Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill

Obviously I had not made it very far into my contribution when we were last considering this bill. Clause 4A goes to the heart of one of the questions that members on this side of the Chamber have about this bill. The member in charge of this bill, Heather Roy, said that she does not want to see the end of students associations, and that her intention is not to destroy students associations. But clause 4A amends the principal Act to delete any reference to students associations on the tertiary institutes’ councils. The original section that it deletes, section 171(2)(e), refers to having students on the council “in the case of an institution at which membership of a students association is compulsory, in accordance with the constitution or rules of the association;”. Obviously, this bill changes the compulsory nature of it. There is absolutely no need whatsoever to remove any reference to students associations.

So I speak in support of the amendment proposed by Grant Robertson, which is to replace the current clause 4A with wording that includes “(i) following an election (conducted in accordance with statutes made by council) by the students at the institution where no student association exists at the institution; or (ii) by a student association where such an association exists at the institution:”. That clause seems to sit perfectly reasonably with the intention of the bill, if the intention of the bill is not to see the end of student associations.

I think the problem with the way the clause is worded at the moment is that it is quite inflexible in dealing with the way in which different student associations might be structured at different universities and polytechnics, and with the way they might operate. I will use the example of the student representation on the Massey University Council, because at Massey University a number of students associations represent its different campuses and its extramural students. Students have three representatives on the university council, and they use their right to appoint people to the university council to ensure there is adequate representation of internal students, extramural students, and Māori students. That approach to representation on the council has been student-directed; it has been decided by students and it can be changed by students because students have control over the way they are represented on that council.

But the current wording of the bill we are looking at says that all that power to decide the way in which students will be represented on the council would sit with the institution itself. So the university, the polytechnic, the wānanga, or the private training establishment—whichever organisation we are talking about—would have the decision-making power about the way in which students would be represented on that institution’s council.

The whole point of having student representation on those councils is to ensure that there is a student voice at the highest decision-making body at those institutions. That is completely undermined by the way the bill is written at the moment, because students would not be able to decide the process by which they decide who represents them. That decision would sit solely with the institution itself. I suppose the member in the chair might make the argument that students on the council could have a say in that.

I am pleased to take my first call on clause 4A. I will carry on from where my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway, in his impromptu address, just finished. There is both good and bad in what is happening here with clause 4A. The good is that the Education and Science Committee recognised that there was now a gap in relation to student representation on councils. The select committee realised that there needed to be a specific clause that would continue to facilitate students being represented on councils. So in that sense, it is a good thing that the select committee has brought forward this issue. However, the solution proposed in clause 4A cuts to the heart of the problem of the whole bill—that is, the loss of student control of student affairs. We have been over this issue a number of times in the earlier readings in this debate. At the heart of one of the major objections that this side of the Chamber has to this bill is the fact that students, who for generations now have had some control of the way in which affairs are administered at the institution they are studying at, are losing that control. We will come to the next clause in the bill later, in which we will talk about how that plays out in terms of the collection of fees, and so on.

This clause is about something quite fundamental: the representation of students on tertiary institution councils. It is a vital role about which the select committee heard that institutional representatives really value having on tertiary councils students who can represent student views, and who they know have been through some process themselves of being elected. Those students are there on a representative basis to provide a voice and a feedback mechanism for those institutions.

I remember visiting the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology last year, and the chief executive there made it really clear to me that on a number of decisions made by the council, having duly elected students on that council made a difference and made for better decisions. That is particularly the case, as Iain Lees-Galloway was just mentioning before, in terms of multiple-campus environments. The Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology is an example. It is not as big as Massey University, obviously, but it is an institution with a multiple-campus environment, and those student representatives who have a role across those different campuses add something to the tertiary council that those who perhaps represent a particular geographic area, in terms of the wider council membership, cannot do.

The amendment in my name to clause 4A is an attempt to say yes, I thank the select committee for having put this up, but clause 4A as agreed to by the committee does not bring this issue of representation into the control of students. Once again, the clause does what this bill does throughout: it takes away from students the ability to manage their own affairs and hands that over to an institution. The institution may or may not have the best interests of the students at heart, and it may or may not come up with a truly democratic process for the selection of students to represent the wider student body. But we know that student associations, where they exist, can run that process, and that students elected to a council can be truly legitimate representatives of the students at that institution. The amendment I have put forward acknowledges the situation that we obviously do not want to occur but is a likely outcome of Heather Roy’s bill—that is, that there will not be student associations for some campuses. That will be the outcome, and the member sponsoring the bill needs to acknowledge that.

💬 Hon Heather Roy: There aren’t now.

I think there are one or two, I tell Heather Roy. I think she will find that under this bill there will be a whole lot more institutions where students do not have student associations. My amendment, however, acknowledges that sad reality in subparagraph (i): “following an election (conducted in accordance with statutes made by council) by the students at the association where no student association exists at the institution;”. But where a student association is in existence, it should be the body that elects those students to tertiary institution councils. I served as a student on a tertiary institution council for 2 years, and I think that the student voice is an important voice that should not be lost.

💬 Shane Ardern: And what’s changed since 1960?

Oh, a harsh man! It was in 1993 and 1994 actually—2 years, I might add, in which, under a National Government, fees went up by 18 percent one year and 15 percent the other year. There was a small fracas with the police around one of those that I am still not able to fully talk about. But an important role was played by student leaders right across the country at that time.

I move, That the question be now put.

I have uncovered a bit of an issue, and I would like to ask the member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill some questions about clause 4A and the fact that it amends section 171(2) of the existing Education Act. I think we need to be clear about what we are talking about here. I know that the member in charge of the bill is one to do her homework, and I am sure she will be in a position to answer the questions I am about to ask her.

The issue I have is that this bill amends only the constitutions of university councils. An earlier amendment passed by this National Government early in its term amended the constitutions of polytechnic councils so that they no longer have guaranteed student representation at all. Polytechnic councils were previously subject to the same provisions of the Education Act that this bill amends, but the Government changed it so that polytechnics are no longer covered by those clauses. Polytechnic councils now have four representatives appointed by the Government and four representatives appointed by the tertiary institutions. That has effectively given all the power to make up the composition of a polytechnic council to the Government and to the institution. Students are no longer guaranteed representation on a polytechnic council, notwithstanding any changes that may or may not be made in this bill. So what we are talking about here relates to universities and, I believe, to wānanga. I believe that these provisions still apply to wānanga.

The question I have for the member in charge of the bill—who I am sure has done her homework on this—is how students and staff have fared at the polytechnics, where the councils already have the power to determine the nature of student representation. This bill will hand universities and wānanga the power to determine the manner in which student representatives are selected. I welcome the fact that this provision guarantees that at least one of the representatives on a university or wānanga council will be a student. I welcome that because that guarantee is not currently afforded to polytechnic students or institutes of technology students, due to the change the National Government made that removed their right to have a representative on their council.

But the real question I have for the member—and I am sure she has done her homework on it and I am sure she is looking it up right now and will respond to it—is how students have fared. Have the institutions, the polytechnics, continued to afford students that ability to be represented on their councils even though they are no longer guaranteed that right? If they have not, what confidence can university and wānanga students have that they will not be treated in exactly the same way if this bill is passed in its present form? In other words, they could lose their student representation on the councils of their institutions. It is actually a very important point because ultimately students are the largest body of stakeholders in an institution. It could be argued that alumni are the largest body of stakeholders in an institution, but I would say that the current students probably have the most current interest in the affairs of the institution, and have provided a very significant contribution to the governance of those institutions.

I have been on a university council. I served on the Victoria University of Wellington Council here in Wellington for 2 years. It was a really interesting experience, and I think the two student representatives that Victoria University’s current constitution allows for provide very, very valuable input into that institution’s governance process. In the case of Victoria University the president of the students association—which was me at the time—is automatically one of those student representatives. The other is elected by an election of the student population at large. The students association determined how that was done, because under the existing law the filling of those positions is delegated to the students association. The students association is therefore guaranteed one student representative; it could have up to three. Massey University, where Mr Lees-Galloway was, has three student representatives. We argued at Victoria University for three student representatives.

💬 Grant Robertson: Your two were as good as three.

We got only two. But as my colleague Mr Robertson just pointed out, two student representatives from Victoria are definitely worth three from Massey. I think our quality meant that we managed to get by with only two whereas Massey University, unfortunately, needed to have three in order to provide the same value to the council’s governance processes.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to take a brief call on clause 4A of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill because it cuts to the heart of what the bill is all about. It cuts to the heart of the issue and what we are here for. In fact, it may well be that if we look at Grant Robertson’s Supplementary Order Paper in particular and agree to its amendments it would meet pretty much the concerns of the member who is pushing through this bill, the Hon Heather Roy. I will go back quickly to his amendment to clause 4, which states: “To omit ‘uphold students’ rights to freedom of association, by removing any requirement for students to join students associations’ and substitute ‘but allow periodic referenda to test this issue’ ”. That seems to me to be a perfect recipe that would bridge the gap between what Heather Roy would like to see in terms of this bill and what we are able to live with ourselves. It would mean that instead of this legislation being repealed, more or less, about 2 or 3 months after it was enacted, it would be able to stand the test of time and continue. I think a lot of people would agree to that amendment.

I come back to clause 4A, which amends section 171(2). I pick up the point Chris Hipkins was talking about, that while this bill has been going through Parliament we have had some substantial changes in the make-up of councils, pushed through by the Education Amendment Act late last year. This means that students associations will not be represented as fully on a council as we would like. This is a great loss. Previously we had an opportunity to have real students association representation that could be properly representative of students themselves, but now that will be severely degraded. We will not have the same ability to have students advocate on a council for the issues they really want. The council will have to choose between some of the other representatives they have—I think there are four plus four—and students associations are, I believe, the ones that will miss out.

But, more important, the quality of the participation on those councils is about the representation. If we do not have a students association large enough to be able to support students, a students association that can give service, not only in the other things we have talked about before—health, student support, guidance sporting facilities, and so on—but in the advocacy of student issues, then there will be a real problem.

I was in my electorate on Monday this week speaking to the students association president there. The worry is the types of services the students association will be able to offer at Unitec, the polytech there—the largest polytech in New Zealand. The people there will have a real issue, particularly with clauses 4 and 4A, as to their ability to be represented in a truly representative way, even though they have a council that is extremely open-minded and an exceptional chief executive officer. But they will not have that sort of representation by right; they will have it at the behest of the chief executive officer of Unitec.

In conclusion, and speaking to clause 4A, which amends section 171(2), I think that Grant Robertson’s Supplementary Order Paper 191 amendments to both clause 4 and clause 4A are excellent suggestions, made in the spirit of trying to achieve something that will be enduring for all students.

I move, That the question be now put.