Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill

Give it time, Mr Chair; I have been here only a little while. I am very happy to talk about the purpose clause, clause 4, and clause 4A of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. Clause 4 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.” There is a huge amount of material. This is where we get down to the guts of whether this bill is desirable.

First of all, the question becomes, under the purpose clause, whether this bill is actually required—whether it is actually necessary. Its purpose is to uphold a student’s right to freedom of association. First of all, let us look at whether the provisions in the current Act infringe on a student’s right to freedom of association. I put forward a pretty compelling case that in fact they do not, and that they do not compel students to associate. One could mount a convincing case—and I am sure that one of my colleagues will do so further down the track—that being a member of a wider collective body such as a students association, even if someone has to be a member, does not actually infringe on a student’s right to freedom of association. This is in much the same way that the compulsion for me to pay taxes to the Government does not infringe on my rights to freedom of association either. We will address that argument as we get further down the track.

But the question that I will turn my attention to particularly at the moment is whether students have no option other than to join a students association as the law currently stands. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that that is the case; in fact it is definitely not the case. Under the law passed by the then National Government in the late 1990s, stewarded through the House by Tau Henare, who was at the time a member of New Zealand First, and supported by people such as Deborah Morris, in order for there to be universal membership of a students association all of the students at that institution had to participate in a vote to say they wanted there to be universal membership of that students association. Those votes took place at the beginning of 1999, and only two university students associations opted for voluntary membership: the Waikato Student Union, which was already voluntary—and in a subsequent referendum there, students opted to go back to a universal system of membership—and the Auckland University Students Association. Those were the two voluntary ones.

At all of the other universities—and we will talk about polytechs and institutes of technology shortly—all of the students voted in quite large numbers to retain a universal system of membership. At Victoria University, where I was a student at the time, from memory about 78 percent of those who voted in the referendum voted to retain a universal system of membership. One of the arguments put forward by those in favour of voluntary membership is that those who vote in students association - related activities are a small number and are not representative of the wider student population. In fact, more than half of all of the students who were enrolled at Victoria University voted in that referendum on whether there should be a universal system of membership for the association, and 78 percent voted in favour of having that.

There is a provision within the Act that if students become dissatisfied with their association having a universal system of membership, they can call another referendum and they can make the membership voluntary. They have that ability at the moment. Having watched the Victoria University students association in the last 3 or 4 years, I think there were probably a few instances where many students may have felt compelled to call such a referendum, because I do not think the behaviour of some of the elected representatives at the Victoria University students association in the last few years has been particularly acceptable. Actually, one of the disciplines that the referendum option puts on students associations is that if they become unresponsive to their members, if they lose touch with what their members want, then they know that the members can take away their ability to continue to levy them and can remove that universal membership provision.

That is already there under the current Act, and it was an Act passed by a National Government. National’s position, going into the last election, was that it would not change that. Paul Hutchison went around the country saying National would not change this legislation. This is another broken promise from National—a bit like its promise not to increase GST. National members promised that they would not touch this legislation, but they bowed to the pressure from the ACT Party to do just that. That is the second point that I raise.

The third point that I will raise, given all of those arguments, is whether, if there is a universal system of membership at a students association, there is an ability to opt out. If a student feels so strongly offended by the notion that they are associated with the students association at their institution—polytech, university, or otherwise—can they opt out? Under the current law yes, they can opt out. So to say that the current law infringes a student’s right to freedom of association simply is not true; a student can opt out now. I would say to Heather Roy, the member in charge of this bill, that those provisions could actually be strengthened. There is a legitimate cause to say that under the old law that existed before the current law, it was almost impossible to opt out of a students association, and one of the changes that happened in the late 1990s was that the provisions were strengthened somewhat. I think they could actually be strengthened a bit more, without going the whole hog and having totally voluntary student membership. In some cases individual students clearly do not want to be members of an association, and they could opt out.

The difficulty that I have with this bill is that it goes all the way to the other extreme and makes it almost impossible to have a large-scale students association at a tertiary institution that is largely reflective of the composition of the students at that institution. I think that a students association without the ability to claim representative status will have all of the good work that it does eroded. Many of the things that students associations do simply do not get noticed, and the associations will not be able to do them under a voluntary regime.

Another one of the arguments put forward by the proponents of voluntary membership is that some students, particularly those involved in activism on political issues such as voluntary student membership, typically come from a right-wing perspective, whereas a students association would be arguing, in the old-fashioned terms, from a more progressive left-wing perspective. Those students would say that a students association does not represent them and ask why they should have to join that association. I think that argument is a red herring. First of all, those students can participate in the process, and if they can get themselves elected to the students association executive they can change the policy of that association. Students associations actually operate on a very democratic basis; it is not hard to call a general meeting. It is not hard to get elected to a students association executive; I managed to do it four times—

💬 Moana Mackey: So humble.

I know. It is not hard to do that.

Of course, the candidates who put up the argument that they do not agree with the politics of the students association never manage to get themselves elected, because students actually largely believe in the position put forward by students associations. It is a position that is supported by the majority of students at the institutions, and that is reflected in the fact that they vote for the executive and for people who espouse those views. When I was the president of the Victoria University students association we did surveys to get students’ views on things—and I am not talking about small-scale surveys; I am talking about surveys of large chunks of the campus population—to make sure that the views we were putting forward on students’ behalf actually represented what they thought. Overwhelmingly they favoured the arguments that we put forward around lower-cost access to education and so on.

We know that the National Government does not like the arguments put forward by many students associations, because it made all sorts of promises up and down the country that it does not intend to keep. I remember a very famous promise that students associations have continued to remind this Government about: the promise made by the then National spokesperson on education to abolish student fees altogether. That was made in 1990 by National’s then spokesperson on education, Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith, who went up and down the country and signed his name on those pledges at every students association in the country. The students associations got him to pledge to do that, and they continue to remind him time and time again that he broke that promise and that they are now paying much, much higher fees, increasingly so every year.

Students associations have played an important role in keeping both National and Labour Governments honest. I was the president of the students association at Victoria University when the previous Labour Government was elected to office. It would be fair to say that we did a little bit to try to keep that Government honest and to push for policies that advanced student interests further than that Government might have been willing to go. It is good for us that the previous Labour Government respected the position of students associations, even though it did not necessarily agree with what we were arguing for. It was unlike the current National Government, which would prefer to do away with students associations altogether, rather than to listen to the position that they put forward on behalf of their members.

Kia ora. It is good to be part of the third largest party in Parliament and to take a call on this very important bill, the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill—I am losing a bit of weight from jumping up and down constantly. I will put my cards on the table. I have never been a student politician. Unlike Mr Lees-Galloway or Mr Hipkins, I have never been a student executive member or president, but I still have some important views that I want to pass on about what we are doing tonight.

The whole purpose of the bill, the whole crux of the debate, is freedom of association. I want to touch on what this bill is amending, which is the Education Act. I want to bring forward the principles of that Act, which are about building a smart and prosperous economy. This is what every single member in this Chamber wants to build for our country. It is about informing Kiwi citizens and Kiwi kids as they grow up, and also about being a critic for our Parliament and our society. Our Government has made a whole host of changes in this sector over the last 2 years, which have made tertiary education less accessible, less affordable, and for those students who cannot go to university because there are not enough places, downright impossible. It is dumb economically, and it is not part of the step change for building a smart, prosperous economy. Why are we amending this Act in the name of freedom of association? Why are we being such an outlier? I am looking at information about students associations from the Ministry of Education, which states the countries that have voluntary student membership—Australia. We know that Australia is changing, because voluntary student membership just has not worked. Which countries have compulsory student membership? I can see the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway—a whole list of other countries. Why are we doing it in the name of freedom of association?

The basis is a fundamentally flawed argument. We are talking about one narrow-minded, ideological interpretation of what freedom of association is. We are talking about students’ freedom of association, but we have not talked about what students want. Luckily, a UMR Insight poll of the general public has found that 77 percent of respondents support students having the choice. Only 16 percent support the Government having the choice, and 6 percent had no view. The clear message from students is that they want the choice. The irony of this bill is the ACT Party, supported by National, is taking away students’ choice to organise themselves. The real reason, of course, is that the tiny, ideological minority, ACT on Campus and Student Choice, could not get a few members to form a petition. They could not get the 10 percent needed for their members to argue with their student body.

We are amending section 229A of the Education Act, which shows that freedom of association is still provided for under the current status quo, which I call the compromise agreement, reached more than 10 years ago, and is the current environment we exist in. Currently, students can opt out. No one is compelling a student to join a students association. I would like to point out and put it on the table now that frankly some of the comments from ACT on Campus about sexual violence have been quite tasteless—

💬 Sue Moroney: And a disgrace.

—and a disgrace. They are the worst examples of the arguments for this bill. Currently, section 229A(6) of the Education Act gives students the opportunity to opt out. Section 229A(5) also gives students the opportunity to be exempt from paying membership fees, on the grounds of hardship. The fact is their freedom of association is currently protected.

We know that students associations are not like the crochet club, they are not like a political party, and they are not like a union. Students associations are their own unique body, more akin to a council or a nation, in the sense that members come together, pay their taxes, and have a democratic say. This bill is trying to protect freedom of association, but instead it is doing the exact opposite and taking away students’ choices. I think one submission, of the thousands we saw at the select committee, deserves to be read again, and if I can seek leave to table it I would ask members opposite to read it. It is the Human Rights Commission report. I think when we look at the conclusion, it says plainly and simply that the purpose of the amendment is not achieved through this bill. The Human Rights Commission, in its submission, said that the commission considered that sections 229—

It gives me a lot of pleasure to speak to the purpose clause of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. We actually have something to discuss here, rather than hearing the delaying tactics that the Opposition have engaged in on the last two clauses, and during the rest of the part of the day that we have just had. The purpose clause is very clear: “The purpose of this Act is to uphold students’ rights to freedom of association,”—and that is the crux of the matter—“by removing any requirement for students to join students associations.”

There have been all sorts of discussions about freedom of association and whether it exists on campuses. Opposition members clearly think it already exists. They talk a lot about the provisions in the Education Act, as it stands at the moment, that refer to an opt-out provision. But, to be frank, the opt-out provision is a farce, and nothing more than that. It is a farce—not because it is not spelt out in the Act; it clearly is, as people are saying. It is a farce because students associations over a large number of years now have steadfastly ignored what should have been a right. They have not taken the opt-out provision seriously. They have refused, in many cases, to even engage with students when they ask to opt out. They have refused to engage with students when the fee is to be given to a charity. The students association gets to choose the fee, not the students themselves.

Despite the fact that over time—

💬 Hon Maryan Street: Change that bit. Don’t destroy the whole thing.

The member clearly has not listened to this part of the debate, because over time things have been strengthened and not capped at all. We are in favour now of having true freedom of association for students. Why are students the only sector in our community that is immune from freedom of association? In the workplace in 1993 compulsory unionism was abandoned. Of course unions are the funders of that side of the Chamber. But guess what? The sky did not fall in.

It is saddening to sit here and listen to former presidents of students associations—Hipkins and Lees-Galloway. Unfortunately, the Hon Darren Hughes, as he said, did not quite make those lofty heights, although I seem to recall, from campaigning, that there was a role with a student council at Horowhenua College. Would that be right? Did he join voluntarily, or was he compelled to be a member?

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I was drafted by the people; I had no choice.

There we go. Did he put his hand up to do it? I suspect so. But it is saddening that these former presidents of students associations do not have any confidence in what the students associations currently provide, because they have already conceded there will be devastation when this bill passes. What it will do is prevent students associations from being the focus. It will be about the rights of individual students to choose what organisations they wish, or do not wish, to belong to. Freedom of association is about the right to associate with any organisation one wishes, and what goes with that right is the right to dissociate from any organisation that one wishes. That is true freedom of association, and for too long students have had the right to real freedom of association taken away from them. As things currently stand, students cannot study at a tertiary institution if they do not join a union. They get to choose the tertiary institution to study at, but they cannot study there if they do not join a union. That, in this day and age, is completely wrong.

The purpose of this bill is very clear. It is about allowing students, the only group in society now that does not have this right, to have real freedom of association.

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.

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.

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.”

The purpose of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is completely incorrect in terms of what its outcomes will be. It 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.” In other words, the bill makes it compulsory for students to have voluntary student membership of their students associations.

I look forward to debating the purpose of this bill, not only here in this Chamber but also out on the streets during the general election in Hamilton. I will be contesting the seat for Hamilton West against Tim Macindoe, and I know that the students at Wintec will be very concerned about the passage of this bill. They will know that Tim Macindoe voted to take away their freedom to decide whether they have a students association on their campus. They will know that Tim Macindoe has said that students cannot make this decision for themselves and that the Government will dictate to them that they cannot have a vibrant students association on their campus.

On the other side of the river Sehai Orgad, Labour’s candidate for Hamilton East, will be thrilled to debate with David Bennett the purpose of this bill, because the students at Waikato University know what it means to have a voluntary union. They know that the purpose stated in this bill does not match what the outcome will be. When the Waikato Student Union went voluntary—voluntarily—in 1996, it was asset-stripped, and it had no infrastructure left at the end of that process.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: That sounds familiar.

It does sound familiar; it sounds like John Key’s plan for the entire country. It happened at Waikato University. I will go through a few of the facts, because a very, very fine submission was put forward by the Waikato Student Union. It told us that in 1996 it had membership levy revenue of $730,593. That is what it was collecting in student levies, which meant it could have a very robust organisation. In 1997 that revenue fell to $593,000, and that was before it even went to voluntary student membership. In 1998, the first year of voluntary membership for the Waikato Student Union, its membership levy revenue fell to $23,253.

One can see the immediate impact that this bill will have on the voice of students right throughout this land. It will be forced on them; it will not be voluntary. The students of Waikato volunteered to make that decision, and they realised after 3 or 4 years that they had got it badly wrong. They had a vote and decided to become compulsory again, because they knew what the impact had been. They lost their student representation on the university council at Waikato University. They lost all of the assets that many generations of students had saved up for, including student radio, campus movies, and a whole range of other things, which they will never ever get back. The radio station they had and the frequency they broadcast on have been sold for ever, and they will never get that frequency back. The Waikato Student Union also made all of its staff redundant, so it had no one in a paid position who could provide professional advocacy for students on the issues they faced.

In the second year of voluntary membership the union’s membership levy revenue fell to just $3,442. For goodness’ sake, the local bridge club would operate on more money than that every year, and any other club—

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: The stamp collectors.

It would cost the stamp collectors more than that to operate their club. The entire student membership levy revenue fell to $3,442, and I think at that stage students realised that they had made a bad mistake. The final year of voluntary student membership was in 2000. They returned to universal membership in 2001. They voluntarily and collectively made a decision, because they could.

I will speak on the purpose clause of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I believe that the purpose clause will have a very chilling effect on student government for tertiary institutes in New Zealand. Effectively, the Committee of the whole House is being asked to legislate over the top of rights that students currently enjoy and that have existed for them in law for the last 12 or 13 years, because some members of Parliament have decided they do not like what students associations do. Those members have a chilling agenda to try to stop the ability for students associations to advocate for students across our tertiary institutes in New Zealand, and to take away from students the rights they currently enjoy to change any aspect of student government.

The purpose of the bill is not the words written in the purpose clause of the bill. The real purpose of the bill is, firstly, about adopting and pursuing a right-wing agenda to try to end student government and make it a far less effective force in New Zealand, and, secondly—on a more personal level—about being nice to Heather Roy. The National Party members, like many Labour Party members, believe she was treated absolutely shoddily by the ACT Party and the bullies in that organisation. When this bill was in the name of Roger Douglas, the National Party MPs were totally dismissive of it. They thought it was a step too far. They thought some changes could be made to the current legislation—and Labour and Green members have been open about debating that aspect of it, but we do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater—but after seeing the way Heather Roy was treated last year by the blokes in the ACT Party, all of a sudden the National Party decided to be nice to Heather by supporting her bill to undermine and try to end student government at tertiary institutes around New Zealand.

Heather Roy is a nice woman, but she is not so nice that she should be the person responsible for getting rid of student government at tertiary institutes across the country just to make her feel better. We will take her for coffee; we will buy her a glass of wine. We will do whatever she likes. We will all sit around and say how much we think Rodney Hide is a terrible person. We will join in on that.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: “Kumbaya”.

Mr Mallard suggests we could sing “Kumbaya”. That is all fine; we will do that. But to make the member feel better by supporting this law, whose purpose clause undermines student government across our tertiary institutes, is just plain wrong.

I ask the member in charge of the bill some questions. I ask her whether she believes, in her heart of hearts, that the kinds of services that all students get to enjoy now, which have been built up over 100 years of fully participative student government across our universities and polytechs, would exist if her bill had been law 100 years ago.

💬 Hon Heather Roy: It’s hard to predict.

She has such faith in her legislation! Of course, the answer to my question is no. Generations and generations of students in polytechs and universities have benefited from the work of students associations that have been built up due to the fact that everybody is part of them. For a number of years students all had to belong to a students association—no question about it. But since the 1990s they have not all had to belong to a students association. Students have had the ability to trigger referenda, as other colleagues have said. They can vote on the issue—I will come back to that point. Students have had the ability to object to being a member of a students association and to not participate if they object to being a member. That ability is in the legislation.

On both of those areas there is room for debate. Grant Robertson has put forward amendments to try to find a common ground, certainly with ACT and more latterly with National as it changes its position. For a while, National honoured its election commitment not to bring in or support legislation like this bill, but it has forgotten about those commitments.

All it takes is 10 percent of students to trigger the referendum in order to pursue the sorts of things Mrs Roy tells us are important to her. Ten percent is not much. Admittedly, I know that 5 percent feels like a mountain to the ACT Party at the moment. I can see that ACT members might look at that 10 percent figure and think it is almost mission impossible.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Especially with Rodney leading them.

Let us not be mean about Rodney; let us leave that to the people of Epsom. I think that getting 10 percent of students to sign a referendum is not difficult, at all. In our tertiary institutes students already have the ability to choose. That choice is what this bill is taking away.

In a weird, back to front way this National-ACT Government is putting its nanny State political views on to students. It wants to try to destroy student government. It cannot come out and just ban it, because World War II was about that kind of thing, so instead it will put in place every possible impediment to student government being a success. I think that is plain wrong. The purpose clause of the bill should reflect the real desire of the right-wing rabble. Helpfully for the Committee I have put forward three amendments to the purpose clause.

Darren Hughes really hit the nail on the head. The real purpose of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is very, very clear. The purpose is to suppress the student voice, suppress student activism, suppress student politics, and kill off student life so that when the National Government—next year, if it is re-elected—rolls out its next round of anti-student, anti-democratic cuts, such as removing the clause on interest-free student loans, there will be no students left to protest and demonstrate against it. That is what this bill is about. It is about trying to suppress democracy and kill off student politics so that when the Government rolls out some of its awful policies, there will be no students left to demonstrate against them.

Like others in this Chamber, I was a member of the student executive of Victoria University; I was a member for 2 years. It was the most politicising experience of my life. But that is what the Government does not want. It does not want to have a student executive that politicises people. I got on to the executive as a rather naive young woman of 18, and I became quickly radicalised. We had marches on Parliament—of course, in those days it was a political place—and we had anti - Viet Nam protests. It was very exciting. It was certainly the highlight of my days at Victoria University, and it radicalised me. That is what the bill is intended to suppress. Admittedly, some student unions are not very political at the moment, but they have the potential to become so. The Government wants to kill off that voice and suppress student life so there will be no one left. Like getting rid of all those councils in Auckland and like getting rid of Environment Canterbury, it is just another way of suppressing democracy and suppressing dissent in New Zealand.

Students are extremely poor, so if they are given a choice whether to pay voluntarily to join the student union, the chances are they will not. They would probably rather spend the money on a keg of beer or on paying for their accommodation. When this bill goes through, the student union will slowly wither away—like the Communist State—and with it student life and many of those wonderful services that student unions provide: the student gym, health services, student representatives on the university councils, and all of those things. Those things are integral to student life, are part of the whole campus, and give the campus vibrancy, but will slowly disappear.

I remember going to Victoria University in the 1990s at the height of Rogernomics. I went around the campus and it was as dead as a dodo. I did an interview for a magazine, and there was nothing. The only club that really had any members was the tramping club. There was nothing else. It was just awful. People said it was boring, it was dull, and there was no student life. That was the effect under Rogernomics. That is what will happen again under this legislation. Mr Hughes talked about the chilling effect that will happen on our campuses. There will be no one left to protest against the appalling policies that the Government has on the back-burner, ready to roll out after the next election.

There is no need for the bill. As others have said, there is already freedom of association. Students can have a referendum, but they do not want the bill. It is yet another example of the Government bulldozing through its changes and refusing to listen to people, particularly to the students. It is causing cynicism and alienation amongst New Zealanders that a Government is successively ignoring the wishes of the people—87 percent of students do not want this bill. Students want a student union. They do not want the bill. They do not want this so-called freedom of association bill.

I move, That the question be now put.

There are a number of proposed amendments to clause 4, the purpose clause. Before I address them I really must come back to some of the comments the member in the chair made. She told us when she took the opportunity to speak on the clause that for her it all hangs on the ability of students to opt out of students associations. As a former students association president, I have to say again—as Chris Hipkins said—that I have some sympathy for that position. I think the situation is currently a little bit nebulous and that there is some opportunity for students associations to shirk their responsibilities. Students associations came to the select committee on the bill and said they were prepared to work on it and were prepared to look at some options. In fact, really, if the purpose of the bill, which is stated in clause 4, is to “uphold students’ rights to freedom of association, by removing any requirement for students to join students associations.”, then that is all we would need to do. That is the one amendment, the one change, we would have to make to the principal Act to achieve the purpose in clause 4. But the fact is, as we all know, that is not actually the purpose of the bill. The purpose is to kill off students associations.

How will the bill achieve that? An issue that I do not think has been addressed much—or at least the reason why there is so much concern from this side of the Chamber that has not been addressed exactly—is that students are faced with their course fees and tuition fees, then further down the list there will be a student services levy, and then further down the list there will be various other fees. If at the bottom of that list there is an optional fee for a students association that they have never heard of, they do not know what it does, they have no material to understand what it does, and they do not understand the benefits of being a member of, they will say they are paying so much already that they will save themselves $100, $200, or whatever it is the students association is asking for. They will opt out of it. They will say no thank you very much. They will arrive at the university and they may or may not then discover that they would have preferred to be a member of the students association.

I can say I would have been one of those students. I was not particularly impressed when I saw the part of my invoice that stated that I was paying for a students association, because I did not know what a students association was. I did not come from a family—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s because you came from King’s College.

That is right; the member hit the nail on the head. That is exactly why I did not know what a students association was. I needed to learn a few things. In fact, Massey University had its referendum. Ten percent of the students at Massey managed to sign a petition—the university managed to get more signatures than the ACT Party is able to get in an election—and it had a referendum. By the time the university had the referendum, I had changed my view, because I had had an opportunity to see what the students association did. I was particularly fond of the extremely low gym fees, but I enjoyed orientation as well and I quite liked the paper. I did not often listen to the radio station, but I certainly was aware of the advocacy service and I thought maybe some day I might want to use it. That was a long time before I became involved in the students association. That is exactly the response that students right across the country have.

Going back to the purpose of the bill, which states that it is to “uphold students’ rights”, if it was upholding students’ rights, then this would have been a change that there would have been an outpouring of emotion for. There would have been petitions and letters to parliamentarians, and there would have been a huge campaign for students to have the change, but there was not, because people actually respect and understand what students associations do. The purpose of the bill is to pander to a very, very narrow, small section of the student population at the expense of the bulk of the students associations. It is something for the few, at the expense of the many—the vast majority of students on campus. That is the actual purpose of the bill. Students associations do a lot of good for their students, but the member in the chair seems to want to overlook that completely.

We have a number of amendments to clause 4.

Listening to the debate on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill I get the feeling that it is basically an ideology looking for a problem. In a sense, it is not really a problem; it is simply an ideology that is trying to create or manufacture a problem in order to change legislation that at the moment is working particularly well.

When it comes to the purpose of the bill—and I will address it specifically—I think the member who put forward the bill, Heather Roy, has characterised the problem wrongly. She kept calling the students associations unions, as she might refer to a union such as the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union or the Service and Food Workers Union. Students associations are simply not that sort of organisation. Students associations are not like those kinds of organisations; they are associations that have two basic fundamental roles.

The first role is financial. A number of members spoke earlier about this issue. If the finances are not paid, then the resources that students enjoy at the moment will not be available to them. The services they have at the moment will not be available to them. Iain Lees-Galloway brought up an interesting point that in a sense there is a tipping point. If everybody contributes, a range of services are available, whether or not they use them. As soon as those services start withering away, the ability to understand the importance of those services for students associations starts to diminish. In a sense, it is then a self-fulfilling prophecy that the students associations will wither and die. That point is extremely important.

The second role is representational. I was not part of the students association or one of the elected officials at university. In fact, I found them to be pretty dull, to be perfectly honest. I was much more enamoured with the gym, the orientation, the fact that I could go to a health service, the fact that I had an advocacy service, and the fact that I had a newspaper. All of those other services attracted me to the university. But also I had a students association that was able to go out and represent me and my interests at a higher level. I did not necessarily always agree with the students association, but nevertheless it represented the body of students.

I think this comes to the crux of the mistake that Heather Roy has made in interpreting the purpose of the legislation—that is, students associations are not unions; they are associations. We pay a tax or a levy for services we enjoy and if we do not pay that levy—if we all do not pay that levy—then the services deteriorate to a point where we actually do not get any value out of them. The example of the University of Waikato was brought up. A $700,000 budget went down to a $3,000 budget. A $3,000 budget can provide an absolutely insignificant degree of service. Nobody understands its value, and therefore students will not opt to contribute to it any further.

The conceptualisation of the bill is completely wrong. Even if I am generous and accept that the ACT Party has the conceptualisation wrong, I still believe that it is really about politics and ideology before it is about the welfare of students. It is not about the freedom of students; it is about the ideology of the ACT Party, and it is more about Heather Roy existing after she was ousted from her ministerial portfolio. I very clearly remember her saying on the Close Up television programme that she was really looking forward to getting into this particular bill because that was the end of her life as a Minister. That is the reason we are here arguing this matter today.

I know for a fact that National was willing to consider some compromises over the legislation that would have ensured that it endured beyond another Labour Government. As soon as another Labour Government comes in, this legislation will be gone.

This bill is a piece of ideology. It is a piece of politics. It is looking for an issue, a problem, that simply is not there. It is simply not in existence. As a result of that, the real losers from this bill will be students, who will lose their students association.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am pleased to take a call on this bill, this unfortunate bill that seeks to undermine a system that has worked very well for a very long time. I have had the occasional pleasure and occasional pain of studying and teaching at three institutions—at two universities and a polytech—and I have observed at firsthand that students associations have been a fundamental touchstone and a significant base, ensuring a good experience for students in our tertiary institutions. This bill will diminish that. This bill undoubtedly will reduce and diminish the quality of the student experience in our tertiary institutions.

The alleged purpose of this bill, which is to uphold students’ rights to freedom of association, is a fairly dubious proposition, but in seeking to protect students’ rights, allegedly, what it will actually do is reduce the likelihood of students getting a good educational experience while they are enrolled at a tertiary institute. The almost certain unintended consequence, as I have said, is the diminishment, the degradation, of that critical experience. It is a life-forming experience, not only in terms of students—young people and not-so-young people—gaining a tertiary qualification but also in terms of their gaining experience, refreshing their attitudes, and understanding world views. The richness of a tertiary education will be undermined by some of the elements of this bill, if this unfortunate bill is passed.

We have heard a great deal this evening about the negative impact on students, and that is entirely appropriate because it will be very real and will be felt by students, but the institutions equally have cause to be worried if this bill is passed. Clearly, the institutions rely on funding to survive and thrive, and part of that funding has a student achievement component. We know that institutions can lose funding if they do not get sufficient pass rates—if students do not stay engaged and enrolled in the courses that they begin. Eight institutions are suffering funding cuts this year because they have failed to meet the standards imposed by the student achievement component of the overall funding of the tertiary sector.

There are three ways in which we can endeavour to retain students and thereby protect the income of the institutions. Clearly, the academics have a key role in ensuring that students remain engaged, have a positive experience, and stay within the sector. Academics are now struggling with the demands of the Performance-based Research Fund, the obligation to research—to publish or perish—even if that research often does not serve any particular practical end. At the same time that academics have been obliged to do more research, they are also experiencing increased teaching loads. In my experience, all academics—and I have talked to a lot of them—are finding that they have an increased demand to teach more. They are having to spend more time in front of students, as well as having to deal with more expectation of research.

Academics are also being obliged to undertake administrative tasks, because the general, or non-academic, staff at the institutions have had the axe taken to them in recent years, as well. The whole sector is creaking. It is under stress. This misguided legislation, with the likelihood that it will diminish the student experience and reduce the likelihood of students staying engaged with their studies, is also likely to lead to a reduction in funding for the institutions. After all, who else does that leave? The academics have no capacity to engage with their students at a higher level than they are now doing. They are facing larger classes, more research requirements, and more academic expectation. They have no capacity to provide that one-on-one support that can, and often does, make the difference between a student succeeding, and completing a degree or a course, or not succeeding. The general staff do not have that capacity, either.

We must not forget that the general staff are critical in the student experience, and do a great deal of often unrewarded and unrecognised work in terms of protecting student interests. Effectively, that leaves the students associations, which have a long history and, dare I say it, a very proud history of providing the range of services and experiences to students that keeps them engaged and increases the likelihood of their success.

I was not planning to take a call tonight on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, but I heard the member in the chair, Heather Roy, speak a little earlier and it sparked something in me that caused me to want to make some comments. It was the comment she made on the issue of coercion.

In Heather Roy’s view, students are being coerced to pay funding that they do not want to pay. My mind was taken back to last year and the difficulties within the ACT Party, which saw that member go home for a couple of days and then reappear at a press conference, sitting very uncomfortably alongside the leader of the ACT Party. She was being asked to confirm whether she was really happy to be sitting there alongside that member, and I guess effectively she was being forced to say through gritted teeth that she was. If ever I thought that I had seen an element of coercion going on, it was watching that coverage that night. I felt for that member at the time, because I think she is a good, decent, and honourable member, but if ever I thought that there was coercion going on, I saw it on my television screen that night.

When we talk about freedom of association, I think we also have to acknowledge that where there is a balancing of rights, it comes between the rights of individuals and the rights of the collective, but it is not simply an issue of the rights of individuals über alles. I think people will generally acknowledge that, collectively, they can gain things if they work together, if they come together, and if they pool resources together. If we want an example of that within our economy, we could look at Fonterra, which is effectively a collective where people come together and pool their resources. Collectively, that company is a $10 billion export company and is upheld as an example by some members opposite, even though it might sometimes seem a little bit too collective and maybe even—to use the “s” word—socialist in its intent. It actually works well in the best interests of its members, and it works extraordinarily well in the interests of New Zealand.

We can put up against that the issues of narrow self-interest that I think this bill represents in respect of a handful of people with connections to the ACT Party who say that they do not want to fund any of the activities of students associations but would rather look after themselves. Well, that is all very well, but obviously students have the option already in existing legislation. If they want to, they can force a referendum—although that does not seem to be happening on much of a basis—and therefore that mechanism provides them with some protections.

I know the realities of what students associations can provide, because I spent 8 years as a member of the council of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology. I sat on the council of a small polytechnic straddling across the two provinces of Marlborough and Nelson. The students association had to provide services across about 2,500 equivalent full-time students, or “EFTS”. Many of those people were part-time students. There were lots of sole parents—mums coming back and doing some training part-time. There were lots of short, seasonal-type courses. There was not that much in the way of degree courses. Often people were there for only 6 months or a year on a diploma course or a foundation course. Usually, 2 years at most was the time that people spent there. But those students needed access to services. They needed to know that if they had a health issue they could go to a subsidised doctor service. They needed to know that if they had issues with sexual health there was somebody who could provide them with those kinds of services. Those services came through the student association.

I ask a question of members opposite, who have indicated they will support this bill. If we look at the current pressure upon the tertiary sector for educational funding, we are told there are no spare dollars currently available for any services across the whole panoply of Government. Yet here we are, by inherently suggesting that by doing away with the current compulsory regime with the option for referenda, effectively we are likely to see this bill used in one or two instances, I suspect, to try to force those votes and disestablish students associations. What does that mean? Does that mean that in these very difficult financial times we will see student services close down? If that is the situation, what will it mean? Will it mean, in fact, that the Government will have to stump up and provide extra resources, because students simply will need to have access to those provided services in terms of things like Student Job Search, student health services, and the like?

I think one other important point to recognise is that students associations often give young people their first taste of democracy. It can often be the first time they have stood for a representative body.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This amendment you read out is in my name, but the amendment I submitted referred to omitting the words that you mentioned, and substituting the words “remove the right of students to decide whether or not their student association membership is compulsory, by not providing for referenda provisions.” You said just now “decisions”, and I want to know whether my amendment has been changed.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): No, it has not.

Did you misspeak?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I did not misspeak.

Did I mishear?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member did not mishear. I summarised, and in contracting the amendment to its very essence, I may not have used the same words, just like the member when reading it out. I was just making sure; I could simply have said “a typescript amendment in the name of Darren Hughes”, and left it at that. But people would have wondered which one it was, so I gave a brief descriptor so that members were aware which one it was. You have now clarified it. Is everybody clear?

💬 Hon Members: Yes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): No offence has been taken? The member is quite happy to support his own amendment? All right, we will put the question.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Darren Hughes to clause 4 be agreed to:

to omit “uphold students’ rights to freedom of association, by removing any requirement for students to join students associations” and substitute “remove the right of students to decide whether or not their student association membership is compulsory, by not providing for referenda provisions”.