Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill

Clause 8 is a continuation of what is clearly the agenda behind the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. It is not this rhetoric about choice. The excellent work Mr Henare did as the leader of Mauri Pacific, to give students associations the choice of whether they would be compulsory or voluntary, has been taken away tonight with this bill.

We have a further example of that in clause 8. Clause 8 means that if someone enrols at a private training establishment, there is now no way that a private training establishment is able to give them information about students association fees. The agenda is not about choice; the agenda is about—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Don’t talk rubbish.

That is exactly what the bill says, I tell Mr Henare. That is exactly what it says. That is because the agenda of those promoting this bill is not about choice; it is about the destruction of students associations. One way of doing that is to make sure that information about students association fees is not available to those people who are enrolling at a private training establishment.

This clause is instructive in relation to the whole question of what would be possible to ensure that we could get an enduring settlement around the question of students association membership. Members on this side of the Chamber know that in the discussions that took place in and around the Education and Science Committee, it was quite possible that an enduring settlement could be found.

One of those ways would be around what is possible in terms of withdrawing from membership, as noted in the title of this particular clause around the withdrawal of membership. One possibility that was floated in that debate was the question of an opt-out clause, a KiwiSaver-style clause, that would allow students, as part of their enrolment—and this is the very point of having students associations; it is part of being a student—to opt out of that if that was their choice. That was a possible compromise or solution to make sure that we were not, as either a National-led Government or a Labour-led Government was elected, simply swapping around over the question of membership of students associations. But National walked away from that deal; it walked away from the possibility that we might be able to have something around the withdrawal of membership, which is noted within the title of this particular clause.

This clause emphasises the point that the agenda being driven by the ACT Party is not actually about choice; it is fundamentally about destroying students associations. It is not about students actually having access to quality services, and it is not about students having the ability to have advocates; it is about taking to students associations. It is an ideological agenda.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What is it about? It’s about choice.

Mr Henare interjects, as he has throughout this debate, with “It’s about choice.” This bill takes away choice, I say to Mr Henare—this bill takes away choice.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: We won. You lost. Eat that.

It is a remarkable thing to have Tau Henare interjecting about a change to a bill that he created. He has now swapped over completely; he has flicked the switch, and he has decided that the bill he brought in was fascism—the bill that he brought in. Does Mr Henare remember when he was the leader of Mauri Pacific? Does he remember?

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What? Sorry?

He does not remember when he was the leader of Mauri Pacific and he shepherded in the clause that tonight the Government and the ACT Party are taking away, which is the choice of students associations as to whether they are compulsory or voluntary.

The Auckland University Students Association went through the process, the process that Mr Henare helped create, and its members decided after a referendum that they would go voluntary. That was the choice that students associations and students had. Tonight this bill takes away that choice. It takes away the choice of students associations to actually decide whether they are voluntary or compulsory.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: It gives people choice.

Mr Henare is saying that it gives people choice. The option taken by the Auckland University Students Association is no longer possible with the bill that is being put through tonight. It is taking away choice.

This clause is essentially making it impossible for information about students association fees to be provided to people who are enrolling at private training establishments. One of things discussed at the select committee was the question as to whether, even if this bill went through, it would be possible for students to be at least made aware of the services that were available and made aware of what students associations do.

If members on the other side of the Chamber were genuine about the fact that they think students associations do good work, which they told us they believed during the select committee process, then they would have said: “All right, we will give information to students when they enrol about what a students association does.” I say to Mr Henare that that would be a fair choice, would it not? That would be a real choice—a choice made when people have all the information available to them about a students association. Clause 8 is saying that students enrolling at a private training establishment will not get all of the information about a students association; they will not know what the fees are. That means that the real agenda of this bill is exposed in this clause. The real agenda is to shut down students associations and to not give people enrolling—in this case, at a private training establishment—information about a students association.

Why would the people on the other side of the Chamber not want to do that? Why would they take away an informed choice for students? Why would they take away an informed choice? When students arrive at an institution, they do not know everything about what a students association provides. They do not know about the welfare services, the advocacy services, the sport and recreation services, the clubs, and the health and counselling services. Students do not know about that when they show up on their first day. If they are to make an informed choice about whether they will join a students association, as Mr Henare seems to want them to do, why would they not be given information about a students association? Clause 8 is taking away that information.

That is the question for Mr Henare: should students be given an opportunity under this new regime to make an informed choice about whether they join a students association? An informed choice would mean students would be given information when they enrolled about the services of students associations and about the fees that they need to pay, and then they could make the choice. I ask Mr Henare whether that is not an informed choice. Should not students be given that option? No! Not even under this brave new voluntary world will students be given information. In fact, the ability to do that for private training establishments is actually completely removed by this clause.

The members on the other side of the Chamber stand up and tell us that this bill is about choice. That is rubbish. If this bill was about choice—informed choice—we would not have this clause in it. If this bill was about real choice for students associations, then we would be sticking with the excellent work that Mr Henare did in the late 1990s, which he has had a memory lapse about. He has forgotten about Mauri Pacific, when he was in there making sure that students—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Say it properly, man!

I did say it properly: Mauri Pacific. When he was leading that party he said that students associations should continue and should be able to advertise themselves and be available to advocate for students. Yet today Mr Henare arrives in this Chamber and says he has completely changed his mind from when he did that 10 years ago—he has completely changed his mind. Now students will not have the ability to have proper representation and to have proper advocates. They will not even be able, under clause 8, to have information about students association fees. They will not even be able to have information about the services that students associations provide.

This bill is not about choice. This bill is about an ideological obsession of the ACT Party, now being facilitated by National. National members sat through the select committee process and heard the submissions of all bar one of the tertiary institutions in New Zealand who opposed this bill. The tertiary institutions know the value of students associations. The students who came before us know the value of students associations. The National members of the select committee know that. By the end of that submission process Colin King, Allan Peachey, Louise Upston—they all knew that this bill should not pass in its current form. They knew that, and they knew that there were possibilities of creating an enduring solution that meant that this bill would not come back. But because of a deal between ACT and National, this bill is being promoted by National members, even when they know it is wrong. [Interruption] There is the deeply mature backbench of National, taking the issue seriously, I say to Mr Bridges!

I have the privilege of representing the good people of Dunedin North, wherein lie more students than in any other electorate in the country, nearly all of whom come from Otago University. Most of the remainder come from Otago Polytechnic, and the remainder of those who are not in secondary school are from a number of private tertiary education institutions in town.

The student body in Dunedin tonight is not best gruntled; they are not happy. The leadership of the Otago University Students’ Association does not think this bill, the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, is a good idea, and they do not think the unusual behaviour in the Chamber this afternoon is good for democracy. They are about to express their viewpoint in the way that they know best as the days and weeks go by. They are not best gruntled.

However, what it does mean is that if this bill does go through then an important institution in the electorate of Dunedin North, the Otago University Students’ Association, will almost certainly become very seriously weakened.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Why?

Because, given the choice of freeloading, given an opportunity—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Why?

I am being invited by the shout-back host of a party in this House of Representatives, Mr Tau Henare, a man who has decibels sufficient to drown out a 737, to answer one question. He repeats it endlessly. It is “Why?”. Let me tell him. Given an opportunity—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Come on, tell me. Tell me I don’t know anything about freedom of choice!

He is not going to let me tell him. He wants to shout me down. Let it be said that I am being shouted down by a halfwit. A half-head on the other side of the Chamber has decided to raise his voice to try to stop me. It is silly stuff. It is silly, immature, boyish behaviour. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am compelled to bring some order at this point. I think there should be an exchange of ideas. I invite the member to do that.

I was invited by Mr Tau Henare to answer his question. His question was “Why?”. Why would it be that on the passage of this bill the Otago University Students’ Association might become seriously weakened? It is an important institution in Dunedin. My answer is that given the choice to freeload, most people will take it, and certainly if they do so from a position of ignorance. If they arrive in Dunedin to undertake their study and find that there is an opportunity to reduce their fees by 100 bucks or whatever it is they will, ordinarily, take it, especially when they do not know what they are missing out on. That is in the nature of collective responsibility. It is in the nature of collective provision. The Otago University Students’ Association is responsible for the collective provision of a vast array of services, from medical services to social support services to advocacy services to—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What stops them now?

The member opposite, Mr Tau Henare, has asked me again ‘What stops them now?” What do I do, Mr Chairperson? I need your advice. Do I repeat myself? I do not repeat myself. Do I invite the gentleman to get another brain because the one he has got at the moment is lonely? Do I invite him to raise his voice still further? What am I to do? Let me see whether I can try this technique. Let me try to be the gentle cop and address my remarks to the member in the chair, the Hon Heather Roy.

This time I address my remarks to the Hon Heather Roy in respect of clause 8 of the bill. I say to her in seriousness that a case can be made that there is a mistake in this clause. Let me spell out my reasoning, if I may. Clause 8 takes a section of the principal Act, from memory section 236A of the Education Act, and says in respect of one of the subsections, let us remove the words “any students association fees”. In fact, I will read clause 8 in case I have made a mistake. It states: “Section 236A(1)(a)(i) is amended by omitting ‘, and including any students association membership fees’.” What does this mean? One needs to go to section 236A of the principal Act, which is the Education Act 1989, to find out. Section 236A of the principal Act requires every private training institution to, basically, be honest and upfront about costs. It basically says that when a student approaches an institution, the institution has to tell them what all the costs are.

Let me now read from the principal Act and show what the costs are that must be made available in black-letter law, as it is at the moment. Section 236A(1)(a)(i) states: “the total fees for each course of study or training, including fees for class or lecture materials, books, special clothing, safety equipment, tools, and any other items that are or may be provided to students enrolled for that course, and including any students association membership fees;”. Of course, there may not be lecture materials. Of course, a student may already have books from their older brother, older auntie, or something, but, if they have not, the costs of those books need to be made available. They may already have the special clothing but the costs of the special clothing must be made available to them. The same rule applies whether or not they already have the safety equipment or whether or not they have the tools. So this subsection is a transparency kick. This subsection in the principal Act is a transparency kick. Whether the student will have to buy those things, or whether the student wishes to buy those things, including the student membership fee, which will now be voluntary, they are to be told in every case what the cost is.

If clause 8 were to be passed, the student would be told everything about the costs for his or her plumbing course, English language course, or whatever, except any student association fee. Of course, if there is no student association fee there is nothing to report or make transparent. But, if there is, there is no requirement for the private training establishment to tell the student about that.

I wonder, if we are on such a transparency-free, formal, freedom-of-choice kick, whether we could require a private training establishment, in the event of there being a students association, which the student may or may not wish to join, to have the cost of that students association membership made available to them compulsorily. I submit that it is inconsistent to say that any costs for special clothing, tools, or course fees must be made available, but any costs relating to a students association fee, if it exists, do not have to be made available to the student. What is going on here? Surely this is a simple mistake?

I ask the member in the chair what is happening to make it a matter of law that every conceivable or reasonable cost, except any students association fee, is to be made transparent. What is going on? It seems to me that ACT Party philosophy has stumbled a little at the edges. I wonder whether the member would be kind enough to give us the benefit of her wisdom as to why it is that the ACT Party legislation has done this. I do not see it as consistent. I do not think it is sensible for us to require in law, as we have done for the last 20 years—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Right oh, you’ve had your fun.

I just say to the Hon Tau Henare in brief riposte that if he would like to take the call and explain why it is that special tools have to be costed and provided to—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Sit down and I’ll take the call.

Will the member take the call?

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I’ll take the call.

Will the member undertake not to provide the Committee with yet another closure motion?

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I’ll take the call.

Ah, so no undertaking is being offered. The member is asking me to sit down in order that he can attempt to shut down the entire debate, and the question I reasonably ask goes unanswered by a group of people on the far side who have become specialised in the art of arrogance. Well, I am not about to resume my seat without such an undertaking from the member. If he gave me an undertaking that he would attempt to answer this reasonable question—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Oh, hurry up.

I am sorry?

💬 Hon Tau Henare: How boring.

Did I hear the member say that he would attempt such an answer? No. I heard him say “hurry up”. I say to the honourable member that it is inconsistent for us to decide that the costs of special tools, special clothing, safety, and different fees must all be made available to the student, but the costs of any students association fee need not be made available. That is inconsistent. It is not the transparency kick that the ACT Party prides itself on. I enjoin the member in the chair to take a call to offer us her views on that matter. I do not think the question is an unreasonable one. I think it does need to be addressed. I think the Committee would benefit were the member in the chair to let us know what she thinks is behind that, or were she to seek advice from her officials in order to say what they think might be behind it.

I move, That the question be now put.

I was in the Chamber listening to the debate before the dinner break, and I think the real reason for the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill came from one of the National speakers. That speaker complained about students associations, and this clause is concerned with students associations being full of Labour activists. I think that is really what it is about.

It is true that our campuses are full of Labour and Green activists, and many of those Labour and Green activists are involved in students associations, and have traditionally been involved in students associations. The reason they are involved is that they are motivated by trying to help their fellow students, to help people in New Zealand, and often to help people overseas. They have been the core of many of what are now recognised as very commendable protests against apartheid, against nuclear weapons, against the Viet Nam War, you name it, over the decades. Often it has been the students associations, the Young Labour and Young Greens activists, the independent progressive-type activists who have a social conscience, who have been involved in those activities, which have led to such advances in New Zealand society and helped people overseas in places such as what was previously apartheid South Africa.

As well as being interested in those political and social issues, of course students associations, with a lot of involvement of Labour and Green activists, have been concerned with services for their fellow students. I think maintaining those in the best form is what we should all be concerned about. I do not think the speakers from National, in particular, have really answered the question of how we will maintain those support services in the best form if we go down the track of this bill.

The very best of our society is people looking after each other, be it amongst students, be it in the community, be it internationally, and that is what our educational institutions should foster, should welcome, and should praise. It appears that is what the National speakers do not want. They want some form of individualism where everyone just looks after themselves, be it for the good of, or to the detriment of, society. I think we are bigger than that. Parliament is bigger than that.

Parliament should be encouraging people to be active in politics and well motivated. Many of the people in this Parliament and previous parliaments have cut their teeth, in terms of social and political actions, on being involved in student politics and often in students association positions. Looking around the Chamber right now I can see people who fit that category, and that is commendable. We do not want to go completely the other way and be a mean society, undermine student services—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What does clause 8 say?

Clause 8 is about students associations, and that is what I am speaking to. I am saying that it is important we keep in legislation a reference to students associations in order to highlight their importance, and to highlight the importance of the people who are just reaching maturity and becoming involved in education also developing a social conscience that they will use, not only while they are at university but in later life, including in the politics in this Chamber. Thank you.

I will take another call on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, and in particular on clause 8. I follow on from what my colleague Pete Hodgson was talking about in terms of transparency.

There are three aspects that are certain about the implications and the impact of this bill. The first of which is that the students associations will die and wither, because that has happened everywhere else under similar legislation. Pete Hodgson gave the reasons why that has happened. The Education and Science Committee listened to the students associations of Australia, where similar legislation came in, and in practically all of their universities the students associations withered and died and became a mere vestige of what they were previously. What did they say to us? They said: “Don’t go down this path. It’s not worth it. It will seriously degrade the quality of life on campuses across your country.” That is what they said. All of them said that. They recommended that we do not go down this path.

In Australia they are reinstituting students association fees. They are going back to what they had before. Why are they doing that? It is very, very simple. The student services that were once provided by the students associations in Australia were being provided by the institutions. The universities themselves, the private training establishments, and the polytechnics stepped up and provided the same services that the students associations once provided, except at a much inferior level of contribution. The students ended up paying, compulsorily, a fee to the university, a fee to the institution, to get an inferior quality of service on all the various aspects of student life that they missed out on before. That is a certainty. That is the No. 1 certainty of what will happen when we bring in this legislation.

As I said before, this legislation is a piece of ideology looking for a problem or looking for a cause. It is nothing more than that. There is absolutely no doubt that what will happen is that the institutions themselves, the universities, will end up having to levy students a fee, which students will not have the option of opting out from, as they do now—they are free to opt out and give that money to a worthy cause. They will not have that option. Why is that? It is because the universities accept, as we all did when we went through university, that this is not about providing services that are somehow optional, or whatever. The creches, the health centres, the counselling centres, the places of worship, the sports clubs, the cultural clubs, the advocacy, and all that goes with it provide the rich nature of university life. We all accept that it is not about a compulsory aspect; it is an essential part of an institution.

This is clause 8, and an amendment will come through. If this clause is about transparency of information, I would like to see us list what the students associations will not be able to provide as a result of this legislation—will not be able to provide. This legislation will take this away. Let us say that the students associations are no longer responsible, at the particular organisations they are in, for providing the creche.

I move, That the question be now put.

I also want to—

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: Could be sanctimonious.

Would the member like to say that again loudly so I can respond to him? Was it worth responding to?

💬 Hon Member: No, he’s too gutless to.

Well, come on, say it, I say to the member, if he has the guts to say it. What was it?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated. [Interruption] I am on my feet. A member must never challenge a member’s courage. That is a personal reflection, and it is out of order. The member will stand and withdraw.

I withdraw.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. The member will now continue.

I am pleased to take a call about students association membership fees. Clause 8 does not provide for students coming on to a campus to have access to information about students associations, so I ask what else a student will not have access to. It bears some thinking about. The member in the chair, the Hon Heather Roy, might like to take a call—I do not think she has taken one so far—to explain what students will not have access to. Anybody in this Chamber who has spent any time in a university will know what it is that a students association provides. It is so much a central part of university life: learning, participation, fun, debates, and everything else. If that is being taken away from students under the guise of this principle of choice, I say to the member in the chair that sometimes it is possible to take a good principle to its illogical conclusion, which is exactly what the ACT Party is trying to do, with its minority share of the vote in New Zealand. It is taking a principle to its illogical extent by saying that we must now apply that principle to everything.

What else will the member apply this principle to, in terms of choice—to everything else in New Zealand society? In universities, students, through their participation in students associations—and that is about a lot of people participating—learn so much about life. They learn so much about learning and how to learn, and they contribute enormously to the development of the academic life of the university. Are there many developments in a university, many improvements that have taken place in teaching and assessing, and, indeed, in the way that semesters are organised, that have not started with student unions and students associations? Students have come together and reflected on their total experience, then gone to their lecturers, departments, faculties, and universities and made changes that have made the learning, teaching, and research experience, as well as the contribution that a university makes to our society, that much better. That is what this bill takes away, and I cannot understand why the bill is necessary. It reflects such an amazing contempt for universities, and an amazing lack of awareness of an important aspect of universities. That is what students associations do for students in a university.

💬 Sandra Goudie: Clause 8—“Information, withdrawals, and refunds”. Clause 8.

I will resist responding, Mr Chairman, in case you ask me to apologise again for responding to some comment that is so puerile it is not even worth—

💬 Sandra Goudie: Clause 8.

I say to the member that clause 8 is fundamental. If we do not provide students with an awareness that there is a students association fee, then what are we taking away from that student? It is the ability to know at all about students associations. Let the member take a call herself and say that in her call. This is really about something fundamentally important, but the provision is so illogical.

I do not know whether Mr Tau Henare has ever been to a university and participated in student life at university.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What a snob.

Yes, I am a snob; I am proud to be a snob. I have spent enough time at a university. There are many people who through that experience have learnt to be better graduates and to make better contributions. I do not think that any one graduate sitting among members opposite who has been to a university and has participated meaningfully in student life will support these particular provisions, because they come from somewhere and from someone who has little appreciation of that life.

Let us take health services: where did health services in a university come from? Why were they developed, and who advocated for health services in universities? It was the students themselves, when they began to identify their own needs and bring together those things that would make services better. They also advocated for many of the facilities at universities; more latterly in the last 10 and 15 years it has been that focus on how to learn, such as student support services. Through these kinds of services, students have become better students, better graduates, and better researchers. Many of the childcare facilities at universities are there because of the advocacy of students associations.

I was not going to take a call, but I will take a call on clause 8, because the challenge from members opposite is about nothing more than snobbery. So what if I have not been to university? Whoop-de-do, members opposite have been to university. We have heard really great stories about what universities have done and what students associations have done, but not once did members opposite talk about the right of somebody to walk into a place and choose which organisation to belong to. I tell members what, if membership of a students association was as good as that, then people would sign up and join up in droves. If it was like membership of the National Party, it would be damn good, but if it was like membership of the Labour Party—falling, and doing nothing—I would understand.

When we have a debate about democracy and choice in this Chamber, I love it when the Fabians opposite get up on their hind legs—

💬 Hon Member: The communists.

Oh look, they talk about freedom and the rights of the individual, but they want to force people—

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Rubbish!

It is not rubbish. We are not in Germany in 1933. We do not live in those times any more. Keith Locke talked about activism and the good old days of activism, the Vietnam War, the Springbok Tour, and blah-blah-blah. This is 2011 and it is time that membership of a students association was made not compulsory but by choice.

Like I say, and I reiterate this point, if membership was good, and if it did what members opposite said it does, then people would be lining up on orientation day to sign on the dotted line. But they are not. In fact, thousands of students are forced into belonging to an association. I will give members an example. My son was signed up by a law, not by the students association coming to him and talking to him about it. He was signed up and had to pay his money without a by-your-leave or a thank you very much.

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

Those members love it, do they not? If that is the sort of democracy that members opposite love—

💬 John Hayes: More tax.

—and if that is the sort of tax they want on young people, fine.

While I am on my feet, I say that members opposite accused me of changing my mind. I have news for the Committee, and I have news for the Labour Party. Phil Goff changed his mind on State asset sales. He is allowed to do that, but I am not. What is the difference? I know what the difference is, and the snobbery of Rajen Prasad and other members opposite about the fact that I did not go to university just shows where the argument is. I will close with this: “We won. You lost. Eat that!”.

I will spend most of my time talking about an amendment to clause 8 that I have tabled, but first it would be remiss of me not to touch on a few topics that Mr Henare spoke on just before I rose to my feet. Mr Henare says this is about choice. Well, the students at both private tertiary establishments and mainstream establishments have a choice right now. If 10 percent of them are so fed up with the advocacy, support, and advice they are receiving from their students association, they can mobilise and move to disestablish their students association by way of a referendum. But are they lining up? Are they lining up just like Mr Henare said? No, they are not. Not even the ACT Party could get 10 percent of the student membership from any of the private tertiary establishments, polytechnics, or universities around New Zealand to get off their butts and mobilise against their students association.

Mr Henare said if it was that good, people would be lining up. If it was that bad, people would be lining up too, I tell Mr Henare. People would be lining up against their student membership. Do we see that at private tertiary establishments? Do we see that at our polytechs and at our universities? No, we do not, because on the whole these student bodies are doing a good job of supporting those students who need help from their students association, which offer very important advocacy support services for student membership.

We are debating clause 8 of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. Clause 8 amends section 236A of the primary legislation by omitting “, and including any students association membership fees”. The amendment I have put on the Table seeks to amend clause 8 by adding to that: “and including students association membership fees that may have been paid by a student in whole or by way of instalments”.

💬 John Hayes: Boring!

Oh, that member might find it boring, but he will wake up. Maybe it is because the member just woke up that he finds it boring. Some students associations do have the ability for members to pay by instalments. I guess that is a real bonus for some of the students who are at those institutions, because of the way that the cost of living is going up at the moment. Students at the moment are feeling the pinch, just like hundreds of thousands of other Kiwis. They would welcome the fact that they could pay their students association fees by instalment.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Why aren’t they marching in the streets, then?

Why are they not marching in the streets? That is a very good question that the member puts out there. They are not in opposition to students associations, so why are they not marching in the streets? Why is this bill even here? Why is this even here; it is not even a problem for the majority of tertiary students, so why is this bill before the Committee? It is pure ideology to the member in the chair, Heather Roy. It is pure ideology. It is the tail wagging the dog; the ACT Party has power over National. I am sure a lot of the members on that side of the Chamber who have had some association with, or some experience within, students associations will be opposed to this bill, but in this case ACT is the tail wagging the dog.

I will come back to my amendment, which will be voted on when we get to the end of clause 8. Those students who are struggling to make ends meet will now not have information made available to them by the private tertiary establishment about whether they can join a students association, because clause 8 takes away the onus of the private training establishment to inform its students that they can join or be a member of the students association. I believe that is a tragedy for those students who really want choice, and who want to have the assistance of a students association, whether it be cultural, whether it be educational, or whether it be through services, such as I mentioned before, when an establishment has an early childhood education centre on its premises.

Those students who are struggling to make ends meet at these private training establishments, who might be looking at paying their fees on an instalment basis, and who now will not be getting this information from the private training establishment, really are relying on the advocacy and the services that students associations supply. I think, in its whole, this legislation will be detrimental to those students at the 300-plus private tertiary establishments that will be affected by both clause 6 and clause 8.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the member that he has put the motion incorrectly. I cannot accept it.

I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question that the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I caution members that when the votes are being taken, they are to be heard in silence. Any movement at all or any speaking at all can be seen as intimidation, and can lead to a breach of privilege in the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can we be clear about what we are voting on, please?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am advised that all of the amendments have been ruled out of order, so we are now voting on the clause. The question is that clause 8—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I could not hear you then; you were addressing National members. Could you repeat what you have been advised?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): These amendments are all out of order, so we are voting now on clause 8. These amendments are out of order, so the question now is that clause 8 stand part.

💬 Hon Members: Why?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Well, the first amendments—from the honourable members Sue Moroney and Kris Faafoi—are not in the proper form; the other amendments in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard are seen as direct negatives.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is normal that when a Chairman rules that an amendment is not in the proper form he says why it is not in the proper form. What is the problem with it?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I will find out. I am advised that the amendment omits words from the Act, and you are not able to do that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The whole idea of an amendment bill is to change an Act. The idea that we cannot submit an amendment that takes further words out of an Act just could not possibly be right. The ruling is an interesting but somewhat farcical one.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have taken advice on this particular issue.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. In this case—because I do not think anyone in the Chamber has heard a ruling before that an amendment is not allowed to take words out of an Act—I move that the Speaker be recalled in order to rule on that question.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Before that happens, I advise the member that the amendments change the words that are being omitted, and you cannot change the quoted words. I am also advised that you cannot change the words “membership fees” to “membership dues”.

Why?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is because “membership dues” is not the text in the Act, so it cannot be omitted if it is not there.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am not intending to trifle with either your ruling or your position in any way. There is a member of Parliament on the other side who thinks that I am; I am not. I am just not clear what is going on and I think I am entitled to be clear. After all, if we are not clear, the mistakes that we might be making will be persisted with. Can I be clear? I will put it as a question and see whether that is helpful. Can I be clear that your ruling is that the amendment you are ruling out of order is being ruled out of order because words that are already currently in legislation that the amendment seeks to remove have been misquoted and therefore are not in the legislation in the first place? Is that the essence of it?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Yes.

Thank you.