Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is just a point of clarification. You have called for clause 6. Can you clarify whether new clause 6A will be debated as a separate clause? I just want to make sure that it is.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes, that is correct. Is the member seeking the call?

Yes, Mr Chair. I do want to speak on this clause. In fact, I look forward to this being the first of my four calls on this particular clause, because this clause is where the rubber hits the road in the bill. I am sure that even the member in the chair, Heather Roy, will acknowledge that this is indeed where the rubber hits the road in this part of the bill.

Initially, I will make two comments about the beginning of clause 6, which inserts new section 229A, “Membership of students associations voluntary”, in the Education Act 1989. We have said on numerous occasions in this debate that we fundamentally oppose this particular part of the bill. This is the bit of the bill that will destroy students associations. That is the evidence we have seen from Australia, and that is what will happen in New Zealand, as well. This provision fundamentally undermines the ability of students associations to organise and to resource the work they do. It means they will become beholden to the institutions they are part of, and it means that students will lose control of student affairs. This is the undermining of student representation—the student representation that has meant many individual students have been able to carry on with their study and to succeed and pass because they have had a resourced students association to back them up.

When I sat on the Education and Science Committee on this bill, I think my colleagues from National actually began to realise as the debate on the bill went on that students associations play a fundamental role in the success of students in their study. We heard of numerous examples. I have mentioned before the example from Waikato University of the students whose flat burned down, who were being ripped off by the insurance company, and who were being biffed out of their flat. It was the Waikato Student Union that made sure those students were able to continue to study and stay at university. We heard other examples of a similar nature.

New section 229A will fundamentally undermine the representative role, the advocacy role, that has meant so much to so many students not just in terms of those practical, day-to-day issues but also in the overall advocacy that has seen interest-free student loans. It has seen, going as far back as the 1970s, the standard tertiary bursary, which resulted from advocacy in those situations by the New Zealand University Students’ Association, backed by its constituent associations from polytechs, universities, and wānanga. That kind of work will not now be possible, with students associations undermined by new section 229A.

I make a bit of an appeal to my National colleagues. As I said, in the debate we heard at the select committee we felt that our National colleagues were beginning to realise there was a possible way through to enable them to address some of the issues they had in relation to their fear of compulsion and of what that meant in terms of freedom issues—things they obviously genuinely see as being important. We felt in the discussions that a compromise was possible. That compromise was built around the amendments on a couple of Supplementary Order Papers that I have on the Table. One of the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 191 is about ensuring that if a decision is made to enforce what is in new section 229A, it is undertaken only after a nationwide referendum of students. It should be done only after a nationwide referendum of students.

At this point it is important to remember that what is being undone by new section 229A is, in fact, National policy. The compromise from the 1990s relating to the ability of students to call for referenda and go to a voluntary position was the policy of National, driven through by Tau Henare, of all people, among others. But the Bolger-Shipley Government said that it thought that policy was the right thing to do. That Government also did that at the end of a long submission process, after it had heard from the institutions, the students, and the families of students. It said that it did not want to ruin students associations. It wanted to address some of the issues it had in relation to freedom of choice and compulsion, and it did that by putting in place the ability for students to call for a referendum, in order to give students some choice in whether there would be a students association. That is what is being undone by new section 229A.

But I think that in the select committee we found further compromise, via the amendments on the Supplementary Order Papers, and in this case that is to allow for a nationwide referendum. That is the first area—the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 191 to add, after “association” at the end of new section 229A, “if a majority of students support voluntary student membership in a nationwide 2011 referendum”. I ask why National members would oppose that. That is students making a choice. Of course, members on this side of the Chamber oppose the bill in principle, but, having realised that our National colleagues on the select committee wanted something different, we have gone looking for something that is a compromise.

I am making a plea tonight to the National members of the committee who sat through all of those submissions and heard overwhelmingly from students and tertiary institutions that they want to retain representative, well-resourced students associations. Above all, the submitters wanted to retain some sense of student control and student choice. We have the ability to do that in the amendment we have put forward to new section 229A. I know that National members on the select committee wanted to look at those ideas, and I am calling on them tonight to think about how they can make sure that students associations will continue and will be able to address some of the issues they have. That is what we are looking at in the amendment to new section 229A.

The other amendment I will talk about in relation to that issue is to do with whether students can request a change to membership. Obviously, that is the situation we have at the moment. If 10 percent of students want to have a referendum, then there will be a referendum. We have always felt that that was a reasonable proportion of students. We are happy to look at compromise. We are happy to bring that percentage down a little bit if that is enough for National, or we are happy to simply say that there will be a referendum every few years. If, for instance, students do not make the choice to put forward the idea of a referendum and if a number of years elapse—5 years was a figure I heard bandied around in the select committee—then after that 5-year period there will automatically be a referendum. I stress that this is not the preferred option of members on this side of the Chamber; our preferred option is to continue to allow students to organise on their own terms. But we recognised during the select committee process that there may need to be some room for movement so that we do not go down the path of destroying students associations, because that is what the new section 229A and the subsequent clauses will do.

There is an option on the Table in my Supplementary Order Paper 191 that I believe fulfils the desires of the National caucus to make some change but still allow students associations to succeed. The opportunity is there tonight for National members to adopt those amendments. It will still mean a change, it will still mean that things will be different for student associations, but it will safeguard those vital representative roles, those vital advocacy roles—the student services that have made such a big difference to the health and well-being of students.

National members on the Education and Science Committee heard time and time again during the select committee process how vital those things were and how easily they would be undermined. I know that the National members of that select committee knew that, and while Roger Douglas was there, it seemed that they would go with it. It seemed as if they would go with it, then some very unfortunate shenanigans in the ACT Party saw Heather Roy returned to the select committee, and, mysteriously, the National members’ enthusiasm for some form of compromise waned.

💬 Hon Heather Roy: Persuaded by the member.

I am not sure; persuaded by the member—perhaps. There seemed to be a sudden shift in National’s view at that point. That is unfortunate, because I strongly believe that in these Supplementary Order Papers a middle ground can be found. That is not what members on this side of the Chamber would prefer by any means, but it is certainly something for which we think we can see a wide buy-in.

As it stands, new section 229A, which is the first change within clause 6, is one that I believe will see the end of student associations on a lot of campuses. Perhaps it will not on some of the larger university campuses where students associations have service level agreements—and we will come to that a little further on as we go through some of the other changes in clause 6—because there is scope for certain types of service level agreements. But for those polytechnic campuses where students associations will not be able to enter into those sorts of service level agreements, new section 229A is the death of student associations and the death of all the good work like the advocacy, the representation, and the other services that have meant so much to generations of students. It will be very sad if these provisions are passed tonight as they are now, because those things will be undermined.

There is an opportunity here for compromise. National members should take it.

This is where the rubber hits the road with the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, and I am looking forward to the very fulsome debate that is going to take place here. I am interested particularly in the fact that nobody from the other side of the Chamber has got to their feet and spoken in favour of this bill, despite 98 percent of the submissions made to the Education and Science Committee opposing it. National and the ACT Party are using their majority in the House to push this legislation through, despite overwhelming opposition at the select committee. It says something about National’s view of democracy that despite the fact that an overwhelming number of submissions to the select committee was opposed to this legislation, National is going to push it through anyway.

I want to talk about what this legislation will mean for individual students and for the costs and the challenges that they currently face when studying at their tertiary institutions. At the moment students associations, through a universal fee, provide very, very good value for money for students. Under this legislation, that value for money will be eroded and students will probably end up paying more. But we should not be surprised about that coming from the National Government, because—

💬 Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: Prove it.

Wayne Mapp says that I should prove it. I will easily do that. In 1999, when this issue was last debated, there was a referendum at all of the university and tertiary campuses. People got to choose whether it was going to be a voluntary membership system or a compulsory membership system. Victoria University decided that it would continue to provide many of the services that the students association provided, even if the students had voted for voluntary membership. It was going to do that by raising a levy to cover the cost of that. That levy was going to cost more than the students association levy, because it did not think that it could provide those services as cheaply as the students association did. So it was going to cost students more to vote for voluntary membership than to keep a universal system of membership. Students would receive fewer services—the level of service they would receive would be diminished—but they would pay more for those services. That is the proof that Wayne Mapp was just asking for. I thank him for the question and I look forward to his next one, because if he keeps going along those lines, I am sure we could have quite a rigorous debate about it.

Otago University estimated that it had the help of 598 volunteers in 2009, who provided over 20,000 volunteer hours amongst them. All of those things are severely diminished in a voluntary membership regime. At the moment, students get a pretty good deal because there is a huge amount of free labour that goes into providing the services on offer at many institutions. Yes, those institutions would seek to replicate under a voluntary membership regime some of the services provided by students associations under a universal membership regime, but it would cost more. Students would end up having to pay more to get less. So that is really important. I am surprised that the Government is not willing to address this issue at a time when students are already struggling.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: They’re doing that to everybody else.

We should not be surprised, because as my colleague Damien O’Connor has pointed out, the Government is loading up costs to everybody else. So what is loading up a few more costs on to students going to be for the National-ACT Government? Those members do not really mind, and they do not really care about that.

The tertiary institutions themselves are opposed to this legislation, and submitted such a view to the select committee. Tertiary institutions recognised that students associations play a vital role not only in providing services for students but also in adding to the life of the university and in providing a student voice at very important decision-making points within the tertiary institution processes. I was at Victoria University, where student representatives, coordinated by the students association, advocated for students’ interests at all levels of the university. Starting at a pretty basic level, each individual class has a class representative who is there if a student has a difficulty with their class, a problem with their lecturer, or a concern about which they need some advice. Students can go to their class representatives, who have been coordinated to be in those roles by the students association. They are trained by the students association in how to deal with certain issues.

If we move up to the faculty board level, again we see that student representation at that level is organised by the students association. At the academic board level, student representation is provided, and as we talked about in the last part, all the way up to the governing level of the institution student representation is coordinated by the students association. Therefore, there is a comprehensive system of student representation at tertiary institutions. The reason the students associations have a mandate to do that is that they have as their members more or less the entire student body. We know that students actually support that system of membership because they were given a choice in 1999 as to whether they wanted to continue with it, and overwhelmingly they said yes, they wanted to stick with that system. Overwhelmingly, students said they wanted to stick with a universal system of membership.

I think it is perfectly legitimate to say from time to time that that regime should be tested. I would have no problem with that. In fact, if Heather Roy came into the House with a bill to have another referendum and to give students that choice, I would probably vote in favour of it. In fact, Labour is offering that choice to the Government now. If the Government wants to provide students with a choice, we would happily support it. This debate would be all over very quickly if the choice was given to students to have the referendum, to determine—

💬 Grant Robertson: It’s on the Table right now.

That option is on the Table, and this debate would all be over if students were given that choice. Students could determine that, no, they do not want a universal system of membership; they want a voluntary regime. We would accept that. If they wanted, by majority, to continue to have a universal system of membership—as they overwhelmingly chose when last given the opportunity to do so—we would also accept that. We think that the students of the institutions should have that choice, and I am very disappointed that National is voting in favour of a bill that denies students that option, particularly given the heritage of that last choice. People like Tau Henare negotiated that arrangement when Tony Steel put forward the bill in 1997 or 1998, I think it was. Tau Henare was one of the pivotal players in securing that compromise that put the choice into the hands of students, and there is an awful lot at stake. I think Tau Henare recognised that back then, and I am disappointed that he seems to have stopped recognising that now, and seems to have turned his back on the things that he was arguing in favour of when he put that amendment forward.

Activities are provided by students associations that are vital to campus life, whether it is at a polytechnic, a university, or a wānanga. We are talking about the clubs, we are talking about orientation, we are talking about services like student media, and we have the student newspapers and student radio.

In fact, the Minister for Tertiary Education himself, who went on to make millions of dollars in commercial broadcasting, started out in student radio. It was with the money from the students associations that Steven Joyce started on the ladder to making his great fortune. Yet he now wants to yank up the ladder behind him. Paula Bennett started her political career as the president of a students association. I understand that back then she claimed to be a lefty, before she joined the National Party. Once again, it is another example of Paula Bennett saying: “Well it worked pretty well for me”—much like the training incentive allowance—“but I’m just going to yank that opportunity away from other people. I’m going to take that away. It worked all right for me and I don’t really care about what happens to people who come along behind me.” That is the position of the National members. They are not interested in everybody else. They are not interested in the people on Struggle Street. They are not interested in the people who are trying to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They are interested only in themselves and their mates. They are not interested in ordinary, hard-working Kiwis. University and tertiary students are great examples of people who are working hard to further themselves and lift themselves up, but this Government constantly tries to pull the rug out from under them. This is a very bad bill. It is a bad bill that robs students of many of the vital supports they have come to expect.

💬 Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: Why are you such a communist?

Wayne Mapp has just called me a communist. In 1981 Wayne Mapp lost the selection for a Labour Party nomination to Phil Goff. He sits over there now because Labour did not want him. That is why Wayne Mapp is over there, and he is still bitter and twisted that he got beaten in 1981 by Phil Goff to be the Labour Party candidate in Mt Roskill. He is all bitter and twisted and chewed up about that. I come back to the point I was raising before, which is that this is a bad bill.

Kia ora koutou. I am pleased to take a call on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. It is legislation the Greens have opposed and will continue to oppose. I have seen it described recently as an ideological solution in search of a real-world problem, and I think that basically sums it up.

Clause 6 contains the gist of the bill. It is the essence of the bill. New section 229A in clause 6 states that a student may not be obliged to be a member of an association. That provision brings to me an immediate issue—a problem—and it is reinforced in new section 229CA, which I call the free-rider provision. It states that students who are not members of an association may not be obliged to pay for services that are provided generally to the student body of the institution. That is a free-rider clause. It states that where services are provided to everybody, and where people cannot be excluded from access to those services, non-members—people who are not paying their way—will be able to enjoy them.

Like many other New Zealanders and, indeed, other members in this House, I am a member of the Automobile Association. In the event that on a wet morning my car fails to start, I can phone for a nice man in a van to come and get me mobile. It would be odd if my neighbour, who happened not to be a member of the Automobile Association, could ring and get that same service for free. That is essentially the situation being set up here. Many services provided by students associations are not exclusive. They are available to all student members in the form of facilities, cafes, and orientation week activities. Any student may use those services. I would love to hear from the proponents of this bill an explanation of how it is fair that some students will pay, while other students who choose not to pay will also be able to enjoy those benefits. That is not fair. It is unjust, and the students associations will be weakened.

Many students confronted with very high fees that are increasing year by year, the cost of study, inadequate resourcing, inadequate funding for texts, and so on, will be confronted with a rather difficult ethical dilemma of whether they pay their students association fee to rightly and reasonably get access to that range of services, or whether they choose a free ride on the back of their fellow students. Sadly, we know that a number of students either through ignorance or, perhaps, an undeveloped or immature ethical basis for their actions will choose the latter course, the free-rider course. That is unacceptable, and it will undermine the strength and integrity of the associations over time. It will mean they are unable to continue to maintain the level of service. They will not have a surplus to invest in increasing the services available. Any of us who has ever been to a university, as students, teachers, or casual observers, can see the value of the associations, which has been well proven over time.

I am also very intrigued by new section 229B, which states that no one may exert undue influence on a student or prospective student to join an association, to cease to be a member of an association, or to choose not to be a member of an association. I am really interested to know what the test for undue influence is. How does one measure or determine what undue influence is? I suspect that the students associations will work very, very hard at the beginning of each academic year to capture students, to encourage and persuade them to pay the money to become fully paid-up, legitimate members and to enjoy the services with a clear conscience. I would love to hear an explanation from the drafter of the bill about what constitutes undue influence.

Students can be very activist, shall we say, and very persuasive. They can use a wide range of means and inducements to encourage people to join, particularly people who are at the beginning of their first year. I suspect that if a student is captured at the beginning of their first year, they will very quickly discover the value of membership and will continue to be members of the association throughout their time as a student. What would be a reasonable limit to inducements, persuasive techniques, or attractions that a student body might offer to prospective members? Similarly, what would be undue influence in terms of those remaining few on campus who choose not to go down that road? Kia ora.

Clause 6 is the main part of this legislation, which Labour will definitely vote against. The bill has been wrongly called the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. This clause makes it absolutely clear that there will not be any freedom for students to choose what to do about their association membership. In fact, this bill makes it compulsory for students associations to be voluntary.

New section 229A outlaws the right for students associations to choose to be voluntary. Why does it do that? It seems to do so because there is no call on our student campuses in this country to have voluntary students association membership. If there was, then there would be no need for this bill. If there was a call for students associations to be voluntary, then that would be happening right now, because the proponents of this bill would be able to get more than 10 percent of students on a campus at any given time to actually call for a referendum to make it so. That is what the current law provides for. It states that, yes, the student body can make a decision for student association membership to be voluntary, just by having 10 percent of the student body ask for such a referendum to be held.

The ACT Party has convinced the National Party to support an entirely new piece of legislation making it compulsory to be voluntary because its members on university and polytechnic campuses up and down the country cannot organise 10 percent of the student body to say that they do not want to have compulsory student membership. They cannot get that 10 percent. So why is National backing something that it cannot get even 10 percent of the student body to ask for? But it is worse than that. I sat on the Education and Science Committee in its journey around New Zealand listening to submissions. There were 4,800 submissions on this bill. Ninety-eight percent of them were opposed to the bill.

💬 Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: No way.

The member should do the figures. Ninety-eight percent of them—

💬 Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: Well, they’ll presumably join the union, won’t they?

It is about 4,700, give or take a bit. Not only could the Government not get 10 percent of students at universities and polytechnics to say they wanted the associations to be voluntary but also it failed to listen when that 98 percent of submitters said “Don’t do this. It is wrong. It is backwards ideology.” It just goes to show how out of touch the Government has already become in its first term. The Government is completely and utterly out of touch with New Zealanders. The National members in the Education and Science Committee heard submission after submission saying that this is the wrong thing to do, and they completely and utterly ignored them. The Government has also ignored the fact that not even 10 percent of the student body will actually get up and fight for the bill under the current law, which they can do right now.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What’s wrong with democracy?

That is what I would like to ask National members. That was a very good question from Tau Henare, because he knows all about the legislation. He was the architect of the legislation that exists right now—I applaud him for that. Now he is having it ripped apart for reasons of ideology, and no other reason—no other reason, at all. It shows how joined at the hip National has become to ACT ideology that National is prepared to support this legislation.

💬 Jo Goodhew: Oh my God, and you say that the same week as the marine and coastal bill.

Jo Goodhew seems to object to being called joined at the hip to ACT. I am not sure why. Maybe it is because she recognises that not only this legislation but a whole range of ACT policies are completely and utterly unpopular in the New Zealand environment. It would certainly be a very good call if Jo Goodhew recognised that.

I ask what the problem is that we are trying to fix with the bill. What is the problem that this part of the law, in particular, aims to fix?

As other members on this side of the House have said, we are absolutely opposed to clause 6 of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I will start by covering the change to insert new section 229A, “Membership of students associations voluntary”, in the Education Act 1989.

This legislation is unnecessary. There is no problem that it is trying to fix. It is not in the interests of the majority of students—ordinary students, who are just trying to get through their qualifications and trying to live from one week to the next. They are not interested in this legislation. They did not call for it. In fact, this change—especially new section 229A—will drive up their student costs. Their tertiary costs will be driven up by this change. Their cost of living will go up even further than it already is doing. And for what reason? To satisfy the whim of a small number of ACT on Campus members. That is it. This change was not called for by thousands of students. It is not a response to many, many students across the country coming forward and asking for this change. It is a response to a tiny number of students who are aligned to the ACT Party and who, for some reason, want to put ideology over common sense. That is all the change is about.

New section 229A, inserted by clause 6 of the bill, states: “No student or prospective student at an institution is required to be a member of a students association.” There is a very simple solution to this problem, which the Education and Science Committee seemed to be looking at until the very persuasive Mrs Roy returned to the select committee. That solution is simply to give students clearer options for opting out of a students association. That would solve the problem. If that really is the problem, that option would solve it.

I think we really see what the bill is all about when we look at the changes to clause 6 that were made by the select committee. I am particularly interested in the change to insert new section 229B, which refers to undue influence, in the Act. I think the changes made by the select committee to new section 229 are very good. They are appropriate, because they balance the issue of undue influence by the multiple parties that might be involved in influencing someone to become or not become a member of a students association. The original wording of new section 229 was all about how students associations—those nasty, evil, horrible students associations—were not allowed to exert undue influence on any student. That is what this bill is all about. It comes from an ideological position that students associations are bad: that they are a bad thing, that they exert pressure on students to become members of students associations, and that Parliament should be doing something to undermine students associations and get rid of them.

The change made by the select committee I think is appropriate and balances things out. The new wording states that prospective students cannot have influence exerted on them to become members of a students association, but nor can they have undue influence exerted on them to not become members or to leave a students association. That change appropriately reflects the fact that there is a range of opinions out there for students or institutions. There is an important amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 191 in the name of Grant Robertson to include institutions in new section 229B. Institutions may also be guilty of exerting undue influence either to get students into students associations or to keep them out, depending on the institution’s philosophy towards students associations.

I can absolutely understand why a tertiary institution may want to influence students to join the students association. It gives the institution a point of contact with which to relate to students. It is much easier for institutions if they have a strong students association not only to provide the many, many services that students associations provide but also because the institutions themselves have acknowledged that they will have to pick up those services if the students associations are weakened. That is one reason why a tertiary institution may want to influence students to join a students association, but I think it is absolutely appropriate that that amendment should be included to ensure that institutions cannot influence a student to go into a students association or out of a students association, or encourage them not to join a students association. I appreciate the fact that the select committee has looked at the ridiculous original—

The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, which is before us in the Committee tonight, is an attack on vulnerable students, on quality education, and on fairness. It is all being done in the name of the Government pandering to ACT Party ideology.

I address clause 6 because it is the main part of the bill and because, as members know, we fundamentally oppose this part of the bill, which undermines the ability of student representation to organise and provide invaluable services for students and to organise to do good in the wider community.

I have not spoken in this debate until now. It has been many a year since I was a student.

💬 David Shearer: Not that many.

It has been a few years. I was not active in student politics at university. I attended the odd protest, but my activism happened in other forums. But I was a beneficiary of student services and good student organisation. I will talk about good student organisation and the value it can bring to a community. I will talk about the organisation I have observed amongst our student organisation in Dunedin in recent weeks following the Christchurch earthquake. They have played a critical role in our wider community in organising to do their best to bring relief to the people of Christchurch. If the students had not had an effective student organisation, that action simply would not have happened.

I will give just a couple of examples. A thing called the “Christchurch Embassy” was set up in Dunedin the week after the earthquake. It was essentially based at the Dunedin Railway Station to provide a place for people fleeing from Christchurch to go and a central point to receive services. It was set up by a group within Dunedin that included student organisations. They sat around the table right from the very beginning and initiated that really important service. Those students also organised the assembling and sending of 18,000 packed lunches to Christchurch. They organised and sent teams of people to Christchurch. That action would not have happened without the good organisation that they provide.

That is just one example of the benefit that student organisations can bring to the wider community. As I said, I was a beneficiary of the student organisation when I went to university. I used the services that were made possible by it and I happily paid those dues. Under clause 6, which I think goes to the real heart of this bill, this Government will force all those students associations to operate an opt-in system of membership, rather than allow those students to choose between opt-in and opt-out systems through referenda, as is the case under the current legislation.

It is funny that a bill taking away so much choice has come from National and the ACT Party, which normally love to throw around rhetoric about the nanny State. In fact, in continuing to push this legislation through the House they have ignored the 98 percent of submissions to the Education and Science Committee that were against voluntary student membership.

We know that students do not want this change. It is blind ideology. Students associations were open to make opting out of membership easier and fully refundable. They were open to the option of mandated 5-yearly referendums on association membership. These compromises are being put forward on Supplementary Order Paper 191, which would amend this clause and would make a real difference. My colleague Grant Robertson and other colleagues have appealed to National members to see reason on this bill and vote for these amendments.

The important services provided by students associations include things—

Opposition members have made a number of claims that are just not technically correct. They have also put forward a large number of amendments to clause 6 of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. It is the substantive part of the bill, and it does warrant some comment, and, in fact, some straightening out of some of the propositions that have been made and the claims that have been put forward. So far I think during every single clause that has been debated—and we are on to clause 6—members of the Opposition have stood up and said that that was the clause that will be the end of student representation. Every single clause, apparently, is the important one that will be the end of student representation. But let me say that a number of things do need to be addressed.

Addressing the comments of Clare Curran, who has just sat down, I find it quite sad that she said the only reason that good is done in the student community is that students associations exist. Well, I say to the Opposition that one does not need laws or compulsion to do good in the community. The example that was used, the Student Volunteer Army in Christchurch, was not in fact organised by the students associations. They had a part to play, but in fact it was organised by one National Party supporter, who set up a Facebook page. Students saw that page and, out of the goodness of their hearts, went to help in their local community. It was nothing to do with the fact that those people had to belong to a students association.

The claim was made by Grant Robertson, I think, that students have been successful only because of students associations. That claim will come as news to most students, who would say their success is due to their own hard work, not to the existence of a students association.

💬 Grant Robertson: What happens when things go wrong?

Talking about things that go wrong, let us look at the referendum provision that exists in the current law. We have had that provision in place for 10 years, and the sponsor of that particular provision had a conversation with me to say that the reason he now does not support it is that it has not worked. It has not worked, in terms of the criticism we have had in this debate, because students cannot get the 10 percent required. There is no way they will get support from students when they put forward referenda provisions in the middle of exams. That has been done in countless places. Waikato is probably the best example, where referenda are routinely put forward in the middle of exams when students are quite rightly focusing on the work they are there to do.

The other thing that has not worked is the opt-out provision. Members opposite say we should just enhance the opt-out provision. The opt-out provision has not worked, because the students associations want that money; they want the guaranteed income. The opt-out system has not worked, because the students associations have made students jump through hoops to do it and they give up in frustration. They give up in frustration.

💬 Sue Moroney: So fix that!

We are not fixing that, because then other loopholes will be found. There should not be an opt-out provision.

The financial impropriety—which members opposite have not mentioned once in the whole debate so far, and which warrants comment—has been the result of the guaranteed income that students associations have because of compulsory student membership. The financial impropriety is a result of the lack of transparency and the poor accountability. If members opposite took a moment to flick past new section 229A, as set out in clause 6, they would find that the lack of transparency and poor accountability are being addressed in this bill, and that is extraordinarily important. The fact that Labour members are prepared to compromise on so many parts of this particular clause—and we need just to quickly look at Grant Robertson’s Supplementary Order Paper to see that—shows how fearful they are of losing control of the campuses.

Chris Hipkins and a number of other members talked about the overwhelming number of submissions that were opposed to the bill during the select committee process. Let us be very clear about how those submissions were formatted and put forward to the Education and Science Committee. Out of the 4,800 submissions, 300 were substantive submissions. The rest—the other 4,500 submissions—were in A4 form. Those 4,500 submissions effectively made up a petition. They were not substantive submissions; they were all exactly identical. I have had students tell me that at many university campuses tables were set up in front of the cafeteria and students were not let through until they signed one of those forms, which were then put forward as substantive submissions.

💬 Sue Moroney: Oh, what rubbish!

Sue Moroney can say until she is blue in the face that that is not true, but I can tell the member that a lot of students have told me that that is exactly how those forms were collected.

David Clendon from the Green Party stood up and gave the most to-the-point and genuine speech I have heard tonight. He talked about fairness. This bill is exactly about fairness. This bill is about fairness for students, who should not be compelled to join a students association in order to study. They cannot do one without the other, and this bill is about fairness to students. It allows them the choice to decide for themselves whether they pay a fee and belong to a students organisation. It allows them to study and move ahead with their lives. A member asked what the problem was that we are trying to fix—I think it might have been Sue Moroney. The problem we are trying to fix is that students are currently the only group in our society who are forced to join an organisation in order to be able to do what they are there to do. The fairness aspect is being fixed, and I look forward to this debate continuing with some honesty in the debating points.

I am very pleased to rise and take a call in this debate. We are on clause 6. I would like to respond to the member Heather Roy’s comments with the honesty she requested.

My comments essentially go like this. Clause 6, which contains all of the substantive parts of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, reflects the fact that this bill is simply the result of flawed tactics on the part of National. National members have now found themselves backed into a corner by a minority party that is pursuing this bill on the basis—let me give the member credit—of some principled position, without considering, however, the practical outcomes of the bill. That is a travesty of this House’s purpose. Of course bills should be brought here on the basis of principle, and they should be submitted to a select committee, to our democratic process, for improvement. That is what happened with this bill. But for the National members of the Education and Science Committee to then suddenly fold their arms and say they would not have any more to do with the arguments put up by submitters is a fault and an inadequacy on the part of tacticians in National.

Let me explain that a bit further. Clause 6 says membership of students associations should be voluntary. If Heather Roy indeed brought this bill to the House on the basis of the neo-liberal principles on which the ACT Party hangs its hat, then all credit to her. But for National then to concur with legislation that is going to ruin part of student life in New Zealand and part of the life of tertiary institutions is simply wrong. It means there has been insufficient thought applied to this legislation by National. Once National members worked themselves into this position of not seeking improvements or amendments to the bill, they persisted in sitting as they are now—each of them, to a person, with their heads down, not looking, and not engaging—because they know that that position is a failure on their part. They are standing up for legislation that will wreak havoc and cause something that significantly contributes to tertiary education in this country to grind to a halt.

It is a nonsense to say that clause 6—and I am looking at the new section 229A, which states that membership of students associations is to be voluntary—will benefit the student population, the tertiary experience, or even the institutions in any way. Besides that, there were almost no submitters in favour of this legislation. Why has National capitulated in this way on an imperfect bill that will have practical and pragmatic outcomes that are destructive? Why would it back itself into that position? Why have its members still not had the courage to say—not one of those members has said—why they have changed their position, why they have not sought improvements, or why they have not sought amendments to the bits they might not agree with? If there are problems, I say to Mrs Roy, with the way students associations have operated, if there are problems in that people have found it difficult at times to get out of a students association, then why not simply address those issues? Why cause this destruction?

I move, That the question be now put.

I begin by congratulating two members of the ACT Party on remaining true to their neo-liberal origins, which is something that the other three members have not done—or, at least, two and a half of them have not. But as is the case with the ACT Party when it does remain true to its neo-liberal origins and becomes consistent, it is also within the bounds of possibility that it is consistently wrong.

Society ranges itself variously either collectively or individually. One can call it user-pays or payer-uses; one can call it public sector or private sector. All economies are mixed—all economies are mixed—and they always will be. It is always better to have a payer-uses society to deliver health services, for example, and a user-pays society to deliver whatever it might be—fruit and vegetable services. It is always going to be mixed. Students associations themselves are economies that are mixed. They provide their pastoral services, their welfare services, and most but not all of their health services on a payer-uses model. On the other hand, for example, advertising in their radio or print media is on a user-pays model, and they charge like wounded bulls. So students associations have a mixture of ways in which they build their revenue base.

The reason they have a mixture is that it is sometimes more efficient to use user-pays and it is sometimes more efficient to have payer-uses. If one gets rid of payer-uses, one ends up with less efficiency and lower delivery of some things that students have erstwhile considered important, including welfare, pastoral, or health services. Of course, some of the services, such as agitation, advocacy, or whatever, also come from student fees, and that may be something that the ACT Party members would like to raise in support of their position.

But the truth of the matter is that the vast bulk of the revenue collected from students for students associations is spent collectively on things that students in general over the years have found useful. How do I know this? Well, because for 20 years I have been the member for Dunedin North. My electorate office is next door to the Captain Cook Tavern. Not a week in the academic year goes by without students coming to my office to see me and my staff over something, and that has been going on for 20 years. There are now 19,000 of them washing through the place every 3 or 4 years. It is like a transit camp. In that time, in those two decades, not one student has darkened my door to speak in favour of this legislation—not one.

Not one student has darkened my door to speak in favour of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, and yet we say we are a democracy. We say we are a democracy, we say the majority are entitled to have the sway, except in this instance where we have a 3.5 percent party having its way with a party that is supposed to be principled, to overturn something that no student in my electorate in over 20 years has ever asked for. That is outrageous. It is outrageous, because ACT members say they know best, but they are not part of this debate. They are not at university as far as I am aware. I was at university last year and I had to pay student fees to Victoria University and I did not use the services. That is what happens with payer-uses. Sometimes I do not use the health services in this country, either, even though I am paying tax. It is still the most efficient way to run those services. Yet ideology is being rammed through and is skewering common sense.

As my colleague Maryan Street pointed out, National members sit there and say diddly-squat. They know in their hearts that it is a bit awkward. They know in their hearts that back at their polytechs and especially at their universities they will have to face some difficult questions. They know there will be destruction of services but they sit there, because somewhere at some stage there needed to be some trade-off to make sure that that coalition partner of this ill-begotten Government would get its jollies over this legislation. That is not a good way to run a country. It is not principled, it is not called for, it is not democratic, and it is not popular.

I move, That the question be now put.

I will start by addressing one or two of the things that Heather Roy mentioned when she made her addresses before. She said, first of all, that one does not have to have a students association in order to be effective. She gave the example of the Christchurch earthquake. I am not sure whether that was true; I seem to think that the students associations had a greater role than she talked about. But somehow, she says, students do not need a students association in order to be mobilised and effective. If that is the case, I ask Heather Roy why a student body cannot mobilise 10 percent of students and come up with the numbers needed to force through a referendum. Why is that not possible? On the one hand it does not seem that students need to have a students association to be effective, but on the other hand a student body can never be effective enough to get that requisite 10 percent.

Heather Roy also talked about the idea that a students association—or a student union, as the ACT Party prefers to call it—is one of the only organisations left in this country that is compulsory, and for which one has to pay a compulsory fee. I think this is a wrong characterisation of what a students association is. David Caygill and his son made an extremely good presentation to the Education and Science Committee on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, in which they argued that this fee is more akin to a tax than a union fee. In the same sense that people who belong to, for example, a council pay their rates, students pay for things that they may not use, but they pay for the sake of the greater good. The fee is compulsory only if students do not want to force a referendum through, but they are paying for something that people, overwhelmingly, get great benefit from. I think that is the crux of the argument regarding clause 6.

I come back to the point that Heather Roy talked disparagingly about Grant Robertson’s Supplementary Order Papers 190 and 191 and his other amendments. But many of those amendments were an attempt by members on this side of the Chamber to come to some sort of compromise so that this bill would be palatable legislation that might have some endurance out there rather than, come November 26, be targeted for elimination. This bill could have actually been better legislation, which might have had the agreement of all sides of the Committee.

Heather Roy is absolutely wrong—and here are the facts. If this legislation is passed, the students associations will wither considerably or disappear. That is a fact; that is based on evidence. It is based on the experience of Australia. What happened there? Students association membership dropped horrendously. Let me give members the statistics that came from the Australian students associations, representatives of which actually came before the select committee by phone. They said the associations had effectively collapsed, or had drastically reduced their services and implemented user-pays in many areas, which had disadvantaged many of the students, particularly those from low socio-economic areas. Tertiary institutions there have taken over services and assets previously owned by students. Here is the other thing that occurred when that happened: tertiary institutions began to charge levies for reduced services—more money than the students were paying to begin with.

For most of the students associations—and I look at the Unitec one in particular—we are looking at paying about $120 a year. Now, $120 is a substantial amount of money for many students, but the services that students get from that are way beyond what a tertiary institution would be able to provide. The secret is that the students associations have an army of volunteers. All of that will disappear when this legislation makes its way through Parliament.

I refer back to Grant Robertson’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 to add to new section 229A a requirement to hold a nationwide referendum.

I rise to speak in the Committee stage of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, and specifically to clause 6. I do so for a number of reasons. First and foremost is the fact that I have worked at a university and I know what a university student union does, and I have come to value it greatly.

The second reason I want to speak on this bill is that I went to the Eastern Institute of Technology, which is the Hawke’s Bay polytech, and spoke to the students about this issue. I spoke to the students about new section 229A, inserted by clause 6, which states: “No student or prospective student at an institution is required to be a member of a students association.” Do members know what those students said to me? They said that their student union would cease to exist if this bill goes through. The level of pastoral care that the student union provides is immense.

To me, it is like an insurance policy. Canterbury aside, I do not know anyone whose house has been burnt down, but every person I know who owns a house has insurance. That is what a student union is. The vast majority of students do not use the student union and do not require the pastoral care, but others do. Making membership voluntary will destroy the lives of students.

We have to remember that a lot of students are leaving home for the first time. They are facing a whole lot of pressures that they would not normally face and have not faced before. They will face those pressures, and now that those members are taking away that safety net and that pastoral care, these students will fail. The Government measures institutions on how many students pass. This change will ruin those statistics.

The other thing I would like to talk about is new section 229C, which deals with complaints. Section 229C(1) states: “A student or prospective student who, on reasonable grounds, considers that any person has exerted undue influence … may lodge a complaint with the council of the institution.” Section 229C talks about that whole process and about the university council. Anyone who knows about a university council or a polytech council will know the amount of work those people have to go through. It is an immense amount of work. It is like being a member of a board. These are highly skilled people who are time-constrained. They are sitting on a university or polytech council basically out of the goodness of their hearts, but also because they believe in the value of the institution. You tie up a university council with numerous complaints of this nature and I will tell you what: institutions will lose—

💬 Jo Goodhew: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I was wondering when your being brought into the debate by the new member might be recognised.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member is quite right.

💬 Hon Member: He’s not a junior member any more.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I am on my feet. The member will be silent. The point of order is quite correct. The member should not bring the Chair into the debate.

Institutions will lose council members. The council members who sit on the boards of polytechs and universities will say they cannot be bothered with it. They came to help with the governance of that university or polytech, yet they are spending 50 percent of their time—this is what the bill says—dealing with complaints from students. That is not what a university or a polytech council is for. Yet a huge chunk of this bill, section 229C, “Complaints”, relates to how councils will have to hear complaints from students who believe, on reasonable grounds, that a person has exerted undue influence. That is a waste of time.

This bill takes away any level of pastoral care that students provide to their peers, and it also takes away, I believe, the ability of very good people to sit on university and polytech councils. This complaints process is quite onerous. I think this complaints process, under section 229C, will dissuade students from complaining. In fact, this bill will become a bit of a nothing. Have members read what students have to go through? They have to lodge a written complaint, on reasonable grounds. It has to go to a university board, which sits about once a month. There will be a whole stack of maybe 10, 12, or 20 complaints. Then the board has to make a decision. Every student who lodges a complaint has the ability to be represented.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This amendment was lodged and has been on the Table for some time. It does not do anything to the fundamental purpose of the bill. It simply adds to the clause. I find it incomprehensible that my amendment could be ruled out of order. It was accepted by the Clerk some time ago and has sat on the Table for some time, within the Supplementary Order Paper. I simply do not understand at all how a ruling like that could be made.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Can I say to the member that, firstly, just because his amendment has been tabled, it does not mean to say it has been accepted. As to the fact that the amendment has sat on the Table all this time and the member has not had any report back on it, there is no requirement for that. The process of the Committee is that amendments are put on the Table, and when they are put before the Committee the Chairperson makes the decision to accept them or reject them. So let us deal with the process—there is no process other than that, and there never has been, and I doubt that we will ever see a change in the process.

The second element is that it is the judgment of the Chair, on the advice of the Clerk, that the amendment is inconsistent with the principles of the bill. That is the ruling, and I regret to advise the member that there is no appeal authority on this. There is no other jurisdiction, and correspondence will not be entered into. That is the end of the matter. The amendment is ruled out of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. What role does precedent play in a decision such as this? I refer you particularly to an almost identical bill to the one that we are currently debating, which was voted on in this Parliament in either 1997 or 1998. The original bill was almost identical, and an amendment almost identical to Mr Robertson’s amendment was accepted by the then Chairperson. I was not here at the time so I was not involved. But there is a precedent that that amendment was deemed to be within the scope of the bill. The ruling you have made is inconsistent with that ruling, so I am asking you what role precedent plays in decisions such as yours to make such a ruling.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Well, there are two things. I say to the member that as a wiser man than me, the Rt Hon David Lange, said one time, consistency is the last refuge of a fool. But having said that, the point is that this is a new bill, a new day, and I have made the ruling. I have made the ruling that the amendment is out of order, and I am not going to go back to it. The member’s point of order is seeking to challenge that ruling. The matter is closed.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 205 in the name of Gareth Hughes to new section 229A in clause 6 be agreed to.