The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Mr Speaker, the Committee has determined that you should be recalled to pass a ruling on a ruling that I made. The Committee returned to the matters declared by you as you departed from the Chair as Speaker a few minutes ago. As I was announcing the bill that the Committee of the whole House was to progress, a motion was received that we report progress. I duly put the motion. It was defeated 63 votes to 53 votes. I then commenced to read the process of what the Committee of the whole House would do, and immediately the same motion was moved again, at which point I ruled that the same procedural motion in the exact same words could not be put again. On that point, there was a motion to report progress so that you could be recalled. It was defeated. I was then asked as Chair to reflect on whether my ruling was correct. I thought about that, and to the best of my knowledge I thought that it was, so I ruled that the same procedural motion could not be put twice. At that point there was another motion to recall you as Speaker to rule on the matter; accordingly, we have come to that point in the proceedings.

Mr SPEAKER: Could I just ask, before you leave, what the circumstances were when the motion was first moved to report progress. Did the member have the call to speak in the Committee?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, I was just reading the bill. I was just getting to the stage where I would say: “When the Committee last addressed this matter, we were on clause 6A.” I did not get as far as that.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The first issue is that the motion that the Committee report progress can be made only by a member who has the call. It cannot be made by way of a point of order. So it may be questionable whether that motion was actually in order at the time. As I understand it, though, that is not the crucial issue that I have been recalled to rule on.

The interesting, crucial issue, as I understand it, that I have been recalled to rule on is whether, once the Committee has made a decision, the same procedural motion can be put an endless number of times. This is an interesting issue of order. I well understand why you, Mr Chairman, ruled the way you did, because normally, once the Committee or the House has voted—especially once the Committee has voted—on a matter, that is normally the end of that matter in respect of legislation. If the Committee has decided on an amendment, that is the end of that matter. Endless further amendments cannot be put to try to overturn that decision.

With this particular procedural issue, I must confess that I am not 100 percent certain that the same rules apply. I will seek some advice on this one. What troubles me—and I will be honest with the House—is that Standing Orders provide for the Committee to make a decision to report progress, for the report to be made, and for the House to then vote on that matter. If we end up in a situation where endless motions can be put to the Committee to report progress, which are all defeated, we end up in a totally unworkable situation. That clearly is not in the interest of the House. I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard before I seek advice on it.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : As you are getting advice, I say that you are absolutely right about the situation that would inevitably come about through what is probably, in my opinion, a gap in the Standing Orders at the moment. I think you will recall, Mr Speaker, as I indicated to the Chairman, that in the past once procedural motions—for example, closure motions—were defeated, the Government could not move them again. Then there was a point later on where the same member could not move the same motion twice. That, again, is something that has been changed. It is my understanding that, as a result of those changes, the multiple moving of the same motion, where it is a procedural motion, is allowed.

I make it clear that normally an Opposition would not contemplate that sort of approach, but I think it is fair to say that the Opposition today is feeling somewhat aggrieved at a breach of the right of members to debate a bill that they would otherwise have preferred on this side of the House. As you are aware, it is something that the House has jealously guarded—that is, the right of the Opposition to have much more involvement in dictating the terms of the fortnightly members’ days. They are the few hours that occur for genuine members’ time, rather than what would otherwise be the case. So it is certainly my view that there is an ability for members to do that.

I accept, of course, that the first part of your ruling was absolutely correct—that is, the fact that it should have been done by way of a speech and not by way of a point of order. I am sure that if you rule in a way that would indicate that there is something here for the Standing Orders Committee to look at, if there is a gap in the rules, I would think that that is acceptable. I am sure that in future the motion will be moved by a member who has sought the call.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): It may be somewhat unusual for me to respond, but the whole thing did happen quite quickly. I now understand the point that the Hon Trevor Mallard made. When he asked me to reflect on whether I thought it was in order—there is a pertinent difference between a closure motion not being accepted by the Chair in the Committee and a closure motion being defeated by vote. It is my understanding, by all meeting procedure that I know anywhere, that a procedural motion cannot be put twice. I saw that pertinent difference, then I made the ruling accordingly. That is the rationale for my decision.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask for members’ indulgence while I consider the advice that I have been given on this matter. This is a serious issue, because we risk bringing the House into disrepute if we end up in a bit of a shambles. The issue that you, Mr Chairman, have raised in relation to this matter is interesting: where a closure motion is put—and a closure motion is the one that normally can be put more than once—it is not able to be handled subsequent to the Committee making a decision. As Mr Chairman has pointed out, the Chair can refuse to accept the closure motion and debate can continue in the Committee. Once the Committee makes a decision on the closure, that is the end of the matter. That is an interesting observation that the Chair made.

On other hand, the Hon Trevor Mallard, the shadow Leader of the House, has pointed out that in terms of clear definition within our Standing Orders, it is reasonable to suggest that our Standing Orders do not specifically cover this particular issue. The same-questions rule really applies to instructions, amendments, and bills, where the questions are the same in substance. So in those circumstances, with the House having made a decision, that decision must be accepted.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can I just—

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard as I reflect further on it.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is something that I should have said. I would just ask you to reflect on a similar motion that is regularly moved, especially during urgency, and generally by the Government Minister in charge of a bill. It is the motion that progress be reported on a bill and it be set down for further consideration presently. That procedural motion has been, and can be, regularly moved on the same bill. The bill comes back to the House, and that motion can be moved again on the same bill. So if the question is that a procedural motion cannot be moved twice in the same day on the same legislation, then there is clearly precedent for that.

Mr SPEAKER: The interesting thing is that the logic of our Standing Orders is such as to enable the decisions of the Committee and the decisions of the House to be sensible decisions. That is the objective of most of these Standing Orders. In the case of the closure motion, it is sensible that the Chair have the discretion not to accept it, and that is why a closure motion can be moved more than once. But once the House has made its decision, that is the end of the matter. With respect to reporting progress and sitting again presently, it makes sense for that to be possible to be moved subsequently, because circumstances may change, so that the House can make a decision whether it wants to review that decision.

The dilemma I have about this particular motion, where the House has voted to accept the report from the Committee and the bill has been set down for next sitting day, is that that is a clear decision of the House. When members keep attempting to move to report progress again when, in this particular case, the decision not to accept the report has been made, it is difficult for me to argue that I should make a ruling that enables this House to go on as many times as there are members who wish to move that the Committee report progress even though the Committee may have made a decision.

I have to think about whether, if I rule one way or another, I would be offending the ability of the House to carry on its business, or constraining the Opposition’s opportunity on members’ day, as the member suggests, to debate the matters that members wish to debate. What I am inclined to do is to make a ruling—on the understanding, though, that the Standing Orders Committee will address this issue.

I think that we need to address this issue to make sure that we do not get into this hole again. But I think that I should rule, at the moment, on the basis of our current Standing Orders—but I accept this is purely a Speaker’s ruling; there is no Standing Order that says this—that where the Committee makes a decision with respect to reporting progress, that is the end of the matter for that period of consideration of that bill. It is not the end of the matter subsequently, but the possibility of fine-tuning that a bit would be to allow for a further motion once further business has been transacted. For example, if the Committee arrives at a new clause in the bill, or a new part in the bill, then the issue could come up again, because further consideration, further decisions, have been made by the Committee. The motion then would not be negating, or attempting to negate, a decision the Committee has already made, because the Committee has transacted further business, so the circumstances have changed. I will hear the Hon Rick Barker before I rule finally on the matter, but I fully accept that I have no clear Standing Order on which I can base the ruling. I am trying to find a sensible way forward that does not bring the House into disrepute.

Hon RICK BARKER (Senior Whip—Labour) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was just going to address the point that you have come to. I started to take a point of order, but you continued on. I thought, the way you were describing it then, that if a motion to report progress was defeated, then a motion to report progress could not be put again until the bill had completed its passage through the Committee stage. I thought that was several steps too far. But what I think you have done is clarify the situation to say that if a motion to report progress is put at a certain point and the Committee decides against it, then that is a matter for that particular part or clause of the bill that is being considered. Once the Committee makes another decision, such as deciding to approve that clause or part, the Committee starts on a clean sheet of paper again, and at that point the House can reconsider the matter if it wishes to. I think that is quite a sensible approach to take. If it had been open-ended, then we could have had a bill for which a procedural motion to refer it could have been prohibited for the time that the bill sat in that particular Committee stage of the whole House.

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a very useful contribution, and I thank him very much for that. I will refer the matter to the Standing Orders Committee to make sure that members have the chance to further consider this issue. In the meantime, I will rule on this motion to report progress once the Committee has made a decision with regard to reporting progress while considering a part or a clause, depending on how the bill is being handled in the Committee. If further decisions are then made with regard to that bill, the motion can be moved again because the Committee is in a new phase of consideration. Logically, matters have changed, as the Hon Rick Barker pointed out, and it is reasonable for the Committee to have the opportunity to reconsider the matter. I realise I am asking in some ways for the goodwill of the House, but I will rule that way. I promise the House that I will make sure the Standing Orders Committee reviews my ruling. Should the Standing Orders Committee wish to change it, that will be a matter that can come back to the House following the consideration of the work of the Standing Orders Committee at present.

Hon RICK BARKER (Senior Whip—Labour) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is a very good suggestion to refer it to the Standing Orders Committee, but there is a certain time issue. The Standing Orders Committee has to complete its deliberations, refer the matter to caucuses, and then bring it back and establish the Standing Orders. In the interim I think it would be very helpful if, tomorrow or the next day at your earliest convenience, you could come back to the House with a written ruling as such. That would be very helpful so that we then had some clearer guidelines. We could refer to the written text of your ruling, rather than have to hunt through Hansard to find how this has been developed. I think that would be very useful.

Mr SPEAKER: I will give consideration to that, based on what I have said to the House now: that once the Committee has made a decision on reporting progress, the matter cannot be raised again until the Committee has transacted further business. I will rule that way for the present. Should I need to improve the wording of it, I will certainly come back to the House with wording that I think can serve the House a little better. So I will rule that way now on the understanding that I will further consider the wording of that ruling and also that the Standing Orders Committee will have the opportunity to consider the substance of my ruling, recognising that that will not be an immediate decision. But the work of the Standing Orders Committee is going on. It will report back to this House. That is the way I have ruled.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : I move that the Committee report progress.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I listened very carefully to what the Speaker just said. I do not believe that the Committee of the whole House has transacted any process or business since he made that ruling, so I am bound to overrule the member.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think if you had listened really carefully to the Speaker you would have heard that he said that the motion as previously moved was not valid because it was done by way of a point of order and not by way of a speech.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): That is quite irrelevant to the point the Speaker made, which was that no business of the Committee of the whole House has been transacted. I put the motion and it was defeated, so I am ruling that the motion is out of order.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I move, That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s ruling that the motion to report progress was out of order.

• Motion agreed to.
• House resumed.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Mr Speaker, you have been recalled for a further ruling. I proceeded to engage the Committee in the process of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I read out the stage the Committee was at and announced that the Committee would be addressing clause 6A. A call was immediately taken by Grant Robertson, who then sought to move a motion that we report progress. I ruled that the motion was out of order in that no business of the Committee had been transacted. I listened very carefully to your ruling. The point was further made that the previous motion, which I had ruled in order, was made as a point of order and not as a call. I determined that the Committee had expressed its view, irrespective of my making a mistake in relation to whether I should have accepted that motion, but because the Committee had expressed a view on a motion, and because a party vote had been conducted, the Committee’s expression was quite clear. There had been no further business, so I ruled the motion out of order.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Chair has summarised the situation really well. It just goes to the question of whether the House’s ruling on an ultra vires motion is valid, according to your ruling, and, therefore, whether the Committee of the whole House has made a decision not to report progress if, in fact, it is considered as a motion that you have ruled in your earlier ruling it should not have considered?

Mr SPEAKER: In fact, I merely pointed out that it was perhaps not the appropriate way to move the motion. I did not actually rule, at all. On this occasion I must support the Chair. Although the procedure of the Committee may not have been strictly correct, no point of order was raised at the time to deal with that. Subsequently, the Committee voted on whether progress should be reported and made its decision on that. The Committee then reported to the House. The Chair moved the motion, and the Committee voted on that motion. The Committee made that decision, and that is the end of the matter. It is my ruling that the Chair is quite correct to rule out of order the further motion because no further business had been transacted. The Committee and the House have made decisions, and that is the end of the matter.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.I move that the House do now adjourn.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): That is a motion that can be processed by the House as a procedural motion only when the House is not in Committee but is meeting as the House in full session. The motion is out of order.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I move, That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s ruling that the motion to adjourn was out of order.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : On the question of your calling Grant Robertson, I move, That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s awarding of a call to Grant Robertson.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I move, That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s awarding of a call to Sue Moroney.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): That is not helpful. The Standing Orders are quite clear that the Speaker has the right to call whomever he sees fit, and by rotation. It is also, I guess, the right of the member to seek for the Committee to recall the Speaker, so, on this occasion, I will put the question.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.I move that the Speaker be recalledto rule on the Chairperson’s awarding of a call to Moana Mackey.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): We have already dealt with the procedural motion on my right as the Chair to make that call, so the motion is out of order.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I move, That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s ruling that the motion to recall the Speaker to rule on the Chairperson’s awarding of a call to Moana Mackey was out of order.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) : Thank you, Mr Chair—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I move that the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s awarding of a call to Allan Peachey.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member is completely out of order. Can the member please point out to me in either the Standing Orders or Speakers’ Rulings where I have erred from what Speakers’ rulings or the Standing Orders require in terms of the Chair and the Committee of the whole House.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): It is not a point of order; it is a ruling.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, I am speaking to your ruling—if you are asking me to respond to your ruling by way of a point of order. Mr Chairperson, it is out of order for me to give reasons when I give that motion, and I think you know that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, I do not know that. This is a means of order for the Committee. If members are making a point of order, they should indicate to the Chair where there has been a breach of the rules of the House, and that is what I am asking the member.

ALLAN PEACHEY: I appreciate the opportunity—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am now going to caution the member. If the member continues on the line—

Hon Tau Henare: Sit down, Trevor.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): —I am on my feet—I will require the member to leave; I will. I call Allan Peachey.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

ALLAN PEACHEY: I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am hearing a point of order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: It has always been the right of any member in this House to move a motion seeking the recall of the Speaker. It has never been limited. Mr Chairman, your limitation of it is new; it is a new ruling from a Chairman. There is a right for any member to ask the Speaker to review any ruling of any Chairman.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I have sought advice, and I am absolutely convinced in my own mind that I am conducting the Committee of the whole House in absolute accordance with both Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders. It is not a point of order to say that the presiding officer should not have given the call to whomever at any point. So the member is quite out of order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have on at least five occasions in this House heard the Speaker rule on the question as to who should be given the call. Speakers have been recalled for that previously. Mr Chairperson, I think on every occasion the Speaker has reinforced the right of the Chairman to make that decision. I have no doubt what the result will be, but there is a difference between getting the right decision from the Speaker and the right of a member to recall the Speaker to have that decision made.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am not going to put the question on the member’s motion. If he asks for the motion to be put again, he will leave the Chamber.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I move that the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s ruling that a motion to recall the Speaker to rule on the Chairperson’s awarding of a call to Allan Peachey was out of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I think we are now getting all members following the same procedure. I believe that the Committee has expressed its will, by a vote of 62 to 57, or whatever, that it wishes to proceed with this matter. I will not tolerate members continually seeking to recall the Speaker for every single item, particularly over who does or does not get the call. The member is out of order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can you please explain to the Committee which of your rulings we are allowed to debate and have the Speaker come in on. Is it all of your rulings, some of your rulings, or only on the call? Mr Chairperson, in the past—

Hon Anne Tolley: Is this a point of order?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes, it is a point of order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: It is absolutely a point of order, and it was just interrupted by Anne Tolley. Mr Chairperson, could you indicate to the Committee which of your rulings you are saying are beyond the Speaker coming back, which ones you have absolute rights on, without challenge, and which of your rulings are subject to recall?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): It is very simple. I have determined that the members in Opposition are trifling with the Chair, and I will not be part of that process, so I have ruled that with those resolutions—we have had several motions to recall the Speaker and nothing has changed. Quite simply, members are trifling with the Chair, and if they persist they will leave the Chamber.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I move, That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s ruling that the member were trifling with the Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member will leave the Chamber.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I have the right to move for the recall of the Speaker in respect of your ruling that we were trifling with the Chair. We were not trifling with the Chair, and you ruled that I was.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I will put that motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are having—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moana Mackey: Wrong clause.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Tremain: I didn’t either.

Hon TAU HENARE: And nor did I.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grant Robertson: This is the member’s clause.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Member: Major!

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

Hon Tau Henare: It’s called a majority.

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

Hon Tau Henare: We won, you lost!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) : I move, That the question be now put.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Rick Barker: No one’s safe.

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Tau Henare: What a sorry sight.

DAVID SHEARER: Rather than Tau Henare, for example, coming—

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) : I move, That the question be now put.

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

Hon Members: Oh!

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

David Shearer: More than 300.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) : I seek the leave of the House to table a submission on behalf of the Otago University Students’ Association as supplementary submission No. 5.

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

Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) : I seek leave to table a submission from the Albany Students’ Association and its supplementary submission No. 7 to this bill.

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

Hon Rick Barker: Point of order—

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

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

Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) : I seek leave to table the submission entitled “The Association of Students at UCOL”, which is supplementary submission No. 3.

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

Hon Rick Barker: They are.

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

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

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

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I move, That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s refusal to put a request for leave for a document to be tabled.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do believe that you already gave the call to Mr McClay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I want to take you back to the absolutely correct point that you made—that is, once a call has been given, it cannot be taken back.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): That is true.

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

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

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I move, That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s awarding of a call to Todd McClay.

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

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

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

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) : I move, That the question be now put.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stuart Nash: The student body becomes the whānau.

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

Simon Bridges: Why is he still talking?

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

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

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

JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) : I move, That the question be now put.

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

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

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

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

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

Simon Bridges: Whatever.

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

Hon Tau Henare: Whatever, Trevor.

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

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

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) : I move, That the question be now put.

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

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

Hon Tau Henare: Don’t talk rubbish.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Tau Henare: What? Sorry?

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

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

Hon Tau Henare: It gives people choice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Tau Henare: Say it properly, man!

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Tau Henare: Why?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Because, given the choice of freeloading, given an opportunity—

Hon Tau Henare: Why?

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Tau Henare: What stops them now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon PETE HODGSON: Will the member take the call?

Hon Tau Henare: I’ll take the call.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Will the member undertake not to provide the Committee with yet another closure motion?

Hon Tau Henare: I’ll take the call.

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

Hon Tau Henare: Oh, hurry up.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am sorry?

Hon Tau Henare: How boring.

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

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) : I move, That the question be now put.

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Tau Henare: What does clause 8 say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) : I move, That the question be now put.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) : I also want to—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Could be sanctimonious.

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

Hon Member: No, he’s too gutless to.

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

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

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: I withdraw.

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

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

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

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

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

Sandra Goudie: Clause 8.

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

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

Hon Tau Henare: What a snob.

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

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

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

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

Hon Member: The communists.

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

Dr Rajen Prasad: Rubbish!

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

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

Hon Members: Oh!

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

John Hayes: More tax.

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

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

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

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

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

John Hayes: Boring!

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

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

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

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

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

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the question be now put.

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

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : I move, That the question be now put.

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

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

CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can we be clear about what we are voting on, please?

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

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I could not hear you then; you were addressing National members. Could you repeat what you have been advised?

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

Hon Members: Why?

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

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is normal that when a Chairman rules that an amendment is not in the proper form he says why it is not in the proper form. What is the problem with it?

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Trevor Mallard: Why?

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

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

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Yes.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Thank you.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : 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—

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) : 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.

LOUISE UPSTON: 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.

LOUISE UPSTON: 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!

LOUISE UPSTON: 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.

LOUISE UPSTON: 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.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) : 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.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) : 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.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) : 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.

CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) : 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.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : 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.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) : 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.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : 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.

CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) : 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.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : 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.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) : 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.

Hon PETE HODGSON: 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.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : 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.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) : 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.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : 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.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : 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.

GARETH HUGHES (Green) : 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.

Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) : 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!

Hon HEATHER ROY: 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.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : 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.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: 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?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I notice that the fishwife from Coromandel is interjecting yet again.

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

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: 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.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am happy to do that.

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

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: 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.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : I move, That the question be now put.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : Thank you, Mr Chairperson Robertson.

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

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: 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!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: 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.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Mr Chairperson—

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

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: 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.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: 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?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: 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.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I move, That the report be adopted.