Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill Second Reading
Wednesday 22 October 2010; 9.30pm
Rahui Katene, MP for Te Tai Tonga

Every once in a while a debate occurs in this House in which key concepts emerge that are crucial to the expression of the democratic process. This bill is one of those opportunities.

It is a chance to revisit the theories around the very nature of democracy, the enactment of universal freedoms, and the notion of political participation. In its title this bill prompts us to consider the notion of freedom and where it fits, in this case in tertiary education institutions. It asks us to consider the place of freedom within a democracy, such as freedom of speech, press, religion, or association, and how Government properly respects such freedoms. It seeks public response to this.

I come to this bill mindful of a political sideshow that has been capturing the interests of the media over the last week. Last Tuesday a rookie MP from the ACT Party used her maiden speech to call for a reduced emphasis on Government and a call for simpler legislation. She then proceeded to contradict those two core principles by demanding from Government an immediate assurance that it would insert the word “free” into the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill.

Notwithstanding the obvious oxymoron of juxtaposing the word “free” alongside the word “public”, the maiden-day initiative was an appalling attack on the parliamentary process. In demanding an amendment to a bill that has only just entered the select committee phase, the new MP chose to override the vital role that the public play in commenting on legislation. It is exactly this same attack that continues unabated in this debate around the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill.

I want to make it absolutely clear that the parliamentary process is intricately tied to the notion of the people’s voice. It is the opportunity for the citizenship to have their say, to express their views about any legislation before the House, and we must protect that right as a basic axiom of democracy. For example, the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill is at the very starting point of the select committee process. This is the opportunity for the select committee to call for public submissions, to hear evidence on those submissions, and subsequently to recommend amendments to the House. It should not be overridden by any politician or any political party

For this Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill the select committee process was absolutely fundamental to how we should perceive the significance of the proposals debated tonight. Why should we set ourselves a lesser target for the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill? We must resist at every opportunity political parties that seek to override the democratic process and interfere with the parliamentary process.

So when we come to this bill, we know that the people have spoken with a clear voice of opposition. There were 4,837 submissions, and 98 percent of them opposed this bill. Let me share some of the voices of the people with the House. Towards the southern end of my electorate of Te Tai Tonga, Te Roopu Whai Putake, the Otago University Māori Law Students Association, opposed the bill on the basis that it “attacks the Māori student voice and their ability to have democratically elected collective organisations on campus by removing the existing right of students to self-determination.” In the centre region of Te Tai Tonga, the Ngai Tahu Maori Law Centre opposed the bill, promoting support for students associations and noting particularly that Māori student rōpū have an understanding of and facilitate te ao and tikanga Māori. For the sake of completeness, at the northern end of my electorate Ngāi Tauira, the Victoria University of Wellington Māori Students’ Association also opposed the bill, stating: “It is our belief that until Māori become a normal feature of the tertiary environment, then Māori students associations will be necessary to ensure equity and support of our students in the tertiary environment.”

As the member for Te Tai Tonga I have to say that these three organisations alone provide a compelling case for opposing this bill. But the Māori Party extends past the boundaries of Te Tai Tonga of course, so just for the record I have reviewed the evidence from across other electorates as well. Te Mana Mātauranga o Te Waiariki opposed this bill, declaring: “We believe that this bill is unnecessary, as the status quo works.” In the Tāmaki Makaurau electorate the views were just as strongly held. Ngā Tauira Māori, the Auckland University Māori Students Association, opposed this bill, noting that “The bill adversely affects the ability of Ngā Tauira Māori to exercise tino rangatiratanga, kaitiakitanga, and manaakitanga, which are guaranteed in Tiriti o Waitangi.” The advice of Te Mana Ākonga, the National Māori Tertiary Students Association, was that “In our extensive consultation with Māori over this particular issue, it has become abundantly clear that iwi support Māori student rōpū on campus.”

There is a worrying comment that has appeared in some of the contributions of members that might imply that a considerable number of the 4,837 submissions received were of a pro forma template nature. I wanted to share the words of the people as they appeared before the committee, because it provides such a clear picture that the majority of an overwhelming number of submissions to this bill were in opposition to it. The reality is that there is a need for students associations—a fact emphasised to the committee by John Kingi, a welfare officer for the Auckland University Students Association.. He opposed the bill, saying: “Often times we are forced to turn away students who may require some assistance as we simply do not have the capacity that universal associations do to meet the demands of students.”

Finally, I return to the notions of democracy and freedom that I spoke of earlier. Benjamin Franklin once said: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” We must not allow the democratic process to be manipulated so that the lamb does not even get to have a say, and the wolves determine what is on the menu, with no regard for the voice of the people. The people have spoken with one voice on this bill. The Māori Party will stand with Te Mana Ākonga, the National Māori Tertiary Students Association, Te Mana Mātauranga, Te Tapuwae o Rehua research centre, Ngāi Tahu Maori Law Centre, Te Hunga Roia Māori o Aotearoa, Te Toi Tauira mo te Matariki, the national forum for supporting Māori students and staff in tertiary education, Te Rōpū Takawaenga Māori o Ngā Kura Mātauranga o Aotearoa, the Māori Liaison Tertiary Association of New Zealand, Te Toi Ahurangi, Komiti Māori within the tertiary education union, and Te Kāhui Amokura, the Māori Committee of the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee, amongst a cast of thousands who petitioned Parliament to throw out this bill. We support the position of students, that the legislative framework allows students themselves to be the collective decision makers on whether their associations should be voluntary or compulsory, as well as enabling choice regarding their individual membership of an association.
We value the role that student associations, and their representatives including Māori student rōpū and their representatives have played a strong advocacy role within tertiary institutions and the wider sector for high-quality academic standards, for adequate Government investment, and for course fee maintenance or reductions. Student associations also provide a range of important services to students, like welfare and academic advocacy, faculty and class representatives, financial assistance, legal help, counselling services, student social events, student clubs, student societies, and student sports and recreation facilities.

In effect, if this bill goes through tonight it will kill student associations. That will be the practical effect of this bill. I was interested to hear that the ACT member cite one reason for destroying student unions was the fact that some people and some student unions have misused student money. If this reasoning was to carry across into other areas, then the ACT Party should be destroyed because its leader misused taxpayer money repeatedly and companies should be destroyed because some company directors have committed fraud. We have to be consistent, so that is the effect—that is what we should be doing. As a student I benefited from student unions, so has my husband and our children. They have improved the lives of students—no argument. For all these reasons we stand with them to oppose this bill.

ENDS

© Scoop Media