind of ability to get ready, to prepare themselves, and to perhaps make agreements with institutions.

On that point, I say that the big concern we have on this side of the Chamber is not so much about university students associations. Although they will have the problem of no longer being able to have students control student affairs, most of them are large enough that I am sure the institutions will contract for services with them. But that will not happen in polytechs. That will not happen in most of the polytechs around New Zealand. Those polytech students associations will not survive, and I do not believe they will be contracted for services. So they need even more time to prepare themselves for this bill, and they need a commencement date that is far further on than 1 January 2012.

Polytech students are transitory by nature; they usually come in for only 1 or 2-year courses, and sometimes for courses that are a lot shorter. The infrastructure of the students associations is not built up in the way that it is inside university students associations. They of all people need a longer period of time for the institutions and the students associations—where they are still going on polytech campuses—to come up with a plan that means student services are still provided. At this stage we cannot guarantee that.

I also speak in support of the amendment to clause 2 of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. The original commencement clause states: “This Act comes into force 1 year after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” The Education and Science Committee saw fit to change that date to 1 January 2012. My understanding is that the intent of that change was to increase the length of time between this Act’s receiving the Royal assent and its coming into force. Of course, we find ourselves in a difficult situation now. As Mr Robertson pointed out, this bill has taken some time to make its way through Parliament.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

As I was saying before the dinner break, the amendment put up by Grant Robertson is to amend clause 2 by omitting “1 January 2012” and substituting “1 January 2013”—that is, to delay the commencement of the bill by 1 year. Clearly, the clause needs to be amended. I think that goes without saying, because the select committee recognised that the original wording of the bill, which was for the bill to commence 1 year after the date on which it receives the Royal assent, posed some difficulties for students associations, universities, polytechnics, and private training establishments. It could mean that the change would potentially come in midway through a semester, with all the difficulties that that would bring with it. The select committee also recognised that students associations and their tertiary institutes would need a significant period of time in which to make the adjustments in order to start working on the service agreements that many of the students associations are working on with their universities and polytechnics for the new regime of voluntary student membership.

The select committee recognised that issue and wanted to make the period of time longer. Well, because of the time it has taken for the bill to progress through the House, the period of time is shorter. It is less than 1 year until 1 January 2012, which restricts the amount of time in which the changes can be made, so the intention of the amendment made by the select committee has now been lost and, in fact, the opposite is now the case.

There is absolutely no doubt that the commencement clause needs to be amended, and the only amendment we have before us on the Table is the one to change the commencement date to 1 January 2013. It seems to me to be a sensible amendment, bearing in mind that Labour is opposed to the bill and we will be voting against it throughout the process. If the bill goes ahead, in order to make it workable the amendment has to be made.

The benefit of the commencement date being 1 January is that it is a clear date. Most universities these days still have summer schools, so the universities and students associations will still be operating, but it is a time when things are fairly quiet. It will not be during normal semester time. Therefore, it gives the universities and students associations the opportunity to make the changeover on 1 January. It will not come up on some arbitrary date. It will not come up midway through the year. But it does deliver on the intention of the select committee to give students associations and tertiary institutes additional time, because a lot of work is required from both organisations to make the adjustments to the proposed new regime—not least to the service agreements around services such as health centres, orientation, events coordination, and probably advocacy services. A lot of negotiation will be required to ensure that advocacy services, even though they are probably being funded by the university, remain at arm’s length from the university, and exactly how all that gets organised will take quite a lot of negotiation.

There will also be the matter of costs and the fact that the universities, polytechnics, and private training establishments will be increasing their service levies. No doubt it will take some time for the university and polytechnic councils to make the decisions around what those service levies will be. There is also a range of other issues that need to be accounted for. I suspect there is some risk that the Government needs to take into account, which is the fact that the amount that will be borrowed against student loans will have to increase because the service fees will be increased. There is also the potential for other fees to increase as well. That will mean students will need to borrow more against those student loans. The Government will have to ensure that it is in a good fiscal position to be able to lend that money. We know that the Government is looking pretty hard at student loans at the moment. There is some consideration of reintroducing interest charges on student loans, and obviously the Government sees those loans as something of a risk.

The increased fees that will result from the changes that have to be made in the period between when the bill receives the Royal assent and when it commences are quite substantial. Not only will the universities, polytechnics, private training establishments, and students associations have to figure out what it all means for them, but also the Government—and, I imagine, quite a few ministries and departments as well—will have to figure out what it means for it. Quite a lot of work needs to be done, and, frankly, trying to squeeze it all in before 1 January 2012 is just not feasible; it simply is no longer feasible.

The Minister Heather Roy says she does not want to see students associations collapse and that that is not the intention of the bill. As I have said, Labour questions that statement, but if that is the Minister’s intention, then increasing the length of time between the bill receiving the Royal assent and its commencement makes a lot of sense. It gives everybody a little more time to make the adjustment. I see Louise Upston having a bit of a smile and a laugh about that—

💬 Louise Upston: She is actually a member, not a Minister. It is important that you address the right person in the chair. I just thought I’d correct you on that one.

OK. I see Louise Upston is having a bit of a smile about that—

💬 Louise Upston: No, just factually correcting you, given that you were not on the select committee and do not actually understand what occurred. But that’s OK. Carry on.

The more the member wants to say on the bill, the better. We will just debate it further. Quite a lot of work needs to be done, and it needs to be dealt with. It is actually quite serious. I think we are all trying to make the bill, which is a bad bill, functional. We are trying to make it work, so that it does not absolutely obliterate students associations. Although personally I do not think it will make any difference for the students associations at polytechnics, it may be just enough to help the university polytechnics tread water. The current situation, whereby they would have only until 1 January 2012, does not allow for that, at all. It means a lot of things will be rushed, probably some of those service agreements will not be exactly what they should be, and the universities will not have time to figure out their fee structure, either.

The amendment is pretty simple. I do not think it is overly controversial. It comes back to the original intention of the select committee’s change to allow students associations more time. I submit that the amendment should be a pretty easy one for the Government to support.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. The Māori Party has been greatly concerned about the intention of the bill. It basically ensures that no tertiary student is required to join a students association. But we believe that the underlying purpose of the bill is to erode students associations. It is well known that the current system allows students to opt out of membership. The bill proposes that students be required to opt in.

The context of the bill is that students associations and their representatives, including Māori student rōpū and their representatives, have often been strong advocates within tertiary institutions and the wider sector for high-quality academic standards, adequate Government investment, and the maintenance or reduction of course fees. Students associations and rōpū have challenged user-pays education since its introduction in 1990 and instead argue that education is a public good and should be funded as such.

Surely we are not about to suggest that we should be afraid of people having the opportunity to challenge that in a healthy democracy. The current legislative framework is both flexible and inclusive. It allows for both voluntary and universal membership of students associations. This framework also allows students to be the decision makers on whether their association is voluntary or compulsory through transparent, democratic referenda. In short, there is no widespread criticism of the status quo.

In light of all these criticisms, we have drafted a number of amendments to reinstate the rights relating to effective and meaningful representation to ensure that student voices are heard. I acknowledge Grant Robertson for his initiative in putting forward amendments that replicate the amendments that we are proposing. We are certainly happy to support the changes that he has put forward.

My amendments are focused on three key areas. The amendment to clause 2 will provide sufficient transition time to minimise disruption to the tertiary sector and services on campus. If, as we think is inevitable, the National Government supports this ACT Party bill, then the immediate consequence is that the sector and students will be at a significant disadvantage due to the short time window for transition and implementation. There is a very strong case to be made for increasing the lead-in time of the bill to minimise potential disruption. The amendment does not change the intent of the bill.

The second amendment establishes a new section requiring information to be provided by the institution to both prospective and enrolled students about any students association at that institution, for the purposes of informing those students of the services provided and of how to be a member.

We seek to create a new section 229CC, “Representation”. The bill as currently drafted places most of the control of student representation and advocacy in the hands of the tertiary education organisation. Students, the primary funders of student services, will be increasingly forced to shift funding from students associations to tertiary education organisations through student services levies. Students should have the right to effective and meaningful representation to ensure their voices are heard.

Finally, I thank the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations, Te Rōpū Ākonga o ngā Whare Wānanga o Aotearoa, for its persistent support and encouragement to do what is right for students. We share with it concerns about the negative impact that this bill will have on students, tertiary institutions, and the wider sector as services and facilities come under threat and important advocacy and representation on student issues are put at risk. We hope that these amendments will receive the support of the Committee, that they will improve the bill, that they will protect student choice, and that they may better ensure that services can continue.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Before I call the next member, I remind members that clause 2 is the commencement clause. Debate should be confined to issues related to the commencement date.

Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora.

It is great to be here debating this bill. I missed the beginning of the Committee of the whole House stage, with a new baby, all the way back in December, so I am glad that we managed to keep some of this bill alive to be able to debate it tonight. I had the great privilege of sitting on the Education and Science Committee to hear the hundreds of submissions on this bill. So I had a great insight into what will happen on 1 January 2012 when this legislation commences.

Tonight I think there is a whole host of arguments that need an airing and need to be put on the floor of this Chamber. I am looking forward to discussing some of the amendments I will seek to have passed tonight. Although the Greens will not support the bill as it currently stands, we think our amendments have a lot of merit and should be passed.

This bill, if it passes its third reading, will come into effect on 1 January 2012. When is that date? It is right after the 2011 election. What we are seeing is an agenda from that side of the Chamber to force through this bill and delay the negative impacts it will have on our students associations, our students, and our universities and polytechnics until after the election. People will cast their ballot, not knowing the impact of this bill. To be frank, although this bill is interesting and fascinating, it has been the domain of the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations, politicians, and lobbyists, and it has not reached the public. I think that if the public knew what would happen when this legislation commences on 1 January 2012, they might have a second thought when they are in the ballot booth.

This is a bad bill, plainly and simply. It is an extreme bill. It is simply an ideological solution in search of a problem. On the select committee I did not hear from anyone as to what the problem was that we were trying to fix. The ACT Party has somehow convinced the National members, who do not have to support the bill, to support it. Even at this late stage in the proceedings, those members do not have to support its passing.

Today we had the honour of having the Australian Prime Minister in our Chamber. Maybe we should have asked Prime Minister Gillard what we could learn from the Australian experience. When this legislation commences on 1 January 2012, we should take the lessons learnt from Australia, because we are not doing this in a vacuum. We have seen an experiment across the Ditch on what happens when we force a voluntary student membership model on to students associations. We should have asked Prime Minister Gillard why her Government is now changing the Australian legislation in order to find out whether we are likely to have to change our legislation after this legislation commences. We should have asked Prime Minister Gillard why Australia had to pour $120 million extra—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Commencement.

Thank you, Mr Chair—the commencement.

We have to ask why Australia had to pour $120 million extra into its tertiary sector after its legislation commenced. We should be asking that legitimate question, because I have not heard from the Government benches or from the Minister about what those members will do for a transition programme or how much extra money they will have to put into one, because our associations will suffer once this legislation commences.

I have a whole host of extra things to say. I have some great amendments that I look forward to speaking on. When this legislation commences, I say it will be bad news for New Zealand.

I am looking forward to the debate on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill commencement clause, and on when the bill should come into effect. I will raise three main points in favour of deferring the date upon which this bill comes into effect, the first of which is about the fiscal risk posed to the Government by this bill. This bill does not just have an impact on students. The impact it will have on students will flow on to tertiary institutions and flow on to the Government. I will explain that impact. It is one of the reasons why I think this bill needs to be delayed. Dealing with the flow-on impact of the decisions that will be made as a result of this bill will take longer than the 9 to 10 months in which this bill, effectively, allows for decisions to be made.

If students associations become completely voluntary and their ability to raise a compulsory levy—a universal levy—from students is removed, then universities, polytechnics, and other tertiary institutions will want to continue to provide many of the services that they currently provide. They will have to pay for those somehow, and they will have to pay for them either by increasing student fees or by finding the money from somewhere else. Should they choose the option of increasing student fees or levies, the flow-on impact will be more student loan borrowing. It will have a flow-on impact on student loan borrowing, which will flow into greater fiscal risk for the Crown, which will, ultimately, increase the cost of the student loan scheme.

I believe that this bill will increase the cost of the student loan scheme by more than the amount currently paid in the existing students association levies, because—as I intend to argue later on in the debate—I do not believe that tertiary institutions can provide for the same cost the services that students associations currently provide. It will cost the institutions more. That is the first argument. The first argument for deferring the commencement date is that even if we go ahead and make students associations voluntary, we need to make sure that all of the fiscal risks are adequately dealt with in implementing this law and that it has been sufficiently worked through.

The second issue, and I think it is quite a complex issue, relates to the assets that are currently held by students associations. In some cases students associations actually hold a significant number of assets—many millions of dollars’ worth in the case of one or two associations. If we pass this bill, which makes students association membership entirely voluntary, then the question of who is accountable for those assets, of who has the responsibility for, and the ownership of, those assets, becomes a very vexed issue. For example, the incumbent executives of an association may, ultimately, have total control of those assets without accountability back to the universal, wider membership base that they had.

I am talking about millions of dollars’ worth of assets. These issues will take some time to work through. I think we need to take some steps to protect those assets so that a small group of students do not end up capturing those shortly-to-become-voluntary membership organisations and, basically, asset-stripping them, which is a very real possibility. We could see a small number of people stripping assets out of students associations, and I think we need to avoid that. Once again, I say I am opposed to the bill, but if the bill is to be passed then we should take all the steps we need to, to ensure that it is passed responsibly. I do not think we can do that in the period of time that this commencement clause will allow.

The third point that I will raise concerns the matter of whether this bill is widely supported, and the question of whether the commencement date allows time for democracy to take its course. There is a general election on 26 November. The overwhelming majority of submitters to this bill, I am told by my colleagues on the Education and Science Committee, were opposed to it. Those people may choose to exercise their rights at the general election and vote against this current National-ACT Government. They may choose to elect a new Government, and that new Government should have the time, should it wish, to preserve the universal nature of students association membership. This bill, as it is at the moment, would require a new Government that wished to do that to push an amendment bill through all stages under urgency. That is not something that the National Government is unfamiliar with, but it is something that an incoming Labour Government would be less likely to wish to do. We actually believe in the democratic process of Parliament and in doing things properly.

💬 Jo Goodhew: Oh, so Labour has never operated under urgency?

We do not intend to rush a bill like this through after the next election when we return to Government. The New Zealand public are getting fed up with this Government already.

Those are the three main arguments that I have for deferring the commencement date of this legislation: we need to deal with the fiscal risks to the Government; we need to protect the many millions of dollars’ worth of assets that students associations currently hold; and we need to make sure that all New Zealanders are given the opportunity to have their voices heard.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can I just be clear: I am not resuming my call?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, no.

This is a new call?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): You are on your second call.

I am on my second call, so I am at liberty to seek the call again at the end of 5 minutes. Is that correct?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes. Any member can take up to four calls. You have had one.

I can have two consecutively. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman; I wanted to clarify that.

As the Committee is aware, but as people who have tuned in just recently may not be, we are debating clause 2, which is the commencement clause of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. This clause states simply that “This Act comes into force on 1 January 2012.” I would like to support the amendment in the name of Rahui Katene to substitute the words “1 January 2013”, but I consider that to be a lesser position than the one I would ultimately prefer. I had the privilege of sitting on the Education and Science Committee for some time when I had responsibility for that shadow portfolio, and I listened to many of the submitters who came before the select committee. The select committee also travelled around the country, listening to submitters, and it was under the good chairmanship of Allan Peachey that in fact the committee travelled to hear people. However, we come to the commencement date now, and the member’s bill states that it will come into force on 1 January 2012, when in her original version it was “1 year after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” But those words were struck out by the select committee, and we have the amendment that “This Act comes into force on 1 January 2012.”

There was not one submitter who came before the select committee, and whom I heard, who wanted this bill to commence at all, let alone on 1 January 2012. I understand there was one submitter, whom I did not hear personally—one submitter or one submission; I am not sure whether the submitter appeared in person—who supported the bill. I understand that Whitireia Community Polytechnic submitted that it was in favour of this legislation, and of making membership of students associations voluntary, because it had had a bitter and unpleasant experience of its particular students association. I cannot blame it for feeling bitter and unhappy about the way in which that students association conducted itself. But that is not the malaise that this bill is trying to address, and that it seeks to address from 1 January 2012. That is not a malaise that afflicts all students associations. To have one submitter, with a very particular objection to the way in which its students association was run, become the cause célèbre for this legislation that is now designed to commence on 1 January 2012, is insufficient cause for this Parliament to pass bad legislation.

So I support Rahui Katene’s amendment to push the date out to 2013, but as a lesser option, because there is no date that is appropriate for the introduction and enactment of this legislation. It is very poor legislation; it is derived from an ideological position for which there is no practical or pragmatic requirement. The date of 1 January 2012 will simply be the date on which a bad piece of legislation comes into effect. Not only is it bad legislation but it is legislation that nobody, or almost nobody, wants. Almost nobody wants it. My colleagues have detailed some of the potential pitfalls in relation to the enactment of this legislation, effective 1 January 2012. They have enunciated quite clearly some of the real dangers from the loss of ownership of assets built up over years from student fees.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am very pleased to take a call on the commencement clause. The reason is that sometimes the commencement clause might be seen as not particularly important, but when we are talking about the scale of change seen in this legislation, the clause in fact becomes critical. There is only one reason why a commencement clause with a date at the beginning of next year would be forced through, and it is that the massive changes that will occur in our tertiary institutions and students associations cannot be undone by future Governments. We sincerely hope that at the election this year this commencement clause will not matter because we will be in a position to revisit this issue. I am very grateful that our election will be held before 1 January 2012, so that we may have the opportunity to do that.

I do not think we should underestimate the scale of change that will be happening in the very short time period this commencement clause allows for. It is in that light that I congratulate my colleague Grant Robertson on his amendments to move the commencement date out, to allow for students associations to prepare for the scale of change that is coming. It is not just so much as preparing the students for what it will mean for them, but it is giving students associations the time to organise alternative methods of funding, if that is what they have to do. If they will need to go out and look for philanthropic donations to keep running some of these services that students have come to expect and to value, then a commencement date of 1 January 2012 simply does not allow for that—it simply does not allow for that. I believe that that is entirely deliberate.

I completely endorse what my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway said, that it is too late for our polytechs. They are not going to be able to survive, in terms of their students associations and their services. But for universities that provide much larger-scale services, and that have more students, etc., a commencement date that allowed more time for students associations to preserve those services would seem to be fair and reasonable if we wanted the preservation of those services. If we actually wanted those services to fall over, so that future Governments or future legislation could not reinstate those services because they had gone, and we could not get them back, then a commencement date that is very soon, such as the one found in this legislation, would be the path we would go down.

I ask the member in the chair, Heather Roy, why she will not allow students associations to have a longer time to prepare for this change, a longer time to try to save some of the services. I ask why she will not agree to a commencement date of even a year further out, as my colleague Grant Robertson proposed, in order to make sure that if this legislation goes through, these services will not be lost because of having such a short period of time in which to adapt. A commencement date at the very beginning of next year means that students associations will not have time to attempt to find alternative sources of funding for their services, to set up different arrangements, or to have democratic processes on campuses. Students associations could say that the Government has said they could not have compulsory membership, and perhaps they could set up some other kind of student cooperative or student funding mechanism, in order for their services to survive.

This issue is apparently some kind of great philosophical problem; the biggest problem facing New Zealand, which needs to be solved, is that we have compulsory student membership, despite the fact that, of course, students can opt out of that if they want to. I ask the member in the chair why she will not just give a commencement date in this legislation that allows for students associations to adapt, to preserve those services, and to find alternative sources of funding. I do not believe that that is an unreasonable request, unless our primary goal is to have those services fall over, so they can never come under the ambit of compulsory student membership again. It is no surprise that members on this side of the House feel very strongly about this issue. We feel very strongly about the preservation of those services.

I move, That the question be now put.