Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill

During Mr Peachey’s call Tau Henare shouted out that the Labour members on this side of the Chamber were engaged in fascism by opposing this Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. Well, I have news for Mr Henare. What we on this side of the Chamber are doing is protecting the National Government’s provision that was supported by Mr Henare when he was in Mauri Pacific, and, in fact, advocated for by Mr Henare when he was in Mauri Pacific. We are trying to protect his work, and he calls that fascism. That is what Mr Henare is doing. He is calling his own provision fascism. Mr Henare was part of a Government that came up with a solution that gave students associations choice. It gave students associations choice. I congratulate Mr Henare. He made sure there was a choice for students associations. If enough members of an association wanted there to be voluntary membership, they could get a referendum through and then there would be a vote. In fact, under this bill brought forward by Heather Roy, that choice gets wiped out. The choice that Mr Henare put into the law is now wiped out as a result of this bill. The Auckland University Students Association went through that process. It is now voluntary. That choice is gone under this bill. One does not have the ability to make that choice as a student. So the fascism that Mr Henare accuses us of is actually his own work. We are defending his own work.

Clause 6A applies the clauses of this bill to private training establishments. I think we have seen enough information in the media in recent times to indicate that the students involved in many private training establishments are, in fact, very vulnerable. We have seen a number of examples of students enrolled in private training establishments who have actually had their money ripped out of their pockets for very little return. The role of a students association, the role of student movements within private training establishments, is, in fact, becoming increasingly important. Value for money—making sure one actually gets a qualification at the end of the day—is an important part of what students associations do. Students associations are there every single day in institutions around the country, making sure that students get value for money and that they can stay in their education.

During the consideration of this clause in this part of the bill in the select committee process, Mr Peachey, Louise Upston, and Colin King, the National members of the Education and Science Committee, heard the submissions—the overwhelming submissions—that said that we should keep the status quo. The institutions who came to the committee, all bar one, said “Please do not pass this bill. We believe in what student associations are doing.” Mr Peachey heard all of those submissions, and he knew. Mr Peachey and Louise Upston knew that they needed to do something to stop this bill from going through. They knew—perhaps with some mitigation, something around more referendum opportunities, or something around an opt-out clause for students—that that was a better option. Mr Peachey and Louise Upston knew that was a better option, then, all of a sudden, that went out the window and National kowtowed to ACT. National simply went along with ACT. As my colleague Moana Mackey pointed out via interjection, Paul Hutchison went to the New Zealand University Students’ Association conference before the last election and said that National would not support voluntary student membership and it would not support what is being done by clause 6A here today. That is what National said before the election, but after the election that is out the door—just like GST not going up is out the door. The commitment of National to stick with a workable solution for students association membership was completely rejected out of hand after the election, as part of a deal with the ACT Party.

That deal with the ACT Party will mean that students right across tertiary institutions in New Zealand will lose the important advocacy and representation that is given to them by students associations. Be they in a public institution or a private institution, students will lose the ability of those students associations to provide services, because that is the real evidence of what happened in Australia when this kind of legislation was passed. Seventy-five percent of the services provided by students associations disappeared when voluntary student membership came in, and there is no doubt that the same thing will happen here. The real vulnerability is not just for those students who are in polytechnics and universities, but also for the ones in small institutions, in small polytechnics, and in institutions where there will not necessarily be some kind of contract for service between the institution and the students association. The students association will end up withering and dying on the vine, and that will mean that those students do not have representation.

Clause 6A refers to the changes that were made under clause 6, and quite clearly within those changes there is the substantive change that moves from a situation of universal membership to voluntary membership, as outlined in section 229A, inserted by clause 6. This was the area where compromise was on the table. This was where the Labour members were prepared to look for an enduring solution, so that this does not flop around with each change of Government. Mark my words—under a Labour Government it will change back. We have said that in the minority report—it will change back. But what we could have had was an enduring agreement. Mr Peachey wanted an enduring agreement, and that would have been one where we looked at something like more regular referenda or looked at an opt-out clause. That was on the table. But instead, under section 229A, that goes off the table and we move to a situation where the choice of students to decide whether membership of their association will be compulsory or voluntary—Mr Henare’s clause—is out. That has gone.

Also within what has now been put in place in clause 6 for private institutions is section 229B, on the question of undue influence. I have often wondered about this change. The provision around undue influence is so ill-defined as to what undue influence might constitute. Certainly I know that students associations right around the country will often run orientation activities, which will include all manner of things that are part of buying an orientation ticket. Is the promoter of this bill seriously saying that undue influence could extend to whether an orientation ticket has some free beer with it, or something like that? Is that the extent of undue influence? We do not know, because section 229B is so ill-defined. The reason why I am raising that under this clause is that clause 6A applies section 229A through to section 229C to private training establishments. How will we know what undue influence is? What procedures will be in place to ensure that undue influence is not exerted? Section 229C, inserted by clause 6, runs through the complaints process that people will be able to undertake, in terms of undue influence, but it does not give us any kind of accurate definition of what that influence might be. In addition to taking away the choice of students associations, as to whether membership will be voluntary or compulsory, what this does in addition is put in place an unworkable, in my view, situation around the question of undue influence.

Another important matter that is now covered, in terms of private training establishments, by clause 6A concerns the reason fees can be collected. Section 229CA now tells us that “(1) No person is required to pay a membership fee to a students association, or to pay money to any other person as an alternative to paying such a membership fee, unless that person chooses to become or remain a member of that association.” It then goes on to say that “(2) A person who is not a member of a students association may not be required to pay a representation fee to that association for any services that the association provides generally to the institution’s student body.”

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You are talking about clause 6. We are on clause 6A.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Clause 6A applies sections 229A to 229C to private training establishments. To give it any meaning whatsoever we would need to discuss that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I hear what you are saying. You must tie it back.

Thank you, Mr Chair. We are saying for students who are enrolled in private training establishments that should there be a situation in which those private training establishments accept some kind of an arrangement with a students association in those private training establishments, the fee that was being charged perhaps by the institution directly to the student could not be for any kind of representational activity of a students association. To me that is completely nonsensical. We also now have the situation—

💬 Hon Rick Barker: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have just been to the Table to look for a copy of the bill, and there is no copy of the bill on this side of the Table. I do not think this debate can continue whilst there is no copy of the bill for Opposition members to consider. I suggest that this debate stop immediately, until there is a copy of the bill on this side of the Table.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are having—

💬 Hon Rick Barker: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That member walked across the Chamber without acknowledging the Chair. That is utterly disorderly.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I ask the member to sit down. I will rule on this matter. Although there might not be copies of the bill on the Opposition side of the Table, and I appreciate the member bringing it to our attention, the Clerk has asked for further copies to be delivered to the Chamber. However, there are copies of the bill on the Government side of the Table. There is no requirement to have copies of the bill on each side of the Table, just as long as the bill has been tabled, and there are copies on the Table. The point has been made and we now have copies specifically on the Opposition side of the Table. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Hon Tau Henare walked across the Chamber without recognising the Chair, and that is disrespectful to the Chair. I expect you to bring him to order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for that. I did ask the member to resume his seat—to sit down. That is the end of the matter. Let us move on.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. While I was undertaking my point of order, the Hon Tau Henare threw a copy of the bill at me. I do not think that is a very orderly manner for him to conduct himself, either. If the member wants to help me, then—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you. The member has made his point well. I asked the member to resume his seat—to sit down. That is the end of the matter. The member has erred; I have told him to sit down, to resume his seat, and that is the end of the matter.

Sections 229A to 229C, inserted by clause 6A, apply to private training establishments. I note in my remaining seconds of speaking time, and as other members take a call, that Allan Peachey in his initial contribution on clause 6A did not mention clause 6A once. He actually talked only about clause 6, so I am sure it is a wide-ranging debate.

I do apologise for not acknowledging you, Mr Chair. New section 229A, inserted by clause 6, is headed “Membership of students associations voluntary”, and states: “No student or prospective student at an institution is required to be a member of a students association.”

💬 Moana Mackey: Wrong clause.

I am sorry—wrong clause? No, it is not the wrong clause; it is the right clause. Most people coming into the country, whether or not they are aliens, on reading that would think to themselves: “Oh crikey, I quite like that. That means that my freedom of choice is enshrined. My freedom to be—

💬 Hon John Boscawen: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I draw your attention to the fact that Mr Rick Barker has had his back to you for the last minute. I think he is being discourteous to the Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for that, but this is getting to the state of being stupid and silly. There are many members in the Chamber in the course of a debate. The whips of parties have the ability to go and talk to their members. The Hon Rick Barker is the senior Labour whip and he has the right to move amongst his members. Raising these spurious points of order does not add anything to the debate, so that is the end of the matter. The call has gone to the Hon Tau Henare.

It is all about democracy. It is all about the freedom of choice. It is all about saying to people that if they want to join an organisation that is fine, but if they do not, they do not have to. There is no compunction for anybody to belong to an organisation they do not want to belong to.

💬 Moana Mackey: Why did you say you wouldn’t do this in the last election, then?

Well, the member can have her shriek later on. The member can take the call, have a little play around in the sandpit, and pretend that she wants to protect a person’s choice. But look, here is the deal: I say to members of Parliament—

💬 Moana Mackey: Why did you lie at the last election? Why did you lie?

—that if people do not want to belong to the Labour Party they do not have to. If they do not want to belong to the National Party, they do not have to—and guess what?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am reluctant to do this, because I am sure that it is the role of the senior Government whip rather than people on our side. One of my colleagues just called Tau Henare a liar. I think that is out of order, and you should have rebuked her.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I did not hear that comment—

💬 Chris Tremain: I didn’t either.

And nor did I.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I did not hear that comment. Had I heard it, I would have certainly—I ask the senior Labour whip, because I am dealing with a point of order, to please sit down. I did not hear that comment. Had I heard that comment I would certainly have acted on it, because I have the Speakers’ Rulings open at that page. Let us continue.

💬 Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am a relatively new member to this Chamber, but the previous Chair asked the Hon Trevor Mallard to leave the Chamber for trifling with the Committee.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, my understanding is that the member is entitled to be here, and that is the end of the matter.

💬 Moana Mackey: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I did make that comment, and I withdraw and apologise.

Now we are all friends again. She has apologised, and my mana is intact. But I tell members what else is intact, due to this bill and the good work of my colleague the Hon Heather Roy, and it is the fact that students who go up to university on orientation day will not have to join an organisation they do not want to belong to. That is the crux of the matter. That is what we are talking about. We are not talking about anything other than a person having the right to say “No, I do not want to join your organisation.” That is what we are talking about, and that is what new section 229A states.

Labour members love to get up on their hind legs and say they are there, protecting the rights of the innocent, so to speak, but I tell you what—this is where the ends of the political spectrum start to meet each other. Here fascism and the dictatorship of the proletariat—communism, socialism, call it what we will—start meeting each other and shaking hands. This is nothing more than Labour members saying that they know best, and that they will tell people which organisations they should belong to.

💬 Grant Robertson: This is the member’s clause.

Grant Robertson can dance all around the topic, but at the end of the day new section 229A states quite clearly that I do not have to belong to an organisation if I do not want to belong to that organisation. What more can you ask of democracy? Nothing! You cannot ask anything more of democracy on the right—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member has been here for some time—in a couple of bursts, I understand—and he knows by now that he should not refer to “you”.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): A number of members have said “you” during the course of the debates. I have not bothered to bring up members; I would rather see a free flow. It is a robust debate, and I would like to hear some facts about what is pertained to in clause 6A. The member has a minute to go on clause 6A.

What is contained in clause 6A is the statement that if people are enrolled at a private training establishment they will not be forced to join the “student army” or student union. We all know that universities especially are the hive of Young Labour. They have to sort of “put it on”; they are Young Labour. But I tell you what: no longer will people be frogmarched into an association they do not want to belong to. No longer will they have to dress up in silly uniforms, walk into an association, and pay their fees—pay money—to belong to an organisation they do not want to join. That is what clause 6A tells us. It is about saying to people that they have a choice. It says that on this particular day, the choice is yours—

The member twice brought me into the debate. Having considered a point of order earlier, I ask members to respect what the rulings are. Do not bring the Chair into the debate.

What an extraordinary contribution from the member who first drafted and passed into law the very provision that members opposite are now deleting. The very provision they are now deleting is the provision that Tau Henare drafted and passed into law.

When he was on his feet I asked him the question why the National Party had promised not to implement this Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and clause 6A—not to extend it to private training establishments. Why did National promise at the last election that it would not do this, yet National members are sitting here tonight voting for it? Why? They have all gone very, very quiet now because they know that there is no mandate for clause 6A. There is no mandate for extending these provisions to private training establishments.

They are doing it because the ACT Party—a 2 percent party on a good day—cannot get the 10 percent support of students required to force a referendum. If an institution like a private training establishment wants voluntary student membership, all it has to do is get 10 percent of its students to agree to a referendum, and a referendum would be held, democratically, at that private training establishment to determine whether its students wanted to go voluntary. All that is required is 10 percent support, but the ACT Party cannot get it, so members are sitting here in Parliament today forcing through legislation that will be forced on students who have said, democratically, that they do not want it in their private training establishments. Mr Henare talked about everything under the sun and barely mentioned private training establishments. This clause extends the bill to private training establishments. The ACT Party cannot even get 10 percent support from those students to have a referendum to let them decide.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise to the member for interrupting. I noticed you signalling to the member to restrict her comments. I spent time—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I ask the member to resume his seat. I have on numerous occasions asked members to come back to clause 6A. Instead of standing and giving an order, I often signal to members to come back to the point, which is clause 6A. That is what we are debating. It is what I normally do. It is a practice I have followed for a long time. It is to just indicate to the member that they should be relevant and come back to the clause we are debating.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think that is a good practice. It is one that good Speakers have used, as well. The issue I have is that I could not see you all of the time while Mr Peachey was speaking, but I listened to his speech from the Chamber—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is not a point of order. I ask the member to resume his seat. I will determine the relevancy of speeches. I have brought members back to clause 6A. I will do it as I see it at the time. That is the way I have ruled.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The point I am getting to, if I am able, is a request for you to do that on a consistent basis. I was here for Tau Henare’s speech. I did not see you give that signal to him, at all, and he gave a history of the world rather than addressing the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I did actually tell him to come back to clause 6A. I ask Moana Mackey to continue.

Clause 6A, of course, extends the provisions in clause 6 to private training establishments, and that is what I have been discussing. The point I was making was that all that is required under current law is that 10 percent, a measly 10 percent, of students sign a petition to say that they want a referendum, and a referendum will be held—10 percent. Apparently, that provision is such a huge problem that we need to get rid of it and students do not want it, yet the ACT Party cannot even get 10 percent of the students at a private training establishment to call for a referendum so that the students at that establishment can determine for themselves whether they want to be voluntary or compulsory in terms of their students association fees—10 percent. We could be standing here instead discussing, as Labour wanted to, whether that threshold is too high, and whether private training establishments should have to get the support of only 5 percent of students to force a referendum. That is fine; let us have that discussion. But we are here in Parliament legislating over the top of the democratic right of students to determine for themselves whether their associations are voluntary or compulsory, because the ACT Party could not even get 10 percent of students to agree with it. There is no mandate to extend this bill to private training establishments, at all. There is no mandate. ACT is a party on less than 2 percent support—less than 2 percent.

National members promised at the last election that they would not extend the legislation to private training establishments. They said there was no way they would support this. They gave that commitment to students. They said to those in private training establishments that they would not vote for this. So only a party with 2 percent support went to the last election promising this change—2 percent—and Heather Roy says she has a mandate to do this. There is no mandate. This is not about choice. This removes choice. It removes choice from students in private training establishments. It removes choice.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: We’re going to free-vote on this.

Tau Henare interjects. This is the man who wrote this provision. He gave this great eloquent speech about why it should be gotten rid of, and failed to mention the fact that he was the member who drafted it in the first place—he was the member. But that is Tau Henare. He can argue both sides of any argument. He can belong to any political party he wants to. He is AC/DC, which is why he has belonged to so many political parties.

This clause is bad news for students in private training establishments, because it removes their choice. And this is from a so-called party of choice. Now there will be no choice as to whether membership of a students association is voluntary or compulsory. There will be no choice in private training establishments. Those students will have only the option that ACT, the “2 percent party”, wants them to have. It does not matter that in some cases they have democratically chosen that they want compulsory students association membership. That does not matter. It does not matter that provisions exist already for those who want to conscientiously object to do so. If the provisions that allow conscientious objection by students in private training establishments are not strong enough, then let us talk about that. Let us have that discussion.

That is what Labour wanted to do when we said we wanted to talk to Heather Roy and to the Government about finding an enduring solution for private training establishments—an enduring solution so that this issue does not become a political football. We were told no; no, they did not want to do this. The “2 percent party” wanted to force this through because its members know they will never be able to force through referendums on the campuses of New Zealand. They know they have lost that debate. They know that the private training establishments will not support them in their ideological drive to get rid of political opposition, and to get rid of the voices of students associations that might disagree with them. They know they cannot do that on the campuses of private training establishments, so they have to come to Parliament to force through legislation that there is no mandate for—no mandate for—and that removes choice.

I look forward to the next National speaker who gets up to speak on clause 6A and waxes lyrical about how great this measure is, how fantastic it is, and how great it will be for students. I want to hear from National members why, then, they promised they would not do this. Why, then, did they go to the last election promising not to vote for clause 6A, not to vote for this legislation? Why did they go to the New Zealand University Students’ Association conference and say “National will not vote for clause 6A. We will not vote for this bill.”? That is what I want to hear from the next National speaker. They all get very excited about clause 6A, but they fail to mention that they are breaking a major election promise by supporting it. They are breaking a major election promise.

💬 Hon Member: Major!

It was an election promise. Go and ask Paul Hutchison. He went to the New Zealand University Students’ Association conference and promised that National would not support this clause and National would not support this legislation. That is why Labour has been opposing this clause and this legislation so hard—because of the fact that there is no mandate for it. There is no mandate for it. Two percent of the country voted—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: It’s called a majority.

Oh, “It’s called a majority.” says Tau Henare. So why can that not apply on the campuses of New Zealand? If it is called a majority, why can that not apply on the campuses of New Zealand so that they can have a vote, which Mr Henare is interjecting and saying he should be allowed in this Chamber? Why is there one rule for National and Tau Henare, and another for the students in private training establishments around New Zealand? Why?

💬 Hon Tau Henare: We won, you lost!

He says “We won, you lost!”. Apparently, democracy is important in this place, but nowhere else if it does not suit Mr Henare. Well, Labour members support democracy on the campuses of New Zealand.

I feel sorry for Heather Roy that she was not able to get 10 percent of students to agree to a referendum. That must have been very discouraging. It must have been very embarrassing. She probably thought private training establishments were the area where she would get traction. Well, she could not get 10 percent support. How hard could that be, if this is such a major issue that we need to legislate over the rights of all students in order to fix it?

💬 Hon John Boscawen: Phil Goff can’t do it! Phil Goff can’t get 10 percent!

Ten percent, I tell Mr Boscawen. Ten percent! That is all that ACT members needed to get on the campuses of private training establishments, but they could not do it. They failed. They failed. So here we are in Parliament debating a bill that has no mandate, which that party over there said it would not support. A party on less than 2 percent support is forcing this law change on all students, even though they have said they do not want it, and even though they voted on it in private training establishments and on other campuses around the country. They voted, I tell Mr Boscawen, and they said they wanted the choice. Remember choice? That used to be what the ACT Party was about. Not any more, because if people do not choose what the ACT Party wants, then it will legislate over the top of their rights. That is the true ACT Party. That is what those members are doing here in this Parliament. That is what they are doing in clause 6A, which removes the choice of students in private training establishments to determine for themselves—rather than just do what the ACT Party thinks is good for them—what they want in terms of their students associations. What is so wrong with that? Well, what is wrong with it is that there is an ideological bent on the part of the ACT Party to get rid of them.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. I would like to follow that fiery, passionate speech by Moana Mackey. I think there is a parallel situation with the ACT Party. ACT on Campus and Student Choice could not convince enough of their peers on campus to reach that 10 percent threshold to get a petition, because students, quite frankly, do not support the position of going to a mandatory voluntary student membership environment. We are seeing the same parallel in Epsom and down in Ōhāriu, where the ACT Party, which cannot survive on its own merits, has to have the National Party stitching up a deal for it, just like the deal we are seeing here. The ACT Party cannot get enough supporters to support it, so it needs the National Party to stitch up a deal.

I will refer to Tau Henare’s speech with regard to clause 6A about private training establishments. The member referred to the “student army” and the compulsion of rounding up students to join an “army”, but when we look at Christchurch and the impact of the earthquake, it was the Student Volunteer Army in which we saw students at their best. The students association was at its best, helping out in the community. When we look at those students from the private training establishments who helped out in the Student Volunteer Army, we see one of the best arguments for having a vibrant, organised, well-financed student body.

Tau Henare also talked about students associations being a breeding ground for Labour politicians. But it is not just politicians who have come out of the students association environment. In fact, former students association members form part of our press gallery.

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

I move, That the question be now put.

I would not say that it gives me pleasure to speak tonight, because I think this Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is a crock, frankly. It is a piece of ideology that is looking for a cause. I want to speak on clause 6A, which involves private training establishments. This clause pertains to the entire bill, but this particular part looks at private training establishments themselves.

I think there is a real issue here about the whole focus of what we are trying to do within this bill—that is, the conceptualisation of the legislation is about a compulsory union. I want to refer to a submission made by David Caygill and his son, which I believe contests that whole point of view. It effectively says that the student union is a union such as we would think of as being in a workplace. They said that this is the wrong conceptualisation altogether and that the student union is actually not that sort of a union.

The submission states: “… students are not employees. They are not being compelled to belong to a students’ association in order to be allowed to take part in tertiary study. Rather they are being compelled to contribute towards a necessary and relevant cost of that study. In other words, we would argue that the better analogy is not with membership of a trade union or professional association, but with the payment of a tax.”

I want to look at that in relation to the provision in clause 6A(1) to substitute “229CA” in the heading of section 229D. The point is that under section 229CA(3)(b), a students association can be “contracted by an institution or any other person to provide services to students of an institution.” This particular point is rather interesting, because what we are looking at here is, effectively, the students association being contracted by the university, which is normally the case. But the problem with that is that, as we know, the students associations will be paying for the services in order for the students association to continue, by the university itself levying the students in order to be able to do that.

This is not a free service. The role, various responsibilities, services, and advocacy that the students associations provide are provided not free of charge but by the students association and the students themselves. But what happens, as we know, in just about every case when the students association is made voluntary is that students neglect to pay those fees, and the association effectively winds up as an effective body for students. Then what happens is that the university or the institution itself—or in this case, relating to clause 6A, the private training establishments—takes over those responsibilities and again contracts students back to provide them, because those very services are essential to the life and experience of students in a university or private training establishment. What happens is that the institution has to contract students, as we see in section 229CA(3)(b), and students, in turn, have to pay through their levies in order for those services to continue.

There is a problem with that at the moment. In the Education Amendment Bill (No 4), restrictions and limits will be placed on tertiary institutions being able to levy students in order to provide those services. We are in the middle of what I call a perfect storm. If this voluntary student membership bill goes through as it is, students associations will effectively have no money to provide the services and advocacy they have been providing. The university, or the private training establishments in this case, will have to step in. The private training establishments will have to levy students in order to provide services, but they will be restricted from doing that by the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). So, as a result of that, in a way, both avenues for providing those services will be cut off. Both avenues will be cut off. The universities, polytechs, and private training establishments will become desolate places, not the vibrant, supportive places they are at the moment.

That is particularly so in the case of the more than 300 private training establishments that exist in New Zealand that clause 6A relates to. In those places, students often need to have stronger representation than they do in universities, because many of the private training establishments, as we have seen, are perhaps not as professional as many other institutions.

This bill could have been completely avoided. This bill was put up by Roger Douglas. It was passed on to Heather Roy when Rodney Hide sacked her as deputy leader of the ACT Party. Rodney Hide has since been rolled over himself. There is a certain pyramid of people being toppled in the ACT Party.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: No one’s safe.

Certainly, no one is safe in the ACT Party. We will now have Don Brash coming in and John Banks, and we will see whether John Banks rolls Don Brash as a result. I cannot see the status quo continuing.

As Moana Mackey says, 2 percent of this Parliament is pushing through this piece of ideology. There is absolutely no way that ACT on Campus was ever going to be able to get this sort of bill through. There was no way that ACT on Campus was going to get 10 percent of the student body to vote on whether they want students associations.

The absolute travesty of this legislation is that the choice of students in institutions has been taken away by us here in Parliament—not by us, by the ACT Party supported by National—simply because those people who are peddling this particular piece of odious ideology have to do this because there is no way that they can get popular support in the institutions themselves. Not only that but the 2 percent the ACT Party holds is split between I do not know how many other people within the party sitting in Parliament.

As I said before, this bill is a piece of ideology looking for a cause and a purpose. Absolutely in no way will it do anything of value to our tertiary institutions throughout the country. It will gut them. It will make them mean, soulless places, like the leader of the ACT Party and like the ACT Party itself. It is going to make them soulless places where students will not be able to get support and will not be able to exert the influence and the advocacy they have been able to, simply because we are looking at a piece of ideology trumped up as a cause.

This is an absolute travesty. This could have been reconciled. This could have been solved by a compromise. We have put up a number of amendments. We have had a number of discussions about this.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What a sorry sight.

Rather than Tau Henare, for example, coming—

I move, That the question be now put.

We are talking about clause 6A, “Sections 229A to 229C apply to private training establishments”. I have had a little bit of time in the university sector. I was a director of strategic development in a university, so I know a little bit about the tertiary education sector.

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

Yes—and members on that side of the Chamber might learn something. With regard to private training establishments, student unions are pretty much vital to the inner workings of these institutions in terms of how they cope. Typically, a lot of students go to private training establishments because they are practical, they offer a good course, and often they are local. There are a lot of private training establishments around the country. I am not too sure how many. Does Mr Shearer know how many?

💬 David Shearer: More than 300.

There are more than 300 private training establishments around the country. These establishments provide an awesome service because they normally allow students to stay in the area where they grew up. If students want to become mechanics or do some sort of trades course, they can go to a private training establishment. For a lot of people that is perfect. For a lot of people, that is staircasing. It gets people into the education system. Sometimes they have not engaged with the education system or they have fallen out of the system.

The private training establishment sector provides a very valuable service. Not only does it train people but it gives people confidence. It gives students confidence to re-engage in the education process and the sector. But what happens with this situation is that people who might have fallen out of the system at some stage are coming back in. These people may not necessarily be academically inclined, or have much confidence in their own ability. They know what they want to do but they suffer from a crisis of confidence, although that is probably too strong a term. They do not have confidence. They go to a private training establishment to gain confidence and gain qualifications.

But where they gain confidence they also build comradeship. Often just as important as the qualification they get is the friends they make. Where do those students make friends? It is in the functions and confines that student bodies provide. That is why student organisations are so important. Often if people are new in a private training establishment, they do not know much about anything. So they go along to the student union and meet people of like mind. They meet people on their course. They meet people who can mentor them—that is just as important—and provide support.

It is my estimate that nearly every single person who is on a student body has been at that establishment for a while, so they know how it works. They know what first-year students have to face, and they know how to get around a lot of the problems that first-year students encounter. They deliver a number of very valuable services to many students. If this bill takes that away, then it is taking away one of those important stepping stones that students need to continue along with their education.

A lot of students get to the first month and they struggle a little bit. The first or second assignment may be due in and they are not too sure how they are going along. They may decide: “Oh, shivers, this is getting a bit too hard for me.”, and they go along to the students association. They have a sit-down with someone who has been there before and knows what it is about, and that person talks them through it. It is a mentoring role of sorts. What happens? I have seen this before. At the end of that course that student goes back to the student union and back to the person who has mentored them or provided support and says that without the support that was given, he or she would not have reached the end of the course. That is what happens.

The ACT Party says it is the party of private enterprise, of getting people ahead, of economic enterprise, and of taking individual responsibility, so it absolutely astounds me that it is actually ripping out one of the steps that provides those things. This bill takes away one of the vital support structures in private training establishments that allow students to get ahead. That is why this bill really surprises me. When I learnt that this bill was the only member’s bill put up by the ACT Party that may get through this House, I wondered whether it would be the legacy of that party.

Every student who goes to a private training establishment and drops out has Heather Roy to thank. Heather Roy—she can correct me if I am wrong—has five children. One of her children may end up being one of the students at a private training establishment who is supported by a student union but no longer will be. I do not know the age of her children.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Don’t bring a member’s children into it.

As for you, we’ll get started on you. You keep quiet. Don’t talk to me like that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member cannot bring the Chair into it in the way that he did. If the member reflects on how he used that particular pronoun, it is quite out of order, so please be careful.

My daughter or my son may be one of the students in the future that needs the support. But it is not about my children who attend private training establishments, because clause 6A deals with private training establishments; it is about young New Zealanders who want to engage in education. They often go to private training establishments.

Young New Zealanders often use private training establishments as a stepping stone to further their educational career and their professional and personal development. If this is taken away, what do we end up with? We end up with a further hollowing-out of the education system that has started under that Government. I think it is an absolute disgrace.

The only person who should be happy about this is the Minister of Corrections, because she knows that when people fall out of society they end up in her prisons—and she is rapt about it. That Minister will end up with the largest portfolio in the country if this Government has its way. Members opposite call this success. I remember when Bill English said at a select committee that the Government was going to sell State assets. Shane Jones asked whether the Government was going to sell a power station to build a prison. Bill English said, yes, that is what the Government will do.

I will finish up, because I had only three points to make. The first point was that if we take away students associations from private training establishments, then we take away the important support that students need to get through their qualifications. If this bill takes away the ability of student unions to be established and provide the support that students need at private training establishments, then the community is worse off. Thank you.

I seek the leave of the House to table a submission on behalf of the Otago University Students’ Association as supplementary submission No. 5.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is. I call Todd McClay.

I seek leave to table a submission from the Albany Students’ Association and its supplementary submission No. 7 to this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is.

Point of order—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Just to interrupt that point of order, I think you omitted to rule that the submission not be tabled.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): If I did, it was an oversight. So leave is not granted.

I seek leave to table the submission entitled “The Association of Students at UCOL”, which is supplementary submission No. 3.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is. Leave is not granted. I make a point of clarification. The nature of the papers that the member seeks to table, are they submissions to the select committee? What are they?

They are.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): They are; they are part of the record of the House. Yes, they are. So I am not prepared to accept them as—[Interruption] I am on my feet. I am not prepared to accept the tabling of those documents as a process by leave because they are part of the record of the House and they are public documents.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. In the documentation that was provided by the Leader of the House to all parties on Tuesday morning, this legislation was not included. This was not on the list of matters to be considered. Therefore, members have not had the time or the expectation of going back and finding the particular relevant pieces from the select committee. It is my request that you look carefully at your ruling, because members want to debate this seriously. There are points that the member has selected from the documents that have been tabled at the select committee, in order to have the ones in which there is particular interest.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): All that is very interesting, but it has nothing to do with the point of order upon which I have ruled. All of these documents are on the website. Members have at their disposal the ability to bring into this Chamber electronic equipment that makes all of that available. Therefore, I will not permit leave to be sought for the tabling of documents that are in the public arena.

I move, That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s refusal to put a request for leave for a document to be tabled.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do believe that you already gave the call to Mr McClay.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I stand corrected. I apologise to the member, and once the call has been given it cannot be rescinded. We progressed and Mr McClay never took the call. But, chronologically, what I did was to give the call to Mr McClay prior.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am very reluctant to challenge your recall of matters, but, as I recall the situation, two people stood to take the call and I took a point of order. You gave me the point of order ahead of Mr McClay. When I sat down, the next person you called was Kelvin Davis.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Let me just reflect on this for a moment. I respect the member’s call.

Todd McClay and I stood at exactly the same time. I called for a point of order, and you gave me the call. You recognised me ahead of Todd McClay because I called a point of order. You did not call Mr McClay. Then, when I sat down after you had ruled out my points of order on seeking leave, you clearly called Kelvin Davis.

The senior Labour whip is correct. However, when he had finished his point of order and you had ruled, you gave me the call at that stage. You called Todd McClay to speak. That was the point at which you gave the call to me.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): That is my recollection, so I will hear Todd McClay.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I want to take you back to the absolutely correct point that you made—that is, once a call has been given, it cannot be taken back.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): That is true.

You might have been mistaken in giving the call to Kelvin Davis, but you did. Once he started, as he did, you cannot stop him.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Well, he had not started. That may well have been an error, because one has to remember there has been quite a bit of activity to which my attention was somewhat distracted, and I apologise to the Committee. But in reality, the first person to whom I gave the call was Todd McClay.

I move, That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s awarding of a call to Todd McClay.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would like to refer you now to Speaker’s ruling 26/5, which states: “Once the presiding officer has called on a member to speak that member has the floor and cannot have the call taken away. This applies even though the principle of alternation or, in committee, the obligation to give preference to a member who has spoken less often, is overlooked. It makes no difference whether or not the member has begun to speak; the right to speak applies from the moment the presiding officer calls the member.”

What that makes clear is that even if you have cocked up the order, or made a mistake in making a call, once that call has been made, it is very clear from that Speaker’s ruling that you cannot take it away, even though, as we have disagreed on Kelvin Davis, the member has not spoken.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am very familiar with that Speaker’s ruling, and it is for that very reason that I believe the call should go to Todd McClay. I will take the call from him.

I move, That the question be now put.

If it would help, Mr Chairman, being a rugby man, perhaps if you just blew the whistle and went upstairs for an instant replay, we would see the order of how things happened. It gives me great pleasure to stand after my colleague Stuart Nash has given such a passionate, eloquent, reasonable, and rational series of speeches on clause 6A. Members can be assured of the same sort of rationality from me, as well.

I will follow on from what my colleague David Shearer has said about the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. It is an ideological argument that if something is not broke, I wonder why we are spending time here trying to fix it. We know that the law already says that a referendum can be held if 10 percent of the student body agree to it. So why on earth do we need—

💬 Jo Goodhew: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I believe that this particular member is straying well outside of clause 6A.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Clause 6A relates to private training establishments. The rules regarding 10 percent apply to them as they do to others. It is a question of whether the rules that currently apply to them should continue to apply to them. The absolute essence of what is being debated here is whether they are in that set of rules.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I will rule that the member is still inside the boundary. I was not paying particular attention, as I am processing quite a pile of amendments at the moment, but I just ask him to bear in mind that he should be speaking to clause 6A. I am not accusing him of not doing that, but I am just asking him to please contain himself in the future.

Thank you, Mr Chair, because I was just getting to the private training establishment part of things. This legislation applies, as we know, to private training establishments, as well. I forgive you, Mr Chair, for not paying attention to the eloquence of this speech. The reality is that the law already says that a referendum can be held if 10 percent of the student body agree to it. Why do we need to go through this now? By holding a referendum at private training establishments, the students there can decide whether they want to be part of a students association.

Shifting to what happened at Waikato University as an example, when the students association was disestablished, things fell apart. I was listening to the debate earlier on, and Tau Henare was saying it was all about choice. Well, he should tell that to students at a private training establishment who need a students association at a time of particular crisis in their lives. We know that students associations provide services of that sort for when students are in difficulties. That member should tell the students who turn up looking for help from a students association: “Sorry, it has been disestablished. It has fallen over because of this bill that has been pushed through Parliament.” He should tell students in their moment of need that it is just too bad and that Parliament has decided to override the current law and change things.

Why change it? Why change it went it is not broke? As Stuart Nash said, private training establishments allow students to train in the area where they come from, so that they can train not far from home. When people in the north, like me, wanted to go to teachers college, the only option was to journey south for 3 hours to go to the nearest teachers college. It is great that students can train in the area around them. Why should this bill apply to private training establishments? Why should it apply at all when there is actually no problem? Who has asked for this bill, aside from the ACT Party? The students do not want it. If they wanted it, they would gather up 10 percent of the student body and ask for it. Instead, here we are overriding what the student body wants. Why do it? What is the point of doing this and undermining the services that are provided to help students get through their training?

We know there are a lot of difficulties. We know that students are often leaving home for the first time. They get introduced to all the vices that are out there and they need help often. They get into trouble with the law. I remember friends getting into trouble with the police. They needed help and advice from people and peers whom they trusted, and the student body at Auckland College of Education provided that help when I was there, as well as the social side of things. But I do not want people to think that students associations are there only for social activities, because there is a lot more than that. Students’ physical and mental health and well-being are also being considered here. This bill threatens to take that service away, and there is no need for it. Like I said, 10 percent of the student body need to come together. All that a student body at a private training establishment needs to do is gather together 10 percent of its students who do not want it. If there is not 10 percent who do not want it, what are we doing here? What are we doing debating this bill now? There is absolutely no point. Those members cannot even gather 10 percent of the student body to oppose compulsory membership.

The other thing is conscientious objection. If students really do not want to be part of the student body at a private training establishment, they can opt out of it. There is the conscientious objection side of this. As I said, members opposite should try telling a student who is having social, emotional, or any other difficulties at a private training establishment: “Sorry, we do not provide any services. We do not have any choice.”

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What’s wrong with the whānau?

Here we go. Students are often away from whānau, and often many whānau are dysfunctional in themselves, so what happens to students who are dysfunctional in themselves?

💬 Stuart Nash: The student body becomes the whānau.

Mr Nash, to my right, has a point. The student body does become the whānau for the student who is having difficulties. It is a pointless exercise to carry on arguing about this bill, when all we need is 10 percent of the student body who do not want a students association to come together and have a referendum.

💬 Simon Bridges: Why is he still talking?

But, of course, Simon Bridges over there has come in and made an utterly pointless rebuttal. He has suddenly joined the fray. He has woken up. He has had his nanny nap this afternoon. He has come in here and decided to jump up and announce his presence. Simon Bridges could not rustle up 10 percent of a student body at a private training establishment to object to students associations. With that, I look forward to hearing what Simon Bridges has to say. I am sure that he has a lot of eloquence and passion to explain his thoughts.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Sit down and give somebody who knows what they’re talking about a turn.

I also acknowledge the contribution of my whanaunga Tau Henare, who, as ever, has made a highly productive contribution to the debate. Kia ora.

I move, That the question be now put.

It is an absolute pleasure to speak on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. Clause 6A of this bill basically applies the ideological initiatives in clause 6 to private tertiary institutions in New Zealand. It is not an insignificant clause of the bill, because, as a couple of previous speakers have mentioned, there are over 300 private tertiary institutions here in New Zealand. Many of them will have a student body of some shape. It is a not insignificant clause, because, as I say, there are over 300 private tertiary institutions in New Zealand. A significant number of those would have a student membership.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Yeah, what’s the point?

I will get to the point soon, I say to Mr Henare. I will just talk a little bit longer than he might want to get to it.

This clause opens up a window on the world of what a National-ACT Government looks like. It basically says that no matter where people are, they are not safe. People at public institutions and at private institutions are not safe. Student membership of students associations really helps those vulnerable Kiwis who go into tertiary training, who need support, and who do not have the traditional methods or functions of support through their whānau. They may be training away from what was traditionally called home. They need that extra support, and they are wondering about the kinds of support services that some of these tertiary institutions may have. They may be progressive like Canterbury University. Some of these private tertiary institutions may have a childcare centre on their campus. What will it mean for those students who will no longer have the ability to join a student body and have the support of a student association to fall back on to make sure that their experience at a private tertiary institution is a quality one and so they can complete and succeed in their course?

A number of speakers on this side of the House have pointed out the simple fact that at the moment 10 percent of a student body can get together, hold a referendum, and disband the student union.

💬 Simon Bridges: Whatever.

That is the case, I tell Mr Bridges. He should have a look at the legislation.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Whatever, Trevor.

“Whatever” is not good enough in this instance; it is a fact. Ten percent of the students can get together and disband the student membership. It has happened once before at Waikato University, I understand, and was a roaring failure for the students there. There was huge student debt and a huge debt for the council. In the end the student membership decided that that was not the right track to go down. As Kelvin Davis mentioned, 10 percent is all they need, but no one from ACT has managed to get 10 percent—just 10 percent; that is 1 in 10 students—to get together to force the disbanding of a student membership. So ACT brought this legislation into the House. Ninety-eight percent of thousands of submissions that came on the bill were against it, but a party that is on 2 percent is forcing this bill through on purely ideological grounds.

As I said before, some of the services that the student unions have offered over the years have been crucial to the likes of Pacific Island students. I am worried about what happens to Pacific Island students who will no longer have that safety net of support via a student body that has supported those students who have found things difficult, not only financially. Some of them may feel like they are fish out of water when they get to tertiary education. Those support systems for Pacific Island students are crucial for lifting the tertiary education achievement levels of Pacific Island students. I am very worried about what this bill will do, in terms of the support available to them. Maybe the member in charge of this bill, the Hon Heather Roy, might be able to answer a question about whether any work has been done on what this bill might do for Pacific Island or Māori students and about some of the services they depend on that come out of student unions.

I move, That the question be now put.