Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this

This will be the first of a number of contributions I plan to make on the bill this evening and in future sessions we will have debating it. It is interesting to start with the title clause. Obviously, in part by part debates we tend to do the title at the end, and we are sometimes then able to sum up some of the arguments that come forward. But I will attempt to do that now, and I will do so by working through a number of amendments to the title that I have put on the Table. The first amendment would be to say that rather than it being the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, the correct title should be the “Education (Removal of Student Choice) Amendment Bill”. One of the things that is perhaps not well understood, but which will be understood by one member tonight, and that is Mr Tau Henare, is what this bill actually amends. This bill amends a law passed by National—and Mr Henare is very familiar with when this law came into being—that means it is quite possible for students on a campus in New Zealand to choose whether their association will have compulsory or voluntary membership. Indeed, the Auckland University Students Association has chosen to become a voluntary student association. The Waikato Student Union chose to become a voluntary organisation, then chose to go back to being compulsory. It had the choice, and that is why I would entitle this bill the “Education (Removal of Student Choice) Amendment Bill”.

If 10 percent of students on a campus decide that there will be a referendum, then there will be a referendum on the nature of the membership of the students association. That is student choice. The ACT Party’s students on campus are called Student Choice. The notion of student choice is one that the ACT Party should be very familiar with. But this bill takes away student choice. It amends legislation that was not put forward by Labour, but which was actually put in place by the National Government. National knew, the last time that this legislation came up, that voluntary membership was not a workable thing and that it would cause too much damage to important student services on campus. It knew it was unworkable, and Mr Henare and others came up with a system by which student choice could be put in place through referenda if enough students wanted it. That was a democratic thing that would enable choice, but which still meant that the fundamental work of students associations could go on until such time as students made their decision that way. That is why I would call this bill the “Education (Removal of Student Choice) Amendment Bill”.

A number of other titles are in the Supplementary Order Paper I have put forward. Another title could be the “Education (Destruction of Student Advocacy) Amendment Bill” or the “Education (Destruction of Student Welfare) Amendment Bill”. They are two of the core elements of work that students associations have done on campus over many, many years. There is no doubt that this bill will lead to the destruction of student advocacy and of student welfare, but in particular of student advocacy. The promoter of the bill has been at pains to find every way possible to ensure that it will not be possible for a university or polytechnic to contract with a students association for advocacy-type services, or for welfare-type services if they are delivered via what is seen as a political body. That is what the promoter is trying to avoid here. So the title of this bill could easily be the “Education (Destruction of Student Advocacy) Bill” or the “Education (Destruction of Student Welfare) Bill”.

We actually have empirical evidence for such a title because that is what happened in Australia. It is the very thing that happened when this kind of legislation was passed into law in Australia. Seventy-two percent of associations had a significant or total reduction in the advocacy or welfare services they provided. That advocacy is vitally important. During the select committee process the Education and Science Committee heard from submitters who would agree with such a title. One student from Waikato University gave us a particularly interesting submission. He said that he was not a political person but he noted that when his flat burnt down and the flat owner’s insurance company was forcing him and his flatmates out of their flat in Hamilton, it was the Waikato Student Union’s intervention—its advocacy—that ensured that those students could stay in their flat. It effectively ensured that those students could continue studying at Waikato University. That example is replicated right across New Zealand in polytechnics and universities over many years: the advocacy and welfare work done by students associations is the reason that students can continue to study. Those services are provided by students, for students, under the current model.

It may well be that someone on the other side will say that those services will continue to be provided because the institution will provide them, but actually having students provide them has a number of benefits. It has the benefit of being incredibly cost-effective. We also heard about that, and in later contributions I will come back to the value of the labour provided. That is a reason for calling this bill the “Education (Destruction of Student Welfare) Bill”. The work that students do will now be taken away because those associations will not have the resources or the ability to provide those kinds of quality services, and if they are able to provide them they will be beholden to the institution, which may or may not like the idea of significant student advocacy within a students association, and that students control what they do.

Another title could be the “Education (Destruction of Student Clubs) Amendment Bill”. Every time we see a Commonwealth Games athlete or an Olympic Games athlete from New Zealand and we look at their success—and we had this at the recent Commonwealth Games—we can ask ourselves “Did that person go to a university in New Zealand?”. When we watched the World Rowing Championships, a number of the successful rowers for New Zealand had come through university sports clubs that are part of students associations and supported by those associations. Our success as New Zealanders is undermined by this kind of bill, so the title could well be the “Education (Destruction of Student Clubs) Bill”, because student clubs will not survive in the form they are now if students associations do not have the resources they have now. Those resources have meant the difference between some of those sports clubs being able to continue, and not continue. Again, we heard evidence from cultural and sporting clubs right across New Zealand saying that this bill would be fundamentally damaging to them and to the people who are part of their clubs and their organisations. So that could be an appropriate title.

But the downgrading of students associations—which gives us another potential title, the “Education (Downgrading of Students Associations) Amendment Bill”—caused by this bill has no justification other than an ideological one. At every stage of the submission process, every institution—and I am not referring to the students associations—that came before the select committee said “Please don’t pass this bill.” The actual institutions came before us and said “Don’t do this, because we value the work that students associations do. We value their independence. We want them to be part of the campus experience.” Quite frankly, those institutions do not want to take on a number of the tasks those students associations do at the moment.

Another title for this bill could easily be the “Education (Don’t Let the Vice-Chancellor Choose the Music for Orientation) Amendment Bill”. There is the rub: orientation and other sorts of activities will now be turned over to the institutions and it will be for them to decide what they can afford in terms of student services. The vice-chancellor and others will decide which things they will contract the students association for, where they bother to do so. In a university context it may well be that associations will survive in that contractual framework. They will not survive in many of the polytechnics.

So it easily also could be called the Education (Destruction of Polytechnic Students Associations) Amendment Bill. Those students associations probably will not be contracted by their institution, because they are often small, they have not had the historical basis, and they do not have their own asset base that perhaps university students associations do. These kinds of titles are more appropriate titles than the glib “freedom of association” label, because there already is freedom of association; we know that. This is a term that has simply been invented by the promoter of this bill, and the title should be changed.

Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) Link to this

I rise to speak to this part of the proceedings with great pride. There is nothing glib—as the previous speaker, Grant Robertson, said—about freedom of association. In fact, the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is very aptly named. We frequently debate in this Committee the fact that bill titles do not sum up what a bill is about, but this one certainly does.

It is about a principle. It is about a principle that is very dear to the hearts of New Zealanders. That principle is freedom. Freedom of association is something that every sector of society enjoys except for the student population in New Zealand. There has been a removal of choice in years gone by from the student populations; this bill is not the remover of choice, as the previous speaker said. The current situation is one of compulsion.

If one listened carefully to Mr Robertson one would think that he was signalling that the sky would fall the moment that students were really allowed to choose whether they wanted to belong to a student association. That will not happen. The sky did not fall in 1993 when workplaces and workers in this country were given the choice of whether they wanted to belong to a union. We are removing compulsion from the only sector of society that is subject to it now. Students will be able to choose whether they want to belong to an association. Freedom of association is absolutely what this bill is about.

I received an email today. It is relevant because the previous speaker also said, or tried to indicate, that every student association in the country was in favour of retaining the status quo. That is not the case. This email was from a president of a students association. It stated: “The reason I am sending this message is I am not the only student president that believes in voluntary student membership.” It stated: “I have spoken to student associations and unions that are part of the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations and are against VSM. To me, some of them are being loyal to NZUSA as far as their political careers are concerned.” That comes to the nub of this bill, too. “Believe me”—this president said—“there are student bodies that are in full support of this bill. There are a number of them, and they have been silent because they came under pressure from the NZUSA.”

We cannot predict what might or might not happen when this bill comes into being—and it will, because freedom is hard fought and students believe in it. When students protested last week, they managed to number 20, and 15 of those were employees of the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations. Five of them—five of them—were students.

It was very disappointing to hear from the previous speaker, someone who has been heavily involved in students associations, that he thinks so little of students associations that he does not think that they will survive. The smart students associations, the ones that are not opposed to voluntary student membership, are already getting on and planning for a future where they know they will be accountable, where they know that transparency is imperative, and where they know that they will have to communicate with the student body and ensure that they are providing students with services that they want. That is true freedom, and that is what this Government will deliver to students.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) Link to this

That was a very interesting contribution from Heather Roy, who said she would prove to us that a president of a students association had a different view from ours, but who then would not name the students association that the person was from. She read out an email, which I would suggest was possibly typewritten by herself. She got out a bit of paper, she read out a bunch of statements, and she said the email was from a students association, but she would not tell us which one. Well, that was big and brave from that member, but, look, that really does not cut it.

I will speak on the title of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. Even though I know that the member in charge of the bill strayed quite significantly from the title, she did remind me of why the title is pretty important to the debate. The title talks about “freedom of association”. But she reminded me of the last time that such a glib phrase was used. Do members remember Bill Birch talking about freedom of choice, and the Employment Contracts Act? That is where it all comes from. What freedom did the women workers in rest homes have under the Employment Contracts Act? They had the freedom to lose their penal rate against their will, to work 24/7, and not to be paid one dollar different on Saturdays and Sundays from what they were on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays. That is what people need to understand about bills that use the word “freedom” in their title. It is always a code for more restrictions, and more restrictions on those at the bottom of the heap—it is always a code for that.

In particular, in this bill it is the code for taking away freedom. We know that currently the situation, as my colleague Grant Robertson said, is that students collectively can decide whether to have compulsory student union membership or voluntary student union membership. They can decide that now. This bill makes it compulsory to become voluntary. It takes that out of the students’ hands; it makes it compulsory to become voluntary. The example that I think is really important here is one from my town in Hamilton, at Waikato University. Its students association actually did, under the current legislation—the Act that the member is seeking to amend—decide to go voluntary. In the space of 18 months it nearly bankrupted itself. Not only did it nearly bankrupt itself, but it lost assets that it will never ever get back. It lost its student radio station. The union sold the radio station off to try to keep itself going, and it will never ever get that back. But because of the current legislation, that union had the right to decide that it had made a mistake and needed to go back to compulsory union membership. It voluntarily went back to compulsory union membership, because it realised that it had made a mistake. It had made a mistake and it had freedom of association. What has been taken away from that union is all of its assets, by going down the wrong path. But it realised it had made that mistake, and it came back and said it wanted membership to be compulsory. Yes, that union was able to make that decision. It has freedom of association already.

So we do not need an amendment bill that has a title with “freedom of association” in it, because that is already available to students. But it is not available in a way that makes it compulsory for them to have voluntary student union membership, so that they can go down the tubes like the Waikato students union almost did, and decades later still not recover their position. But perhaps that is what the Government wants. Perhaps exactly the type of freedom of association—the words in the title of this bill—that the Government wants is actually to get rid of student advocacy: to get rid of the student voice on those campuses. Once the Government gets rid of the student voice on those campuses, can members guess who is next? The Government has already had a go at early childhood education; tertiary education will be the next one if it can get rid of the student voice.

That is why I think the title of this bill should be the “Education (Get Rid of the Student Voice So We Can Do Whatever We Want to in Government) Amendment Bill”. I think that would be a much more suitable title for this bill, because that is what is behind it. It could also be called the “Education (The Tail Starting to Wag the Dog Again) Amendment Bill”. Was it not interesting that National, the minute that the ACT Party got into trouble, changed its mind on this bill?

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this

As we are debating the title of this bill, I think it could be called the “Increased User-Pays for Students Bill”. In reality, if we take all of the ideological argument out of the bill, which I will get into in a moment, the bill will significantly increase costs to a number of students.

At the moment a lot of services are provided by students associations, using a relatively modest fee taken from all students. They are provided universally and are universally available to all students. Under this bill students associations will not have the ability to do that. Students will have to pay individually for a lot of the services currently provided by students associations.

The other point is that in some cases universities may well choose to pick up and provide those services, if the students association is no longer able to do that. Universities may well decide that they will provide some of those services, but they will not be able to do so at the cost that current students associations can do it. Students associations have a huge amount of voluntary labour involved with them, and therefore they are able to provide services a lot more cheaply than universities can. That is one of the reasons why we should call this bill the “Education (Increase in User-Pays for Students) Bill”. I know that for a fact, because back in 1999 when we had a referendum on whether membership of the students association at Victoria University should be voluntary or compulsory, overwhelmingly students voted to retain the compulsory membership element.

The university did have a contingency plan in place, should students have voted for voluntary membership. It basically involved charging students an additional levy that would replace the students association levy. So students would be no better off financially; in fact they would pay more. The university knew that it could not deliver the same services the students association delivered at the same cost. The university knew it would end up having to pay significantly more, and therefore it was going to pass that cost on to students, and students were going to pay more.

I understand that some pretty compelling evidence was provided to the select committee that argued just that—that this bill will not decrease costs to students. It will increase costs to students. PricewaterhouseCoopers, I believe, gave evidence to the select committee that suggested that would be the case. That is one of the reasons why this bill could be called the “Education (Increase in User-pays for Students) Amendment Bill”.

It could also be called the “Abolition of Campus Culture Amendment Bill”, because students associations deliver a huge amount in terms of the culture of campuses, not just at universities but also at polytechnics. In fact, at some of the smaller polytechnics they have a critical role in delivering cultural activities and cultural services to students and contributing to the vibrancy of tertiary education in this country. I think it will be a real shame to see some of those things go by the wayside if this bill is passed.

There are other titles that have been suggested concerning the removal of choice for students, which is inherent in this bill. Students will not get to choose whether they want to keep the system compulsory or voluntary, as they did in 1999, under what I think was a very good compromise worked out by Tau Henare, Deborah Morris, and other colleagues in the then New Zealand First Party. Students will not get that choice this time around. I am disappointed, because I think it would be good to see them given that choice. I would support a referendum, and Labour has an amendment in that frame. The 1999 referendum forced students associations to sharpen up their acts.

Yes, I do think some of them need to sharpen up their act. Some of the things that have gone on at my old students association at Victoria University in the last few years are totally unjustifiable. I think the accountability back to students that would be required by a referendum that gave students the choice of whether to continue with compulsory membership or to have voluntary membership would go some way to addressing that. We sharpened up our act an awful lot when we knew that students were going to be voting on whether they would keep the students association membership compulsory or get rid of it. I think some of the students associations around the country could use that same discipline at the moment. Unfortunately, that choice, that opportunity, is being removed from them. That is one of the reasons why this bill could be called the “Education (Removal of Choice) Amendment Bill”.

There are some other slightly more cynical titles that I can come up with. The bill could be called the “Be Nice to Heather Roy Bill”. Up until she lost her job as a Minister, the National Government was going to vote against this bill. Heather Roy then lost her job as a Minister, and the Government decided it would vote in favour of her bill. There is nothing wrong with being nice to Heather Roy. I happen to think Heather Roy is quite a nice person. But I do think it is ironic that National members suddenly decided they would support this bill in order to be nice to Heather and to make Heather feel warm and fuzzy.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this

Mr Chairman, you do not need to sound quite so disappointed at the prospect of calling me. I promise that I will make it worthwhile. [ Interruption] This had better not be coming off my time.

I was interested in the comments made by the member in the chair, Heather Roy, that the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is a matter of principle for the ACT Party and National—that this is a matter of principle. I suspect that an alternative title for this bill might be the “Education (Freedom of Association (Are You Kidding Me?)) Amendment Bill”. We just sat through a debate on Paul Quinn’s terrible legislation, his embarrassing legislation, which makes us an international joke. The report under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was absolutely against it. The member in the chair said one of the reasons we should support this bill is that it is contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

The member Hillary Calvert gave one of the most bizarre speeches I have ever heard. She said something about one of those clowns that has the ping-pong ball in its mouth, and that she did not like this bill, but that ACT has to support it because it is a National Government bill.

I am talking about the “Education (Freedom of Association (Are You Kidding Me?)) Amendment Bill”. The member Heather Roy said this bill is a matter of principle; this is the title clause, and it is a matter of principle. Yet the ACT Party voted in favour of a previous piece of legislation that the same principle could be applied to, even though that party’s own members said they did not support it. I say to the member in the chair that when she lectures members on this side of the Chamber on principle, she might want to look a little closer to home on some of those issues.

I think the next possible title, and a more appropriate title, for the bill would be the “Education (Freedom of Association (We Can’t Get 10 Percent Support for This to Get a Referendum, so We Will Make Parliament Intervene)) Amendment Bill”. Let us be clear; that is what happened. If students associations were such a big issue at the moment, then the people who think students should have voluntary membership could get 10 percent of the student membership to say they want a referendum, and it would happen. They cannot do that—they cannot do it. That was Tau Henare’s amendment, and I think it is fair. But they could not do it. The “2 Percent Party” could not get 10 percent support to force a referendum, so it is making Parliament intervene. How ridiculous is that? I say to the member in the chair that if she truly believes that this is something that is good for students, she should go on to the campuses of New Zealand—

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) Link to this

Kia ora, Mr Chairperson. I was in my room, and I was moved to come down to the House, in support of students across the country, to talk about the title of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. This bill could be called the “Education (Massage the Coalition Partner) Bill”. It could also be called the “Send a Very Silly Measure Bill”, or the “Freedom for the Privileged Student Bill”.

I sat on the Education and Science Committee until Gareth Hughes took over, upon coming to Parliament and becoming our member who is closest to being a student. I sat and listened to the submissions, and they touched on a portfolio for which I am responsible, which is the issue of disability. A number of submitters came forward and talked about the value of the students associations as advocates for the most vulnerable students in the universities. Yes, university is fine if someone is totally able-bodied, well-heeled, and confident, was raised speaking the English language from the word go, and understands how institutions work. It is fine for people like that; in fact, it is a fantastic environment. But if someone happens to be vulnerable in any way, university can be a very vulnerable and daunting experience.

One of the things that the groups who made submissions on the bill told us was that vulnerable people need advocacy. They need somebody to stand up to the university at times and speak for them when nobody else understands their issues. That advocacy is what we will lose. I know that students these days are not only highly stressed by their debt burden but also stressed by an environment that, for some of them, does not recognise their needs. That is why advocacy is always important. I do not expect the ACT Party to understand that, because it has an interesting fantasy world of freedom and choice. It always fantasises about the individual and believes that the survival of the fittest model will really work for everybody, even though it has failed again and again. This legislation is about to reintroduce failure into universities for many people. We will lose the advocacy for vulnerable people, such as those with disabilities, who have difficulty on campus. Those submitters spoke highly of their student unions as advocates. The other people who spoke to us were the Pacific and Māori groups, who are, again, often marginalised inside Pākehā universities.

Of course, some of the individuals who spoke in favour the bill were not from those groups. They were not speaking for groups at all. Most of them spoke in terms of “me”, arguing: “It is OK for me, because that is the world is about—me. It is all right for me to come into a system, get what I want from it, not pay for it, not expect to be part of the collective, and not care about the disabled students, the Māori and Pacific groups, or the other groups of ethnic minorities in the university. That is OK, because I am OK.” That is what the issue is about for some people. But the tradition in the universities, through the students associations, has been to look after the more vulnerable and provide things that they would not otherwise get. We will lose those things.

One of the arguments put up by some submitters—and the ACT Party put this up as well—was that if people really wanted those services, they could pay for them. They argued it was about freedom and choice. But freedom and choice means that those who can pay for services will pay for them, and those who cannot will go without. That is the model we will perpetuate if this bill is passed tonight. If students will have to pay for every individual service that those at university now have created for themselves, and will have to find a way to do so on top of paying for everything else, we will make students who are already vulnerable miss out. But for the submitters who wanted membership to be voluntary that does not matter, because that is freedom and choice, and “I’m all right, Jack.” That is the philosophy of choice.

Choice is an Orwellian word, and this bill has an Orwellian title. It is titled in a way that George Orwell would really relate to, because it states the opposite of what it means. It is the “Some Are More Equal and Have More Choices Than Others at University Bill”. We should call it that, because that is what it is about. That is fine for those of us who can pay for everything that we have, but if all students pay a tiny amount for a student fee, they may be able to get a student advocate or have a club that they can afford to participate in. But, no, those services will be only for those who can afford to pay for them.

The Green Party has been consistent in its opposition to this bill, because we want to see those clubs and advocates supported in the universities. Many students who were not particularly politicised came and said they needed to have the services for practical reasons, and they will lose them.

JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) Link to this

I think the title of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill should be “Another Waste of Time and Energy Bill”. The reason is that as an educator of some 20 years, every time an education bill is brought to the House, the first thing I do is look through it to see exactly where, in the bill, it has some suggestions that will help students to learn, to achieve, to pass their papers, to earn degrees, and to get qualifications. There is nothing whatsoever in this bill that will help one single student to learn a single thing; rather, everything in this bill will jeopardise students from learning, and jeopardise all the support that is provided for students by students associations.

For example, I ask who will take over the welfare of students, those students who might be a bit hard up financially, and need to go somewhere to get a bit of help from services such as food banks. What about legal help? When students need legal help for whatever reason, where will they go for it? I remember that when my sister was at Waikato University, she happened to be in a pub under age, and she needed some help from somebody to help her get through that situation. Who would help her if those services are jeopardised? So I believe that the title of this bill should be the “Waste of Time and Energy (Education) Amendment Bill”.

The bill could also be called the “Let’s Focus on the Wrong Stuff Bill”, because this is the wrong stuff to be focusing on in terms of helping students to learn and helping students to gain their qualifications. Regardless of whether students are allowed to join a students association, it will not help them to pass. In fact, they would get more help if they were part of a students association, because they would have all that support behind them. So this bill could also be called the “Let’s Just Whip the Support Out From Under the Feet of Students Bill”, because that is exactly what it does. Like I said, it jeopardises—it does not take away—all those services that students may avail themselves of.

We just need to look over at Australia and what happened when the voluntary student membership bill was passed by the Australian Government. Students associations there collapsed, basically. They collapsed, effectively, or had their services drastically reduced. Basically, the bill implemented a user-pays system. Of course, we know that tertiary students are not exactly the most well-off people on earth, so their ability to access services was jeopardised because of the user-pays system.

Tertiary institutions over in Australia had taken over services and assets previously owned and operated by students. This resulted in unpopular decisions being made. Elite sports teams, for example, were being funded instead of social sports teams. Of course, social sports teams play a big part in the life of tertiary institutions. When I was at teachers college, we had sports tournaments and competitions against other teachers colleges. What is wrong with that sort of thing? Students actually need to have a life outside of doing all their studying. Part of that whole social side of tertiary institutions actually helps students get through university as well, when it comes down to the hard graft. If students are going to be studying all the time, they need a bit of time out to do the social side of things.

Also, it was noted over in Australia that more than 1,000 jobs were lost in the student services area. Well, that is ridiculous. In this time of recession, when people are looking for jobs, this bill may jeopardise more jobs. We do not need that in New Zealand. We certainly cannot rely on the cycleway, which we have heard so much about from the Government. This bill reminds me of drivers: there are drivers who are insured, there are drivers who are not insured, and there are drivers who wish they were insured when they have an accident.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) Link to this

The title of this bill is Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. It is probably one of the more misleading titles that I have seen on a bill, and there are a number of alternatives that we could put up.

It just occurred to me that the first time I met the Minister in the chair—

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) Link to this

I was on the Education and Science Committee at the time that the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill was first being heard. I travelled around the country and listened to the submissions on the bill. It is simply a matter of fact that 98 percent of the nearly 5,000 submissions on the bill—4,800 submissions—were opposed to it. The date of commencement of this legislation, which is the clause that we are looking at, at the moment, really is a clause that could be endlessly amended, and my colleague Grant Robertson has amendments to that effect. The truth of the matter is that most of the people, the vast majority, who submitted on this bill did not want this legislation to commence at all on any date—not on 1 January 2012, as in the bill, or on any other date at all. It does not matter which date is in this bill, because the majority of people did not want this legislation to commence.

I want to explore that for a moment, because we have just been having the debate about the title and the fact that it is the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. Not only is that a complete misnomer but the date on which this legislation is to commence becomes null and void in the light of the very strong submissions opposing this bill. The question that arises is why anybody would want to support clause 2 when nobody wanted the bill in the first place, with the exception of the ACT Party and a couple of submitters who were self-confessed members of the ACT Party. The only people who got up to support the commencement of this legislation are signed-up members of the ACT Party. That is not sufficient to justify National’s capitulation on this bill, which on 1 January 2012 does away with legislation that National itself was responsible for and that was working perfectly adequately.

I will just touch on the issue of freedom of association. The date of commencement will be 1 January 2012 if this bill passes, and National does not reconsider its position and find some fortitude around this issue. That will be a date on which the freedom of association can be marked as having been undermined in this country, not enhanced. The freedom of association is a freedom, and a principled freedom, that many people have fought for and died for around the world over centuries. The freedom of association is something that exists as a positive right in the environment where association is allowed. The freedom to associate is an active right.

If this legislation commences on 1 January 2012, it will provide an environment where freedom of association is not possible.