Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill

Clause 9 is a curious clause. It is a clause that I did not think the ACT Party would ever promote, because this clause could be called the “Two Classes of Citizenship (Two Classes of Membership)” clause. This clause will mean that on 1 January 2012—if the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill passes before 1 January 2012—there will be two types of students. One type of student will be those who are about to enrol for the first time at an institution. Those students will effectively come under the voluntary membership regime. Other students—for instance, those students enrolled in a summer school who perhaps began their study before 1 January 2012—will continue to be members of a students association. That is what this clause does. It actually creates the confusion of two types of students being at an institution at the same time on 1 January 2012.

Clause 9 seems to be a curious clause, but then again it fits with the overall issue we have with this bill—that the bill seems to be not so much about creating the illusion of choice that members opposite would have us believe it creates but about making sure that students associations are weakened and then eventually destroyed. The effect of this bill will be that when students come to enrol after 1 January 2012, as is noted in the first part of clause 9, they will not be enrolled in their students association. So those students who show up, and who are having to pay thousands of dollars in fees, trying to get together the money for their bond for their accommodation, trying to pay for their textbooks, and trying to pay for all the other things associated with their course costs, will now be told, if somebody is there promoting what it means to be a member of the students association—although under an earlier clause passed tonight, who knows whether even saying “Would you like to join the students association?” is undue influence now—that all of those costs will fall on students who arrive on 1 January 2012.

Members on the other side of the Chamber tell us that people will just pay the money for the students association fee. That is the problem. Because there is no informed choice and students are not being given information about what it means to be in the students association—what services they get by being in the students association and what benefits there are for them from being part of that organisation—we know that membership will decline quickly. The evidence from Australia tells us this. Then we will get into the self-fulfilling prophecy that students associations are not able to offer the services to attract members, and the associations will begin to wither away and die. That is the effect for those members of bringing in this measure on 1 January 2012.

For those people who have already been enrolled in summer school, and, therefore, their membership under clause 9 continues, goodness only knows what kinds of services they are going to get. If the students association does not get the new income from the students who would have been coming in on 1 January 2012, goodness knows what kinds of services will be available. That is the problem with this bill. Although the rhetoric from members opposite is about choice, the result will be the destruction of students associations and the services they provide.

We have not heard a lot from Mr Peachey, who was the chair of the Education and Science Committee. He spoke at the very beginning of this debate, and I would like to hear from him again. I would like to hear him give us an honest assessment of what he heard, as the chair of the select committee, about the value of students associations.

I sat through a number of the submissions, as he did, and we heard about the value of students associations. We heard about the students who were enabled to continue to study because of the advocacy and input of students associations. We had a fantastic videoconference from Waikato University, where about the most apolitical student one could ever find—not in the category that Mr Henare likes to tell us about of activists in Young Labour and Young Greens; this was a completely apolitical student—came along off his own bat to say that if it had not been for the Waikato Student Union, he would not have been able to carry on studying because of an incident involving an insurance company and a fire in a flat. The students’ union had acted as the advocate for that student.

I would love to hear Allan Peachey get up, because I know he is actually a—

I have been following this debate very carefully from my office as a member of the Education and Science Committee who heard the submissions on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I am somewhat staggered at some of the comments the Opposition members are making. Clause 9 is about the commencement and the transition date of 1 January 2012. I think, more than anything else this evening, members opposite are petrified that this bill might actually pass and come into force. They have spent more energy fighting this than fighting any other bill.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would like you to rule whether the word “petrified” is an appropriate term to use about members. We are not allowed to say “frightened”; there is a whole list of things we are not allowed to say. That is a much worse word.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I did not even flinch at the word. Much stronger language has been used. Members make disparaging remarks all the time about things like this. It is not a personal reflection. I will let the word stand.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I noted the member said we were referring to the commencement of the bill. That, I think, is in clause 2.

No, you are incorrect.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I think she correctly referred to “transition”. It is clause 9 we are referring to and you should bring her back to that.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. Can the member speak to clause 9.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I was talking about the fact that the transitional arrangements come into force on 1 January 2012, and that is also the intended date for when this bill would take effect. That, of course, is what Opposition members do not want to happen. Clause 9 is a fantastic clause and I will tell members why. It means we are coming to the end of all of the Committee stage of this bill, which is great news indeed.

One of the things that has been sadly lacking in this debate has been the voice of the students. We have heard all about the students associations, but not much about the students, which is very common for members on that side of the Chamber. If we talk about education, they talk about the teachers. They do not talk about the students, and they do not talk about the parents.

I want to talk about the students, because I think they are big enough, ugly enough, and wise enough to make their own choices about whether they become members of a students association. Unfortunately, members on that side of the Chamber do not trust students enough to make that kind of decision. Some simple transitional arrangements are built into clause 9, but the wider issue is the fact that students are entitled to have their choice, just like with any other organisation, whether it is a union, Greenpeace, or the Automobile Association. Voluntary membership does not stop those organisations from delivering the vital services that I know students associations provide. It is not about some ulterior motive that you guys think there is in relation to getting rid of students associations.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Sorry, Mr Chairman. It is about the fact that clause 9 puts in place some sensible transitional arrangements for this legislation when it comes in on 1 January.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: You’ve been here for 5 years and you still can’t get it right.

I am pleased that Mr Mallard thinks I have been here for 5 years; he has obviously taken lots of notice. He is taking lots of notice of this particular bill today, because he is one of the members who so desperately do not want it to pass.

We should talk to students, and I bring members the voice of one student, in particular. This Committee has talked about students who oppose this legislation, and about the fact that there was overwhelming opposition to it in the select committee. Well, I will tell the Committee about what happened with some students, and I felt sorry for one student, in particular. I got an email from this person about the legislation and I emailed in response. She then came back to me and said that she did not actually put her name on any email, nor did she give information about her opposition to the bill; somebody else had done that. I was quite curious. I would be interested to know just how much of the supposed opposition to this bill came from that kind of email.

I am bringing the voice of real students who are saying they want to be able to choose which organisations they are members of, just like anyone else. Members on this side of the Chamber trust them. We believe they have the freedom to choose. If an association is delivering services that they value, the students will continue to support the association. They will continue to support the association that is delivering services of value to them. That is why we do not have a concern like Opposition members do about the services that students associations or student unions provide. That is one of the things that has been so sadly missing in this debate.

It is so important for us on this side of the Chamber to trust students, to trust their choice, to enable them to make decisions about whether they are members of a union, and to ensure that they are able to make sensible choices of their own free will about how and where they spend their money. They should not be forced into a situation where they have to be members of a student union when they would not otherwise choose to be.

A lot of people have been discussing this issue, particularly on social media channels, over the last few months while the filibustering has been going on with the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. Those voices have been coming through loud and clear.

In light of the remark of the speaker who has just resumed her seat, Louise Upston, that we need to hear the voice of students in this debate and have not, I seek leave to table the submission of Ben Milsom on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

In light of the remarks of the member who has just resumed her seat that we have not heard from students in this debate and need to, I seek leave to table the submission of Ben Nettleton on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

In light of the remarks of the member who has just resumed her seat that we have not heard from the voices of students in this debate and that we need to, I seek the leave of the House to table the submission by Ben Sapau on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just in light of what the member across the Chamber is attempting to do, I understand that the submissions he is proposing to table in the Committee have all previously been tabled in the House through the submission process, and what he is trying to do is trifle with the Chair. This is superfluous to the debate in the Committee this evening.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My understanding is that the submissions have not been tabled in the House but tabled in the Education and Science Committee. Therefore, they have not been tabled in the House and the member is certainly allowed to do that. The Committee has an absolute right, of course, to decline to receive them, but there is no doubt at all that this member has the right to seek leave for any action.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I refer him to Speakers’ rulings 142/1 and 142/2. It mentions submissions to select committees where the e-committee system provides for them to be published on the parliamentary website. So it means that they are already available to the House. Therefore, the member is unable to table them as they have already become part of the House’s records.

I make this point of order carefully. In light of the remarks of the member of the select committee who is also the member who has just resumed her seat, that the voice of students has not been heard in this debate and ought to be, I seek leave to table the submission of Benjamin Michael William Hocking on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I will not put that leave. The reality is that under Speaker’s ruling 142/1 these documents are freely available. I am going to call the next speaker.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would like to read to you Speaker’s ruling 142/1 and explain exactly what it does say. It states: “The primary purpose of the procedure for seeking leave to table documents is to inform debate by making available to members documents that otherwise would not be available. It is not desirable for members to seek to table documents that already are available as part of the House’s proceedings, such as replies to questions for written answer, parliamentary papers, select committee reports, Hansard, or the Standing Orders.” That matter is absolutely clear, and I agree with the report of the Standing Orders Committee. It was a unanimous report. It is not a desirable practice. But that Speaker’s ruling does not mean that a member cannot seek the leave; it states that it is undesirable. Much as I hesitate to suggest that my colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson is partaking in undesirable activity, it is his right to seek leave to table those documents, and although there is an indication here, Speaker’s ruling 142/1, which you have quoted, is not a prohibition.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. In light of that submission to the Chair, can I point the Chairman to Speaker’s ruling 142/2. The first sentence of that makes it very clear: “Leave should only be sought to table papers that are not readily available from other sources.” Clearly, these papers are available to the House on the website. They were tabled as submissions to the select committee. They are readily available.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Again, that matter is very easily dealt with. In respect of Speaker’s ruling 142/2, we need only to get to the second word, “should”. It does not state “may”; it states “should”. If it stated that leave may not be sought, then it would be clear. It would be absolute. The word “should” reflects Speaker’s ruling 142/1, which indicates a lack of desirability. The terms “should” or “should not” express an indication of desirability, whereas if it stated “may” or “may not”, then it is something that is a definite ruling. I remember Speaker “Turncoat” Tapsell in 1996 and a number of rulings he made that were innovative and different. But this one has stood the test of time, and it was very deliberately “should”. If Speakers wanted to make it “may”, they would have.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I just say—and all of us have been in this House for a long time—that the Speaker has done it in question time, when he has not put leave if it has been sought to table documents that are available to the House. These are available to the House. The matter has already been dealt with previously in this debate. I saw that as I watched it from my office.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. As you just pointed out, you have been in this House for a while, and so have I, and we know one another’s proclivities. I leave it to you to decide whether I engage freely in undesirable activity in this House. You can make your judgment on that. I want to make a point to you, as follows: the member who has just resumed her seat, Louise Upston, was on the Education and Science Committee. She came down to the Chamber from her office. She then took a call to say she had been outraged and appalled—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): A point of order should be short and to the point.

Yes, we are getting there. To say that although she was unhappy with the—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I say to members on my right that when a point of order is being taken, it is heard in silence.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You had an interjection from Dr Mapp as you sat down. You ruled on Sandra Goudie, and you had another one and you did nothing about it.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I called the member to order. The member will be seated.

So the member who had resumed her seat came to the Chamber in order to make a contribution not only about the poor quality of the Opposition debate as she saw it but also about this fact that students were not being heard in this debate and they should be heard. She made it with great particularity. It was on the basis of that that I decided to table the voice of students. It is true that the Committee has access to them through this or that type of information technology. There is no doubt about that, and I agree with your ruling in that regard. But tell me, then, why a member of this House who was on the Education and Science Committee came down in order to say that that voice was not being heard. I am very happy to have it heard—very happy. And I am happy to have those documents tabled afresh.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member has made his point, and I have made my ruling.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is my belief that Tau Henare, in interjecting then, was attempting to intimidate you—of course, he could not possibly do that. While my colleague was taking his point of order, Tau Henare interjected loudly to sit him down. That is just not on.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for his consideration of my well-being, and I let him know that I am not intimidated by Tau Henare. I did not hear the honourable member anyway.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The Committee is starting to slide down. I urge honourable members to recognise that this is a place of debate and that we should take it seriously.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am thankful for being allowed to take a point of order, which I think is my right to take. I am very, very worried about what we have seen in the Committee tonight. Members from the other side have constantly not only challenged the ruling of the Chair but also raised points of order that have been trifling, which in itself is disorderly. They bring the Committee into disorder. I think that is a very serious—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 79/1.

Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I just got a tweet that said the Committee has been spending more time debating parliamentary procedure than it has debating this Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. It has sure been interesting.

I had to rise to take a call when I heard the member Louise Upston’s speech, because I too was on the Education and Science Committee. I was a student probably more recently than the member Louise Upston, and I am still paying off a student loan. I had to take exception to her characterisation that this bill, which will be passed tonight, is the voice of students, because that is patently untrue. We heard 180 oral submissions, 98 percent of which were opposed to the bill. We received 4,837 written submissions by students, and the vast majority of them were opposed to this bill. We heard from editors and students. We heard from postgrad students and former students. We heard from students association presidents, student radio DJs, and student editors. We heard from institutions and from local bodies. They all vigorously opposed this bill because they know what the impact will be.

It was interesting to hear from the member Louise Upston, because hearing those submissions at the select committee from all those thousands of students was an important period. They were unified in their call to not pass this bill. The National members on the committee went into the hearings with an open mind. They heard the submissions, they asked some great questions, and we had some good discussions about what we could be doing about real transitional measures, which is what we are debating now with clause 9. The real transitional measure would be a more explicit opt-out provision.

The Human Rights Commission said, of course, that there is no issue of human rights and no problem here with the freedom of association. But what National members have done by deciding to vote for this terrible legislation is paint themselves into a corner. Now they have to come up with extreme comments to try to back up their position, because the evidence is that students do not want it. I refer to the UMR Research poll of students, which showed that 72 percent of students were opposed to the changes. The fact is that this bill is not a question of choice; this bill is simply an ideological solution in search of a problem. It is damaging. What we are seeing now with clause 9 is a confusing mess. It is a confusing clause to go with a confusing and damaging bill.

I ask the member in the chair, Heather Roy, to take a call to explain exactly why this transitional clause, clause 9, is needed, and what it will actually mean for those students who are currently enrolled or those who will enrol. I agree with the member Grant Robertson. If first-year students enrol after 1 January 2012—which is only 4 months away; let us not forget that this bill is passing so close to the start of the next university year; they may leave Gisborne, like I did, and go to the big smoke—those students will not have hundreds of dollars burning holes in their pockets, not when they have to buy books, pay bond, and pay the other student levies that this Government is also administering. Many of these students do not know what to expect at university. They do not expect to need student advocacy support if they run into a lecturer who mismarks their grade or is abusive in class. They do not think they will need to use student medical services. They do not ever think they will need to use the student food bank. That is what first-year students do not realise when they first go to university.

The fact is that because this bill is taking away the universal aspect of the student membership fees, students cannot put their membership fee on their student loans any more. They have to put it on their course-related costs. Let us not forget that the course-related cost amount, the $1,000 that students can borrow each year, has not been changed since 1992. That is as old as Shortland Street, yet students are expected to buy more with less, and to now also put the student membership fees on their course-related costs.

I invite the member Heather Roy to take a call to help explain this clause, because I think a lot of institutions and students associations will be confused about what it means. That is quite a good example of how this bill is damaging and confusing. We are 4 months away from 1 January 2012. Most institutions and most students associations have already set their budgets for 2012, yet, in a fit of irresponsibility, because of National this Parliament is passing this bill, which will damage institutions that have not been able to plan for adequate transition methods. We should be discussing instead—but we cannot, because we are rushed—what the adequate transition methods would be if we were going with it. I would prefer a conversation about the opt-out provision, which I think everyone could live with.

I rise to speak to some of the concerns that the previous speaker, Gareth Hughes, had. The clause that we are debating, clause 9 of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, is about transitional provisions, as we have heard from a number of members. One of the reasons that it is in place is that the member who has just resumed his seat, Gareth Hughes, implored the Education and Science Committee—I was on the committee at that stage—that this would be a good idea.

Mr Hughes wanted a transition for those summer students who had enrolled in summer school in December and would carry on over, as he did not feel it would be fair that they had two sorts of fees to contend with. In fact, he felt it would not be fair to the students associations involved. He had general agreement from all of the committee that this was the fair and reasonable thing to do. He has stood up in this Chamber tonight and tried to pretend that this clause is a “confusing mess”, so I would like him to take some responsibility for this “confusing mess” that we have before us.

Clause 9 is not a confusing mess, at all. These transitional provisions actually put fairness at the feet of the students associations to cover that summer school period. Once upon a time, when the legislation was originally written, summer school did not exist, so this provision would not have been required. Many students now, for convenience, require summer school. It helps them get through their courses much more quickly, and it is a very sensible provision. I hope that the Committee now understands exactly why we have this transitional provision. I fully support it, as did Mr Hughes at the select committee, but, sadly, he does not support it tonight.

One or two other things that need to be addressed are issues that have been raised as part of the debate on this particular clause. One was Louise Upston’s comments about the email she received from a female student. Many of us received emails from students that were not actually sent by them. There were at least 100—[Interruption]—and I can tell members exactly why. At least 100 were sent by the Labour Party machine, Save our Services. The reason I know this is that it sent an email of apology to the Hon Peter Dunne, who has given his permission for this apology to be talked about in Parliament tonight. Those members who think that this is not correct should speak to the Hon Peter Dunne. You can ask your friends at Save our Services—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

I beg your pardon, Mr Chairperson. They can ask the Labour Party’s friends at Save our Services as to why exactly students’ email addresses were used for anti - voluntary student membership emails to be sent to a number of MPs in this House. I think we all deserve an apology, but, most of all, the students whose identities were stolen deserve an apology from Save our Services and from these MPs who seemed to think this was such a good idea.

The last thing I will address, which has been raised as part of this debate, is the leave that the member Pete Hodgson tried to seek to table some of the submissions. Actually, I would not have had any great objection to one of those being put forward. Ben Nettleton gave a very good pro - voluntary student membership submission, so it would be great to have that on the Table. I am not sure why the member just stuck to the Bens, but he did, and Ben Nettleton’s submission was an absolutely superb submission saying why we need voluntary student membership.

I look forward to the swift passing of this legislation. I am delighted that we are finally debating it again today. My final point is that Gareth Hughes said we have only 4 months left. The members on that side of the Chamber need to take responsibility for that—for filibustering this bill from 8 December last year.

Mr Chairman, the first point I will make is one directly to you, to thank you for allowing a broader debate, especially from Louise Upston and the member—I was going to say the Minister—in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, Heather Roy. I think if there was any justice in the ACT Party she would still be a Minister, and a very good Minister in the education area, as well. I think she was certainly the best and most effective Minister in the education group there has been in the time of this Key-led Government. I thank the Hon Heather Roy for the work that she did there. I assume she is still “the Hon” Heather Roy. I am never quite sure.

💬 Hon Heather Roy: Yes, I am.

It has been renewed? I am pleased the Queen has seen fit to continue the member’s honour—honorific, at least.

I think it is important to make some general points in response to the points the member has made, and to make it very clear that members on this side of the Chamber want to have the voices of students heard and for them to be read into the record. If we are not allowed to table submissions, then I am sure other members will be able to read into the record some of the submissions.

There was a variety. There was a variety of opinions from students. Opinions were very heavily weighted in one direction, but there were different views. I am never sure whether I agree with my old liberal friend Pete Hodgson, who wants to be fair to young ACT supporters, ACT on Campus, and groups like that. I do not have that inclination in the same way, but he is an old liberal and believes that views on both sides should be expressed and heard. That is why, in response to the invitation from Louise Upston, he chose to seek leave to table a variety of submissions.

I am somewhat saddened that one of the submissions could not be tabled. Despite the fact that I disagreed with it substantially, it was a well-written and well-argued submission. Heather Roy was one of the members who blocked it being tabled, so that members who were not on the Education and Science Committee and are not familiar with it do not have the additional opportunity to look at it. I think she needs to take some responsibility for that. Of course, I would have been much happier if the other submissions from the students associations, which my colleague Rick Barker sought to table, and some of the individual submissions, which my colleague Pete Hodgson sought to table, could be tabled.

💬 Sandra Goudie: Transitional provisions. Is that right?

I notice that the fishwife from Coromandel is interjecting yet again.

💬 Sandra Goudie: You’re meant to be on the transitional provision clause.

There she goes again—again and again and again—like an orange roughy on a hook.

💬 Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is way off the mark in terms of clause 9. At the start of this speech the member did start to have a wider ambit, but now he is so far wide of the mark that it is ridiculous. I ask you to call him back to order.

I am happy to do that.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.

I have some important points to make and questions to ask the member in the chair about clause 9, which I would like to do over the next three calls; I am on my first call on this particular clause.

The first question is about the actual effect of this transitional provision. What does the term “until the expiry of his or her current term of enrolment;” mean? For example, someone might be enrolled for a PhD and take 5 years to complete it. I am told that is not an unusual length of time. I think people at a lot of institutions can take up to 7 years without getting into trouble. Does that mean that in 5 or 7 years’ time there will still be people enrolled for their PhDs who came in under the students associations schemes before this legislation applied on 1 January 2012? I think postgraduate students are the ones most likely to have periods of enrolment that span a number of years. Most degrees are 3 or 4 years; it goes on. What if someone enrols for a BA honours degree and it is a 4-year degree? Is the expiry of the current term of enrolment 4 years? I was not at the select committee right at the point when they did the deliberations and made these particular changes, but there are a number of points that I want to make as a result of those changes.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson Robertson.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Why? That’s the big question. Why?

Is Tau whining again? Is he whining again? He never stops whining. He never stops whining. He never, never stops. I thank Mr Henare for assisting in the—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Take that pin out of your leg. Come on; hurry up!

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I say to members that the House is a symbol of integrity, and the integrity of all honourable members is to be upheld. Every person in this Chamber will be heard in accordance with our Standing Orders. Courtesy, members, is contagious.

Mr Chairperson—

💬 Sandra Goudie: Courtesy is contagious and he sets the example—you’ve got to be kidding me!

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member—what is her name—Sandra Goudie just referred to you, to one of your rulings about contagions, and said “you’ve got to be kidding”. Is that in order?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I do not think the member was referring to me, but can I just refer to the member on my right-hand side, Sandra Goudie. She has moved in order to facilitate interjection. If she wants to persist in doing that, she will go back to her own seat.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I was about to raise precisely that point. Indeed I will now do so, not in respect of the member for Coromandel but in respect of the member Tau Henare—who is the other loud-mouth of the eight National members over there and the other one of the eight who is not in the seat where he might normally be found. I wonder whether we can see a pattern here, and whether we want to do anything about it.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, I am prepared to continue in the way in which I made the ruling. Mr Henare is not too far away from his seat, and he has not moved in order to facilitate interjection. If he had, he would be in the front seat here.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Twice while we were having a point of order there were two interjections: one from the Hon Pete Hodgson, and one from the member for Mana, Kris Faafoi.

Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chairperson, I say that if you want to add to the list, we could put Dr Mapp on it.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Tātou, tātou—together, together. All right?

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have no recollection of interrupting a point of order. I am sure Tau Henare has called me out correctly. I wish to withdraw and apologise to you and to the Committee.

💬 Kris Faafoi: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would like to withdraw and apologise to Tau Henare—it was correct.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Good man; thank you very much. Are there any more apologies before I call the Hon Trevor Mallard? Are there any more?

I think we are all sorry the member is here. We are all sorry that David Shearer is here—just to get that on the record—especially when we are debating this shocking legislation.

The next question is: which organisation will rule on the questions that are in clause 9(2)(b)? Who will decide whether the provisions of the constitution of a students association that existed when the student last joined or rejoined the association continue to apply until the expiry of that period? The question I have then is: what happens to those students who might have transitional provisions that apply to them for 7 years, or 6½ years if they were a mid-year enrolment and it went on, and their organisation, institution, or students association no longer exists? How can they continue to pay fees to a non-existent students association, and what can the rules be under clause 9(2)(b) for an organisation, a students association, that does not exist? How can they be the same rules? How can they be the same? It seems to me that they could not continue. In fact, the more I look at this clause, the more of a nonsense it appears to be.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and no progress on the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill.

I move, That the report be adopted.