IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) : I move, That the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill be now read a second time. It gives me a lot of pleasure to pick up the baton on this legislation from my predecessor, the Hon Steve Maharey, who did a lot of work in bringing this bill to the House and seeing it through to the select committee. It is a piece of legislation that Mr Maharey described as a modest bill. I prefer to think of it as efficient. There are not too many things that are modest that come out of Palmerston North. A cursory glance at the list of my predecessors would attest to that, I should think.

Of course, Palmerston North has very much to be immodest about. There is Massey University, which has campuses—everywhere it seems these days—in Mr Power’s electorate and in Palmerston North, as well; Centrepoint theatre, one of the few working professional theatres in a provincial city; a standard of living that I am quite sure is unsurpassed by any other city in New Zealand; and the glorious sight of the sun rising over the Tararua Ranges as the blades of the wind farm turbines whirl below. One of the showpieces in Palmerston North is, of course, the showgrounds, which are also known as Arena Manawatu. On the weekend just gone, I was at Arena Manawatu with about 8,500 other people from the Manawatū and Palmerston North watching the Manawatu Turbos, who, sadly, went down to Northland. The Turbos have had their most successful season so far, by quite some stretch, and they have been doing very well. Sadly, the team did not quite make it against Northland last weekend, but it is heading over to Hawke’s Bay to take on the Magpies next weekend, and I look forward to heading over to Napier to watch that match.

From the first reading of this bill, I note that Chris Tremain compared the mood of the House on this bill to the mood of Manawatū and Hawke’s Bay rugby. It was interesting that so many National Party members who were in Opposition at the time chose to speak on this bill. I do not know what it was about Palmerston North that day that those members were so keen to recount their affinity with it. Perhaps today, given the amount of time we have on our hands, many of the Government members might decide to get up and say something about this bill, as it might look slightly odd if the House rises as early as this today, given that we will be back late tomorrow night.

The bill essentially does three things. Firstly, it provides for the transfer of the management and control of the land that comprises the Palmerston North Showgrounds from the Palmerston North Showgrounds Board of Control to the Palmerston North City Council. Secondly, it allows for the dissolution of the Palmerston North Showgrounds Board of Control. Thirdly, it repeals the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act 1974. The Act enabled the Manawatu and West Coast Agricultural and Pastoral Association to dispose of the showgrounds to the Palmerston North City Council as a recreation reserve, and constituted the Palmerston North Showgrounds Board of Control for the management and control of the land as a recreation reserve. The 1974 Act resulted from a deed of agreement between the parties under which the city council would develop and improve the showgrounds, and they would be available to the A and P society to be used as showgrounds on a number of days each year. The A and P society no longer requires the use of the showgrounds, seeing as the A and P show has headed over to Feilding. The board of control now wishes to dissolve and transfer its rights, assets, and liabilities to the city council.

The bill went to the Local Government and Environment Committee, which returned it with no amendments. I thank the members and chair of the committee for their work. One issue that was raised—and I note that Te Ururoa Flavell raised the issue in the first reading of the bill—was the status of the land in relation to Ngāti Kauwhata’s Treaty claims in the Palmerston North area. It is great to see the chair of the committee in the Chamber this afternoon. I am very pleased to see that the select committee has come to the conclusion that the transfer of the land will have no bearing whatsoever on the claim. Essentially, the land as it is at the moment would be inaccessible to such a claim. That will continue to be the case. Hopefully, that will satisfy Ngāti Kauwhata in their concerns and allow us to push ahead with this, as I said, very efficient, small bill to tidy up some loose ends.

I know that a number of staff at the Palmerston North City Council will be very pleased to see the bill progressing. They will have to think of a new first thing to say to me when they see me in Palmerston North rather than asking how far the bill is getting through. It is a very great pleasure to see it moving on. I certainly commend the bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I call the member for Rangitīkei, the Hon Simon Power.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that nice addition to my introduction. I appreciate my electorate being recognised from time to time. In the old days members were recognised only by their electorate name. Would it not be interesting to go back to those days?

The Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill, as Iain Lees-Galloway, the MP for Palmerston North, has indicated, is a bill that has merit and should be progressed quickly and swiftly through the House. I am advised by the senior Government whip that so meritorious is the legislation that we will not be delaying its passage in any way, shape, or form following my contribution today. We are keen to see the matter moving. I give a slight nod in the direction of Mr Lees-Galloway’s predecessor, the Hon Steve Maharey, whom I spent many hours with in this House debating a variety of legislation. This bill is one of those pieces of legislation on which we agreed. If members check Hansard and the first reading debate of the bill they will find that both the Hon Steve Maharey and I had only very short contributions to make in respect of the bill, largely because it was one of the rare occasions when we agreed on legislation in such a concerted way.

Iain Lees-Galloway: I’m sure there were plenty of times where that happened.

Hon SIMON POWER: It is true that we agreed on many other things—in fact, most things—but when it came to legislation, this place being what it is, that was not always the case in the House. Now that Mr Lees-Galloway has seen the necessity to lift the bill in the way it deserves and to pursue its passage through the House, he can be assured of the Government’s support on the matter and on making some real progress today.

I recall, as a young lad in the Palmerston North area, spending some time at the showgrounds, either playing rugby or, in latter years, refereeing rugby. I spent time at what was, from time to time, the A and P show. The show has fluctuated in its capacity to draw numbers over the years, but it is fair to say that it remains a crowd favourite when it is in town.

The legalities surrounding this bill are pretty straightforward. Mr Lees-Galloway has outlined them. He has also, quite rightly in my view, addressed the matters that were raised in respect of Ngāti Kauwhata’s concerns about the bill at its first reading. In fact, if my memory serves me, I think the Green Party may have voted against the bill at its first reading.

Dr Kennedy Graham: No.

Hon SIMON POWER: It did not. Well, it certainly indicated that it was concerned about that particular issue. On that basis I am sure that the Green Party, like members on this side of the House, will be pleased that the issue has been resolved.

Some of the most exciting things that are going on around the Palmerston North area include those at the Palmerston North Showgrounds, but I cannot let the opportunity pass without saying that Manfeild Park, which is being developed in the Feilding area, will prove to be a very big drawcard for many of the events that would have historically found themselves at the Palmerston North Showgrounds. I am sure that members on the other side of the House will agree with this, because, although they are not usually fans of competition, in this context I think they will agree that competition is a good thing. The important thing for those who are not familiar with that territory to realise is that the capacity for the wider region, what we would broadly describe as the Manawatū-Rangitīkei catchment, to draw people to the region through high-class facilities such as the showgrounds and Manfeild Park can be only for the betterment of the entire region.

I think Mr Lees-Galloway has gone some small way today to filling the very big shoes left by Steve Maharey, and this bill is one of the ways he can show he is up to the task that his predecessor left for him to complete. The National Party and the Government will support the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill. It is a bill that I, too, have had some discussion with Palmerston North City Council employees about from time to time. We are pleased to support the bill at its second reading.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) : I am pleased to take a very short call on the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill because I chaired the Local Government and Environment Committee when the bill first came to us. Although we may think that these sorts of bills that come to a select committee are small and very tidy and just sort out issues in a region or district on behalf of a council, the bill raised some concern when it first came before us and we sent it back to the Palmerston North City Council. Not all of us at the select committee were comfortable, because we were concerned about overlapping Treaty claims and we could not be given any assurance at the select committee that there was no outstanding Treaty claim over this piece of land.

It is very appropriate that Te Ururoa Flavell raised those concerns, because often we take it for granted that all the work has been done by the authority that is sponsoring a local bill, and sometimes that work is not undertaken to the level of our expectation as parliamentarians. We are not there to be default judge and jury on decisions that are made in a region or district. That was the point of concern originally. Of course we on this side of the House are not against competition, but the A and P shows were usually for competitions for sponge cakes, sand saucers, and horse riding. As the previous speaker, Simon Power, said, we would love to see the speedway and racing cars at Manfeild Park too, but the bill is about sorting out land used by the Manawatu and West Coast Agricultural and Pastoral Association and vesting it back to the Palmerston North City Council.

It is a very simple bill. Now that we are happy about the arrangements for what could have been outstanding claims Labour is very happy to support the bill today. It is wonderful that Iain Lees-Galloway has carried on the tradition started by Steve Maharey, the previous MP for Palmerston North. Steve Maharey taught him everything he knows, and Iain Lees-Galloway will have a long career in the House as a good Labour member for the good electorate of Palmerston North. In fact, Mr Lees-Galloway should have worn his “I love Palmy” badge, because we in Labour all love Palmy. We are delighted to be in the Chamber today to support the bill for Palmerston North. Having the bill in the House a day before urgency is a rather interesting House management issue. Tomorrow we will be debating in urgency until 10 o’clock at night, but tonight we will run out of work. That is most peculiar and awkward House management. It could have been entirely avoided, had the Leader of the House managed urgency and not had members sitting in the Chamber 3 weeks in a row in and out of urgency with knee-jerk reactions to major legislation. We are delighted to be debating and supporting the bill today.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) : Without wishing to draw the proceedings of the House to a close earlier than even my predecessor has intimated, I simply advise the House that the Green Party supports the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill, which proposes to transfer the management and control of the Palmerston North Showgrounds from the Palmerston North Showgrounds Board of Control to the Palmerston North City Council. We wish the promoters of the bill well. Thank you.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : There was a 50 percent chance that Ngāti Kauwhata would be heard, heeded, and respected in respect of the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill. After all, only two submissions were received by the Local Government and Environment Committee: one supported and one opposed the legislation. So the probability was high that the sun would shine on Ngāti Kauwhata. Such high stakes were inevitably helped by the compelling evidence provided in their submission. I will take a rather unusual step of repeating a key statement from their submission for the benefit of the House. Ngāti Kauwhata said that they “must continue in our responsibilities as tangata whenua to protect the land and natural resources of our district. To do this, we must object to and make others aware of the stealth that the Crown and their Agents, Local Government, will use to keep Ngati Kauwhata marginalised from their lands and in poor health to forever keep them dependent on the Crown as beneficiaries, and therefore to be slandered by those who seek power within the Crown’s structures.”

Those are strong words that underline the passion and the responsibility Ngāti Kauwhata uphold in protecting their history and preserving their heritage. Ngāti Kauwhata stand by the contention that they did not sell interests in the Te Ahu-turanga Block. Ngāti Kauwhata instead believe that the land was taken by stealth and by devious purchasing practices by the Crown and its agents. Ngāti Kauwhata claim that the land is part of the Te Ahu-turanga Block taken from them by proclamation and is subject to two Waitangi Tribunal claims: Wai 784 and Wai 972. There is another new claim, Wai 1461, regarding the Rangitīkei-Manawatū Block. It is a conjoint claim between Ngāti Kauwhata, Ngāti Raukawa, and all of Ngā Iwi o Te Reureu.

This history of Treaty injustices and contemporary breaches was heard by the select committee, but it chose a different history. It opted to favour the history presented by the Palmerston North City Council. The council supports the bill on the grounds that the relevant land and most of the other assets are already owned by it and that effectively it has managed the showgrounds over the last 2 years. The committee was privy to the expert advice of public health champion, Ngāti Kauwhata member, and Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Māori and Pasifika) of Massey University, Professor Mason Durie. His analysis included the conclusion that a lack of access to tribal land must be woven into explanations of the chronic poor health status of Māori.

Ngāti Kauwhata were not asking for the world. They just wanted to be part of the overall governance and part of the process of managing the land that was taken from them. They humbly requested that the bill be delayed until they were able to determine the status of the land in respect of ownership and the implications of the Treaty claims over it. In considering the views of Ngāti Kauwhata, the select committee determined that any Waitangi Tribunal investigation can have no effect on the land in question given its status as private land.

With all due respect, I suggest that the select committee is not the appropriate body to make such pronouncements. If Ngāti Kauwhata believe they have the right to at least have the land in question considered as part of their claim then that is something for the Waitangi Tribunal to investigate, consider, and determine, not the select committee. When the Government purchased the Te Ahu-turanga Block from Rangitāne in 1864, it noted that there was some dispute at the time about ownership between Rangitāne and neighbouring iwi. Now, 145 years later, this bill could have been an excellent opportunity to face a dispute in the light of day, once and for all. Instead, the select committee chose to ignore the dispute, to ignore the strongly held views of Ngāti Kauwhata, and to affect the transfer of the management and control of the land of the showgrounds from the board to the Palmerston North City Council.

The showgrounds will now be fully managed and controlled by the council as a recreation site. The council’s submission to the select committee did not discuss any consultation that it may or may not have had with local iwi, including Ngāti Kauwhata. Although it appears that this legislation is not a problematic change for Rangitāne, it is utterly evident that there are longstanding and outstanding issues for Ngāti Kauwhata. The Māori Party believes that we cannot make any progress on the bill while the dispute is still manifest. We oppose this bill.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) : I rise in support of Kennedy Graham’s International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill. Labour believes there is much to recommend in this bill, and we support its referral to the select committee. I will focus my comments on clause 9 of the bill, which requires a New Zealand leader to obtain the written advice of the Attorney-General before deciding to commit the armed forces of New Zealand to action involving the use of armed force.

The National Government members who spoke in this debate before me, before the debate was interrupted a month ago, repeatedly stated their support for the underlying intent of the bill. Dr Wayne Mapp talked about Dr Graham’s deep commitment to the progressive development of international law, saying National understands the underlying motivations behind this bill. The other doctor, Dr Paul Hutchison, said the sentiment behind this bill was extremely worthy, and that perhaps it was something that New Zealand must seriously consider in the future.

But here is the truth: in spite of those soothing words, National does not even support the most modest element in this bill. It does not support the idea of having the Attorney-General provide a legal opinion on any proposed armed intervention by New Zealand. This is the most modest element in the bill. It would not constrain the executive, it would not prevent the deployment of New Zealand troops to take part in an international intervention, and it would not limit New Zealand’s ability to participate in a Kosovo-type humanitarian situation. It would simply require the Attorney-General to produce to this House a legal opinion on the lawfulness of any proposed armed intervention. But this National Government does not want a bar of that. It does not want this bill to go to a select committee, where it could be debated and improved.

Putting aside for a second the issue of the passage of this bill, I am told that the National Government has even rejected the idea of supporting the proposal in the bill for an opinion by the Attorney-General to be discussed at a select committee. This idea is not for National, but it is good enough for the United Kingdom, which is moving to make a legal opinion by the Attorney-General a requirement as a parliamentary convention. This was signalled by the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, in a speech to the House of Commons in June, but it is not good enough for National. It is a practical, simple suggestion that is designed to enhance public and parliamentary scrutiny of the most heavy responsibility of the executive: sending young New Zealanders to war.

As advanced by Kennedy Graham, the proposal is that 7 days in advance of any deployment, except in situations of self-defence, the Prime Minister would be expected to table in this House an opinion from the Attorney-General concerning the lawfulness of the deployment and its consistency with international law and, in particular, with the UN Charter. Why does the National Government not want to have an informed discussion in this House before young Kiwis are sent off to battle? Why does it not want there to be a discussion on that, informed by a dispassionate legal opinion by no less than the Attorney-General? The answer is Iraq. National members on the Government side of the House will remember that their party leader, the Prime Minister, John Key, said he would have sent troops to take part in George Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq. In their hearts, they are not committed to international law. In rejecting this provision in Kennedy Graham’s bill, they are showing their true colours. They want to be able to send our troops to fight overseas, regardless of whether that is consistent with international law.

We saw with the recent deployment of SAS troops to Afghanistan how susceptible the National Government is to pressure from bigger and more powerful allies. What started out as an international operation to root out al-Qaeda after attacks on New York City has become, several years later, an unwinnable quagmire. Kennedy Graham’s proposal in this bill would have generated an opinion that surely would have advised that the Afghanistan deployment was consistent with international law. An opinion from the Attorney-General would not have stopped the deployment, but if applied in the future it might save National and this country from engaging in unwise interventions. Thank you.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) : The Government cited three reasons to oppose the International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill: it will surrender our foreign policy to a Security Council veto, it will divide out nation, and it will be blatantly misused. Each of those statements is effortlessly refuted, at least in logic.

The Minister of Defence is irritated by the veto, and craves the freedom to circumvent it, yet in San Francisco, although we argued against the veto, we signed the charter in full acknowledgment of its inclusion, and we abide by that reality today. Dr Mapp prefers the NATO interpretation that the doctrine of responsibility to protect enables Western powers, with New Zealand tagging along behind whenever summoned, to intervene militarily without UN authorisation. The same freedom for so-called legitimate if illegal actions of the Kosovo type is not to be extended to China or Russia. That level of hubris predates even 1945.

The rule of international law is contemptuous of outmoded notions of political superiority. At some stage, before long, the International Criminal Court will adopt the crime of aggression. New Zealand will agree, voluntarily or otherwise, and on that day the Government will discreetly forget what it has said in this debate.

Will this bill divide the nation? Of course not. The New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 imposed criminal liability on the Prime Minister to respect the prohibition on nuclear-armed warships in our harbours. Far from dividing the nation, the warships stopped coming. The nation remains united on the nuclear-free policy. Notwithstanding the historical writhing of the National Party, the Prime Minister celebrates our nuclear-free policy before world leaders at the United Nations this week—hardly a nation divided.

Would the bill result in misuse? There is no greater risk of this legislation being abused than any other. Dr Hutchison has a low opinion of the judiciary; I do not. In fact, I find the expression of such a view in this legislature to be quite reprehensible. We should be worth more.

Finally, the Government allowed itself a touching philosophical flourish. The bill is, Dr Hutchison said, perhaps something that New Zealand must consider in the future. In other words, it is ahead of its time. To put the record straight, I say to members that this bill is half a century behind. If it is premature to make national leaders liable in criminal law for aggression, then this country owes a formal apology to Japan for participating in the trial and execution of its leaders six decades ago. The House should then call upon the Prime Minister to convey that apology immediately after dispatching this bill to the void.

I am disappointed at the Government’s position on my bill, but I am not surprised. The bill would take a major step forward in civilising the world through civilising ourselves. It requires vision and courage, so I am not surprised. Nor am I discouraged, for it is clear to me, whether or not it is clear to my colleagues across the floor, that this bill, even in this failed incarnation, is a beacon to the country and to elsewhere.

The bill has been distributed to over 100 Parliaments around the world, and it is already being seen as a model for other countries to emulate. Work has begun in the Argentine Senate. The disposition of each of those countries to adopt it sooner or later will reflect considerations that transcend the particular reasons, so stated in this House, for not proceeding today.

It is never difficult and it is always tempting to find rationalisations for not proceeding with a far-reaching initiative in politics. We can go home tonight knowing we have done our duty to this House. We have considered, deliberated, and pronounced. The only thing left to do is explain to our children tomorrow why we would not act today.

Whether we have done our duty to the nation and to humanity is less clear. The Prime Minister and his Government have an opportunity today for statesmanship, but recoiled before the mirror. We are what we think, even to a lilliputian degree. It is likely that future generations will understand us better than we, today, understand ourselves. Very well then; let us proceed to the vote.

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) : I move, That the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. If passed, I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Education and Science Committee.

I take the freedom of the individual as one of the ultimate yardsticks in assessing Government action. What does that mean? It means that at a fundamental level relationships between individuals in society should be based on consent, and that they should be based on voluntary cooperation. Freedom of association is an ideal that has, historically speaking, not necessarily been well served by this House. The best I can say is that over time Parliament has reversed many of the laws that forced individuals to associate with different groups. It ended forced association of Government employees with unions: we no longer force public servants to join a union. It ended the forced association of citizens with the army: we no longer conscript our young people. And it ended the forced association of employees with a union in the ordinary workforce: we no longer allow a majority of workers to compel the minority into a closed shop. In a free society individuals should be free to choose whether to join a residents association; they should be free to decide whether they should join the local tennis club or join the Automobile Association.

Over time we have come to respect the importance of freedom of association. We in this House have ratified the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees to individuals freedom of association, and, I might add, explicitly includes the right not to associate. We have backed up that ratification by passing the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which also protects the freedom of association. Freedom of association protects not only individuals but also groups of individuals within society who wish to voluntarily join hands and work together towards a common goal. I suggest that associations are not truly representative of their members’ convictions if those members are forced to join. They are, in fact, meaningless—the mere playthings of those who control them.

One group of individuals in New Zealand is still forced to join an association. One group of individuals have their money forcefully taken in order to fund the association they are forced to join. Every year individuals around this country are compelled to join a students association when they sign up to a tertiary institute. This simple fact is often lost in the sophistication that surrounds the issue.

I am sure you will hear from Labour and Green members of this House, many of whose MPs once funded their political causes from money forcibly taken from other students, that there are several reasons why the law does not breach freedom of association. The first thing they will say is that students can hold a referendum and end compulsory student membership. It is funny to hear Labour members argue that rights should be dependent on the whim of the majority. Should a majority, for example, be able to compel all businesses to join the Business Roundtable? I hope not. The principle of the matter is that no individual should be forced to fund any association at the whim of the majority.

The second thing they will say is that students can conscientiously object. By that logic, of course, the military draft was OK, as one could conscientiously object. There can be no freedom of association without the capacity to reclaim the resources that fund those organisations. I may be able to exit the organisation, but if I cannot recoup the resources that were compulsorily acquired then the result is taxation without representation.

The third thing they will say, which is probably the most worrying of all, is that we are all compelled to pay taxes and rates. With that, of course, I can agree; as a statement, that argument is correct. But the fact that the Government uses its coercive power to force us to pay taxes is the reason why the exercise of Government power should be limited. The fact that Government has expanded beyond its role in a free society should not be used as an argument to allow those in the voluntary sector to force individuals to act in certain ways. In simple terms, a students association is not a Government.

Compulsory students associations are not necessary, as in a free society individuals can form them and allow anyone to join who wants to, if they so wish. This confuses the Labour and Green members because they do not care about the use of force by the Government. To the supporters of unfettered Government power, and in the words of the Rt Hon Helen Clark, the role of Government is whatever the Government defines it to be. However, some members in Labour get it. They are probably those who did not learn the ropes of Labour politics, which is to push one’s personal agenda and at the same time claim to represent all students. A few Labour members understand freedom of association, and I will quote from just one of them. Clayton Cosgrove is one such member. In a radio interview with Radio New Zealand on 14 March 2008 he said: “Why should I as a politician tell you or anybody else what you should belong to? … If you want to join the footy club, the workingmen’s club, the institute, go for it. It’s your choice,”. Clayton Cosgrove actually gets it. It is worth repeating, because one could not say it better: “Why should I as a politician tell you or anybody else what you should belong to? … If you want to join the footy club, the workingmen’s club … It’s your choice,”.

David Garrett: Who said that?

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS: Clayton Cosgrove. He is quite a bright guy, I would have thought.

So why is freedom of association so important, and what is bad about forcing people to spend their money in a particular way? There are two main reasons. In the first place, requiring people to spend their money in a particular way requires that we first take their money off them. In other words, the idea is fundamentally based around the philosophy of coercion and force. In the second place, no one spends someone else’s money as carefully as that person spends his or her own money. That is why students associations undertake the kinds of projects they do. That is why the Victoria University of Wellington Students Association offered a $10,000 reward for the citizen’s arrest of Condoleezza Rice. That is why it advocates such loony projects as fully taxpayer-subsidised tertiary education.

I finish by making it clear that I am not opposed to students associations. If students want to group together and advocate for nutty policy, they should go for it. The Greens are doing all right. If a students association wants to provide services to its members, it should go for it. The Automobile Association does it particularly well. Indeed, if students associations really do such an amazing job, then many students will voluntarily join. But no individual should be forced against his or her will.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) : I rise to speak to the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. National will support this bill’s referral to the select committee. In most tertiary institutions students must belong to the student union whether are full-time students, part-time students, on-campus students, or distance students. Union membership is compulsory. Auckland University is the only university that has a voluntary students association, and guess what? The sky has not fallen. Currently, the only way to change is to get 10 percent of students to petition for a referendum, and then get the majority to vote for voluntary membership. Individuals can opt out of the membership, but they still have to pay the levy, which is then passed on by the student union to a charity. The current law does not allow students to make their own decisions about union membership. They are the only group in society that is denied that basic freedom. Most organisations have to demonstrate their value and their competence in order to justify support. What is so different about student unions?

Following the actions of the Victoria University students union this year of refusing to show respect on Anzac Day, my office received many, many letters from students who were appalled at having to support an organisation that clearly did not reflect their values. Other than going through that long, complicated, and involved process of holding a referendum, they had little redress and little influence on the organisation that they were forced to support financially.

Some concern has been raised about the services that student unions provide. Opponents of the bill have said that vital services that are provided by student organisations will disappear under voluntary students associations. I echo the words of the speaker before me, the sponsor of this bill, Sir Roger Douglas: if those students associations that are performing those valuable services can prove that they are of benefit to the students, then the students will join them—obviously. Intelligent people attend our universities and polytechs, and if there is a worthwhile service, they will join. However, I understand that there are some concerns about part of the wording in the bill and how this might affect the continuity of services, and that is something that can be dealt with at the select committee. The mode of provision of services varies across tertiary institutions in New Zealand. Some institutions, for example, provide student welfare services directly, and at others they are provided by students associations. The select committee is the appropriate forum at which to discuss these matters further to ensure that, should this bill proceed, those services are still available.

I will finish by using the words of someone who, I think, has summed up exactly what this bill is all about. The previous speaker stole my thunder a bit, but I will just expand on the quote. Former Minister of Labour Clayton Cosgrove said: “We haven’t had compulsory unionism for 20 years.”—for anyone other than students—“Why should I as a politician tell you or anybody else what you should belong to? … If you want to join the footy club, the workingmen’s club, the institute, go for it. It’s your choice, and you should have that right.” I think he summed it up for our students.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We now move to 5-minute speeches. There will be a warning bell at 1 minute.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) : I rise in opposition to the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill for three key reasons. The first reason is that the bill is unnecessary, the second is that it will cost students more, and the third is that the real driver behind this bill—which, of course, we heard already from Roger Douglas and Anne Tolley—is that it is designed to silence critics of the Government.

This bill is unnecessary. It is unnecessary because students already have choice. They have choice because of the compromise arrangement reached in 1998 by the then National - New Zealand First Government. It was a very sensible arrangement that gave students a choice as to whether to have a system of universal membership or a system of voluntary membership. They are allowed to choose a voluntary system by way of referendum. That deal was brokered by Tau Henare of the National Party. It was a sensible deal, and I hope that Tau Henare will take the opportunity of the select committee deliberation—now that we know the bill will be referred to a select committee, because National will vote for it—to impress upon his current party, the National Party, the value of it. It was a sensible arrangement. Students have that choice now, and they should be entitled to keep that choice of retaining universal membership if they want it—and we know that they do. In 1999, when the students at my university, Victoria University, were given that choice, 78 percent of them, an overwhelming majority, voted in favour of retaining universal membership. More than half the students on campus participated in that vote, and 78 percent of them voted to retain a system of universal student membership.

This bill, if enacted, will cost students more. The universities will want to retain some of the services that students associations currently provide, and they will not be able to deliver them at the cost at which the students associations can deliver them. Students associations are run on hundreds and thousands of volunteer hours every year, and the universities simply cannot provide that. We know that when voluntary membership was first mooted at Victoria University in 1999, it introduced another levy that would have allowed it to continue some of the services the students association already provided—only some of them, not all of them—and that levy was more than the students association levy for those services. So students will pay more if voluntary membership is enacted. In recent weeks we have already seen massive increases in student services levies around the country, because universities and polytechnics cannot provide services to the standard and at the price that students associations currently can provide them. So students will pay more.

The other thing that the National Government did in 1999 was try to stack the deck against students associations. Before National reached the compromise that Tau Henare sponsored, it removed the ability of students to add their students association membership fees on to their student loans. So students basically had to front up with the cash to pay their students association fees. The Government did everything it possibly could to stack the deck against having any form of students association membership. It would not surprise me, if this bill is passed, to see a National Government doing that again.

Some very important services are provided by students associations, some of which may be provided by universities but many of which will not. The most important services, which I am concerned about, are the student representation services—the welfare and advocacy services—which will be at risk if this bill goes through. Those services are very important to students. I ask the Minister for Ethnic Affairs, Pansy Wong, to consider the implication of voluntary student membership on so many of the cultural and ethnic clubs and groups on campus. They provide vital support services to those different ethnic groups. I ask the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Paula Bennett, to consider the welfare and advocacy services that are provided to students who find themselves in hard times. There are so many of them. In fact, the Minister for Social Development and Employment used to be one of those students. This is another example of the Minister trying to pull the ladder up behind her and remove many of the vital supports she relied on to get herself up the ladder. She is trying to remove those opportunities from other students.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) : We have heard from the youngster of the Labour Party, Chris Hipkins. If I could humbly give that member a little bit of advice it would be that if he is going to be successful in this place, it would pay for him to get his story right and be consistent with his front-benchers. What is Labour’s position on the issue we are debating? Is it as was expounded by the young member there, is it what former Labour Minister Clayton Cosgrove had to say, or is it more ominous that that? This is what Clayton Cosgrove said in 2008—

Jacinda Ardern: Repeat it three times.

ALLAN PEACHEY: You should hear it three times. You are going to hear it again, because you need to listen and to learn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

ALLAN PEACHEY: I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I most humbly apologise. This is what Clayton Cosgrove had to say when he was defending plans to make membership of the Real Estate Institute voluntary and when he argued in favour of voluntary membership and freedom of association. He said: “We haven’t had compulsory unionism for 20 years. Why should I as a politician tell you or anybody else what you should belong to? If you want to join the footy club, the workingmen’s club, the institute—go for it. It’s your choice and you should have that right.”

Jacqui Dean: Who said that?

ALLAN PEACHEY: Clayton Cosgrove, the member who almost lost his seat. It seems to me that Labour members are arguing that students should not have the same rights of freedom of association as other New Zealanders. That is the basic argument of Labour, and that is where I take issue with the stand it is taking.

I congratulate the ACT member Sir Roger Douglas. This matter needs to be debated, and I look forward to chairing the Education and Science Committee, which will hold hearings on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I want to send a very, very clear message now as to what I will be looking for at the committee. National is supporting the bill going to the select committee in order to give the select committee and New Zealanders the chance to consider an issue that is very, very important to students and to New Zealand generally. The key question, and the one I will look to have addressed, is why university students are being denied the right of freedom of association that all other New Zealanders have an entitlement to. Has this country gone so far backwards in its thinking that it is not prepared to enter into an open and honest debate and discussion on the issue?

I will also be seeking an explanation for why if the situation works at the University of Auckland, where there is a voluntary students association, it cannot work anywhere else. Why can the students of Otago, Canterbury, Victoria, and Waikato not have the same rights and privileges of New Zealanders, and of freedom of association, that the students of Auckland enjoy? I will be looking for that issue to be discussed by submitters.

I will conclude by reiterating what I have said. The bill is about the rights of New Zealanders to enjoy freedom of association. Labour members have already made it clear that it is their intention to deny young New Zealanders that right. I will not be so easily convinced.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) : What a stunning argument from this incompetent and incapable Government. National members, in desperation to find a good reason why they are propping up another ACT initiative—there are not so many Māori Party initiatives going through, but there are plenty of ACT Party initiatives—and to find a way to link themselves to that party, have found one quote from Clayton Cosgrove that is completely out of context. Clayton Cosgrove was talking about shonky real estate agents. Clayton Cosgrove was talking about loan sharks. Clayton Cosgrove was talking about rip-off merchants. He was not talking about students and students associations. That is the most tenuous link I have yet seen in this term of Parliament. And why? It was so that National members—desperately—could find a way to suck up one more time to the ACT Party, the “3 Percent Party”—

Hon Darren Hughes: 2 percent.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —and dropping. National, with all its numbers, just seems to want to bend over backwards at any single opportunity to please the ACT Party.

The previous speaker, Allan Peachey, said that he was going to seek out the answer to why students are the only group who are denied freedom of association. Clearly that member is not listening to students, because they have a better question than that. Why are students the only group in society who are denied access to a universal allowance if they are out of work? That is a far better question that the Government ought to be addressing, rather than this one. Nevertheless it has been given the opportunity to bend over backwards for the ACT Party, and so it will.

I would like to talk about what the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill actually means, in practical terms—what it will mean, on the ground, for students. It will mean a massive increase in costs for students because the universities will want to maintain the services that the students associations offer. They will still want to run orientation events and other events. Universities will still want a student newspaper, they will want radio stations, and they will want advocacy to be available to students. They will want representation. Universities appreciate the fact that there is an organisation out there that provides representation for students when they have a grievance with the university. There will be some problems of independence, if the universities have to offer a service in order for students to advocate against them. That will get tricky, but they will want it.

Here is the problem. Students associations live and die on hours and hours of voluntary time being provided. They also live and die on having dedicated people who take paid employment with students associations, but they take it for a pittance. The universities will not be able to offer that; they will have to pay people properly. They will have to provide those services, and it will cost them an awful lot more. Who will pay for that? It will be the students. In fact we have already seen on several occasions that universities, looking for ways to increase the student component of their fees, have gone after the student services component because it does not fall under the fee maxima policy. This will put more and more pressure on universities, and provide more opportunities for universities to whack up those fees. Who will pay? It will be the students. The students will lose out as a result of this legislation passing.

What is more, when those services are provided by the students association, whether or not the students take them up they have an opportunity to have a say in what the fee is. They have a far greater opportunity to say how they want their students association to spend this money, to say what fee they expect to pay, and what they want the students association to do. Students do not have anything like that opportunity when dealing with the university. In fact, the opportunity will become less and less as Mrs Tolley attacks the councils and gets rid of student representation. We have already seen it happen with the polytechs, and the universities are next. It means that students will have less and less of a voice and less and less of a say on how their money is spent. This is bad news for students. The Government is not listening to them; it is spending all its time bending over backwards for the ACT Party. It is the students and young people in this country who will pay for that policy. [Interruption]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I remind people in the gallery that their role is passive. They cannot participate and they cannot clap.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) : The Green Party is opposed to the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, and we regret that this House has to deal with such extremism all over again. We left the 20th century behind some time ago, and it does not seem to me that we should reintroduce the 1980s back into 21st century legislation, especially when that legislation attacks, if I may say so, the students of the 21st century, who are supposed to lead us into the future. I guess it is not a surprise that we have to deal with this kind of extremist viewpoint from the ACT Party, but it is disappointing that ACT has not learnt any of the lessons of the past.

We certainly agree with students associations and students who say one of the major impacts of this bill will be a reduction in the services that the associations provide for students. That will affect key social and welfare services, clubs and sports activity, and other services such as advocacy for greater transport accessibility for students and for housing. In the area where I live in Dunedin, and in other parts of the country, there are serious issues for students with disabilities, for example, who wish to access accessible housing, and their students associations, the collective organisations to which they voluntarily belong, are key organisations in terms of helping to support those students. Those kinds of services will be lost if this bill is allowed to proceed.

I will make only a small contribution this afternoon, but I say another key area of loss for students—who are paying through the nose for their fees, working while they study, and doing an incredible job of trying to keep themselves afloat while they educate themselves for the benefit of the public as a whole—will be in the access they now have to strong advocacy on the issues that they face. That is not just advocacy in terms of a voice in the university councils and in the tertiary institutions, but political advocacy, as well. Many students who are part of students associations or collective organisations do not necessarily have a vote. Some of them are quite young, yet through their students associations they have access to a political voice and advocacy that they would not otherwise get. Here in Parliament we make decisions that affect students’ lives, their employment, the kinds of jobs that they may be able to access, and the education that they may be able to access, yet we would restrict their ability to have a voice and a say in exactly those decisions that affect them. One of the Green Party’s key principles is that of participatory democracy, the principle that people who are affected by decisions should be part of the decision-making process, and this bill attempts to strip that away from students.

Serious issues have been raised about the impact of this bill on Māori students and their ability to continue to have an advocacy voice and have support services provided through their collective associations. This is particularly important at a time when this Government is attacking the tertiary sector by massively reducing its funding. Polytech councils, for example, are now under attack, and universities, I am sure, will be soon to follow. With a reduction in the community voices on those councils, those voices, and particularly Māori voices, are being lost. Māori voices are being lost from the decision-making processes around tertiary education, and this bill is another attack on exactly that—on the right of Māori to have a say. Of course, we already know that the National Government does not like it when Māori have a voice. We have already seen it remove that voice in the legislation on Auckland governance, when it stripped Māori of the ability to have a political voice in the Auckland super-city. Now the Government is doing exactly the same thing for Māori students, those who will be leading our community in the future.

This bill breaches even its own principles of choice and freedom. It strikes me that the ACT Party believes that when people do not vote for the Government, they can then somehow throw off the responsibilities of their citizenship, because it is not their fault that we have a particular Government.

Iain Lees-Galloway: It’s a libertarian view.

METIRIA TUREI: This is the extremist libertarian view. We know that kind of example is ridiculous, because the principle behind it is ridiculous. Students are entitled under the current law to choose how they organise themselves, and this bill will strip from them their right to choose and their freedom to associate in the way that they think is the most appropriate. This bill constrains their choices and freedoms; it does not support them. This bill is classic 1980s dinosaurian thinking, which this Parliament and this country can well do without.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : My colleague Sir Roger Douglas has already made the very clear case for the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill on the grounds of freedom of association, but I want to talk about the behaviour of student politicians when people do not join their organisations voluntarily, and what happens as a result.

When we look at elections of students associations we see that most suffer from apathy, and most elections do well to achieve a 10 percent turn-out. This lack of turn-out directly leads to a lack of accountability, and it is this lack of accountability that allows students associations to get away with so much waste, so much politicking, and so much fraud.

I heard Mr Lees-Galloway explain that Mr Cosgrove’s quote—and I see Mr Cosgrove has joined us in the House, so I imagine he will speak—was aimed at “rip-off merchants”. Well, let us hear about these rip-off merchants. In 2007 the Victoria University of Wellington Students Association spent $22,000 of its members’ money doing up a van. That spending was not authorised by the executive, initially. It was undertaken by one Geoff Hayward and another fellow. In other words, those two people stole student money. I note that Geoff Hayward used to work for the Labour Party. Maybe he gave advice on the pledge card rort of taxpayers back in 2005.

Hon Darren Hughes: What about the Pipitea Street electorate office?

DAVID GARRETT: Oh, it gets worse; it gets much worse. In 2008 Clelia Opie spent $6,000 of students’ money making calls to psychic hotlines. That is right—she misused student money to call psychics. In 2009 the Victoria University of Wellington Students Association will spend 70 percent of its budget on administration. It claims to provide services, but most of the money will be wasted along the way.

But let us go back to the rip-offs. Mr Lees-Galloway, a former student politician and Labour Party learner back in his student days, said that Mr Cosgrove was talking only about rip-off merchants, so let us hear about a few more of them. In 2003 Florence Bailey, the office manager of the Massey University Students Association, was jailed for 2 years and 3 months after stealing $203,000 of student money. That is an awful lot of money. In 2005 the Victoria University of Wellington Māori Students Association treasurer, Wi Nepia, was jailed for stealing $161,000 of student money. Last but, sadly, not least, Otago University’s Te Roopu Maori, the Māori students association at that university, collapsed amid allegations of financial impropriety and estimated fraud of $21,000. With one exception I have mentioned only the ones who actually got convicted, because even though what I say in this House is protected, I do not believe in casting aspersions without some justification and proof.

Lastly, we realise that the Labour Party and the Greens will support this abuse of student money, and the real reason is over there on the Opposition benches. Mr Lees-Galloway, Mr Hipkins, and others are all former officers of student unions. Mr Hipkins was the president of the students association at Victoria University in 2000-01, Mr Iain Lees-Galloway was the president of the Massey University Students Association, and Grant Robertson was the president of the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations. On his own website he describes his role back then as “full-time lobbyist”. Well, I ask what happened to the interests of students.

This bill is aimed squarely at giving people freedom of choice. The obvious argument that can be made is that if the deal is so wonderful, students will be flocking to join voluntary organisations.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : I seek leave to table a number of documents. The first is a report regarding Donna Awatere Huata, a former ACT Party MP, ripping off the Pipi Foundation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I seek leave to table a report relating to the scandal perpetrated by the ACT Party around its out-of-Parliament office in Pipitea Street.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

• Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I seek leave to table a report about Rodney Hide’s conduct in relation to a Fiji pyramid scheme.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: What report is that?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: It is in relation to the allegation about a scandal. It is a media report.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a media report. Leave is sought—

Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask which organisation the report is from. We need a little more detail, please.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a press report.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: It is from the media.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : Throughout history students associations have been directly linked to key events on the pathway to democracy. In the 1960s African-American student movements occupied white-only lunch counters and other segregated public institutions throughout the South to protest against segregated seating. In 1989 student activists played a central role in the Tiananmen Square protests, seeking to bring democracy to China. And, of course, just 5 years ago in Aotearoa students associations were involved in the hīkoi opposing the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. So it is with some irony that we are faced with a bill, the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, that seeks to erode students associations but places the word “freedom” in its title.

Freedom, a concept associated with emancipation and empowerment, is not simply about having the opportunity to do as one pleases. Freedom is, essentially, about the chance to formulate available choices, to argue, debate, and consider them, and then have the opportunity to choose. In the context of students associations, that is manifest in the capacity to opt out of membership. In the current legislation, sections 229A to 229D of the Education Act 1989 enable the student body of a tertiary institution to determine whether it wants a compulsory or voluntary students association. It also enables individuals to choose to be exempt from membership on the grounds of financial hardship or conscientious objection—that is, to opt out.

This bill instead will require students to opt in. It sounds a very simple idea—the switch from opting out to opting in. But of course there is always a wider agenda. The broader context for this bill is that students associations and their representatives, including Māori student rōpū and their representatives, have often been strong advocates within tertiary institutions and the wider sector for high-quality academic standards, adequate Government investment, and course fee maintenance or reductions. Students associations also provide a range of important services to students: welfare and academic advocacy, faculty and class representatives, financial assistance, legal help, counselling services, student social events, student clubs, student societies, and campus sports and recreation facilities. In short, it is a wonder that any student has time to attend classes with all the activities students could be immersed in through their students associations.

Given that this bill is about students associations, one would think it pretty important to canvass views from them about the need and value of this bill. What we have learnt is that the bill is opposed by Te Mana Ākonga, the national Māori tertiary students association; Te Hunga Roia Māori o Aotearoa, the national Māori lawyers association; Te Toi Tauira mō te Matariki, the national forum for supporting Māori students and staff in tertiary education; Te Rōpū Takawaenga Māori o Ngā Kura Mātauranga o Aotearoa, the Māori liaison tertiary association of New Zealand; Te Toi Ahurangi, the komiti Māori within the Tertiary Education Union; and Te Kāhui Amokura, the Māori committee of the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee. The membership of the last committee is, I think, of particular note. It includes Professor Mason Durie as chair, Sir Tīpene O’Regan, Jim Peters, Pare Keiha, Linda Smith, Piri Sciascia, Hirini Matunga, and Darryn Russell. They are all people whose opinion I hold in high regard.

Finally, I bring to the attention of the House the fact that at the hui-ā-motu held earlier this month for komiti Māori within the Tertiary Education Union, members voted to oppose this bill. I spoke at the hui, and I have been advised that the hui resolved to support the position of the New Zealand University Students Association and Te Mana Ākonga, which is: “the current legislative framework is both flexible and inclusive, allowing for both voluntary and universal membership of students’ associations.”

We support the position of students. In recognition of the views of the people most affected, we therefore opt in to maintain the status quo, and we, the Māori Party, opt out of supporting this bill.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) : It is my pleasure to take a call on this Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I question, though, why we are having this debate in the first place. Last time I checked I had not seen any students marching on to the forecourt of Parliament to request that this bill be put before the House. In fact, the last time that I saw students marching on Parliament, it was about astronomical student debt, not about student union membership.

This is a misguided and unnecessary bill, which has been brought before us by Sir Roger Douglas, and I wonder what his motives were. Perhaps Mr Douglas reviewed the hall of fame of other members of Parliament who have put forward this measure before. Let us just run through that hall of fame. First there was Tony Steel MP, who suggested that we should have such a measure, then, ironically, it was Donna Awatere Huata who put forward this measure, and then—wait for it—Michael Laws suggested that we do the same thing. And now we have Roger Douglas, who has also suggested it. I will give that group of MPs the charity of my silence and not comment on their past careers.

This bill is not about choice. This bill is not about choice, because if it were, students would have been asked to some degree about their level of support for it. This bill is not about rights. If it were about rights, we would be discussing an issue like free education, or we might be discussing an issue like the right to lifelong learning, which has also been stripped away and undermined by this House and by this Government. This bill is about neither of those arguments. It is about ACT’s ideology, plain and simple, and the Nats have jumped on the bandwagon.

Unlike the member who is in charge of this bill, I can speak from some experience, having attended a university that looked at voluntary student union membership. I was at Waikato University in the 1990s. I was not a student politician—I want to make that clear—I was a student. I was an observer of what happened, and I voted in the election that eventually led to that university being the first in 70 years, I believe, to go voluntary. I inform members of this House that it was the first university to go back to universal membership, because it learnt that it was a disaster to move to a voluntary system.

But I would also like members to reflect on the fact that this happened only after all of the services that those students had benefited from had collapsed. Those were services that Roger Douglas would not have required when he attended university. When Mr Douglas used the education system, tertiary education was free. Student debt was not astronomical. When Mr Douglas was at university, young people were not accessing food banks, students were not seeking emergency housing, and students were not accessing a hardship fund. Students did not require the services that they require today. That is the utter hypocrisy of this bill. All of these services are now provided by students associations, because they are necessary, and they are services that that member never ever needed.

This bill is not about choice. Students have choice already, and universities have demonstrated that they are fully able to exercise that choice when and if they require it. I say again that they have learnt the lesson that the system they have is working for them. If they make the choice to have a referendum and they stick with universal student union membership, then that is a collective choice that they have made together. After they have made that collective choice, all of the services that then flow from it benefit that collective, and that choice is still there. That is democracy at work, plain and simple. The idea of collectivism might be a bit complex for members opposite to grasp, but it works.

It is an absolute shame that we are debating this bill in the House. It is a shame that we are distracted from the real issues in tertiary education that we should be discussing. It is a shame that that member sees fit to impose on students, without giving them a choice and without giving them a debate, a shameful bill like this one.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) : National supports the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill going to the Education and Science Committee. We will listen to the views of submitters, and we encourage students in particular to make their views loud and clear. We support the bill going to the select committee. Thank you.

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) : I will take up one or two of the points that were made. The first point I take up is about the referendum. The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is about individual rights, which Labour members do not seem to understand. The idea that rights can be upheld only by majority rule is about mob rule rather than anything else.

Members opposite talked about the fact that students associations delivered vital services, and that those services would no longer be available. Let us think about that. In the first place, many of those services such as student health, counselling, etc. are funded from a levy raised by the university, not by the association. It is precisely because those associations are somewhat inept that the university takes on that role. In the second place, there is nothing to stop voluntary associations from providing vital services. Members of the association could be given membership cards that allow them access to certain services free at the point of consumption. The Automobile Association does exactly that and so do the trade unions. Why is it beyond students associations? In the third place, many of the social services such as orientation run at a profit, so they will continue anyway.

It is funny, but exactly the same arguments we heard this afternoon were made when unions became voluntary. Since then, the sky somehow has not fallen in; unions still exist and many of them do a good job for their members.

Chris Hipkins said that ACT is trying to deny students a voice. Nothing could be further from the truth. But let us understand that students do not speak with one voice. Like any other group in society, many students think many different things. Voluntary student membership gives a voice to every student, and that is what Labour wants to deny. Voluntary membership does not give a voice to just the few who control the association; it gives a voice to every student, not just a few.

In addition, the fact that these associations are voluntary will give them respect and mana. Currently, they can be dismissed, and they are dismissed, as organisations that students are forced to join, rather than their being a genuinely representative group. Under voluntary membership, that will change.

In conclusion, I make three points. Firstly, no individual should be forced against his or her will to fund the kind of political campaign engaged in by students associations. Secondly, no individual should be forced against his or her will to pay for private services that he or she does not use or does not want to use. Thirdly, no individual should be forced against his or her will to associate with others if he or she does not want to. I commend the bill to the House.