Anyone tuning into Parliament yesterday afternoon and evening may have had a bit of trouble working out quite what was going on, and a few people have been in touch to ask, so, to coin a phrase, here is a report on progress.
Yesterday was Members Day, which happens every second Wednesday when we consider Private Members, Local and Private Bills ( ie not the government’s legislative programme). We began the day with further consideration by the Committee of the Whole House (what Parliament calls itself when it is debating each clause or part of a bill) of the Royal Society Bill. As those who watch Parliament closely will know this Bill is in my name, but is a Private Bill to update the Royal Society Act to reflect some changes they have made to the way they operate. It is fair to say this Bill has been getting a lot of attention in recent months!
Early in the debate Heather Roy moved that the House report progress on the Bill. This is a provision of standing orders that allows debate on a bill to stop for that day and for the Bill to be set down for further discussion the next day. With the support of National this motion was passed, effectively shutting down debate and seeing us move to the next Bill, the hotly debated Voluntary Student Association Membership Bill in Heather’s name.
What followed was some procedural argy-bargy as to whether and how a motion to report progress can be used. This included a few appearances by the Speaker to clarify points of order. The Speaker acknowledged that the use of the provision was something that needed the attention of the Standing Orders Committee, but gave an interim Speakers Ruling that said that a motion to report progress could only be put as the Committee of the Whole considered a new clause or part. ( I bet you are glad you know that!).
I know the procedural argy-bargy can look a bit unedifying, but it is, and always has been, part and parcel of Parliament. There are a lot of rules and precedents, and as seen today all sides use them from time to time.
In any case we went on to the VSM Bill, and some fairly vigorous exchanges. Labour strongly opposes this legislation, because we believe it is an ideological attempt to kill of student associations, and in fact it actually reduces the choice of student associations to decide their own destiny. For me student associations are like local government. Enrolling as a student makes you part of a community, and the student association is the organisation that helps govern that community. You can read more of Labour’s position here and in our minority report on page 5 of here.
I do not apologise for fighting hard to stop VSM. I really think it will be detrimental to students, and their welfare, and to tertiary institutions. I have always felt if you believe passionately in something you have to be prepared to fight for it.
The House rose with the Committee debating Clause 9, the final clause of the Bill. That means we have not yet completed the Committee stages. One confusion to clear up, completing Committee stages does not mean the Bill has passed. That comes with a Third Reading, a two hour debate that will occur after the Committee stages are completed, and can not be on the same day as the Committee stages are completed.
Hope that helps. The next Members Day is the 17th of August. Tune in for another exciting installment.
“I do not apologise for fighting hard to stop VSM.” What a sorry state we are now in, where you feel it necessary to front-end the inevitable right-wing anti-union attack by not apologising for not apologising. Ever since the Warners Jackson pay-off, the mere mention of ‘union’ instantly provokes images of Stalin and gulags. How did the public policy discourse get to be so corrupted?
When did it become a crime to be a Unionist??????? History is a great thing but unfortunately people forget it. They forget that if it wasn’t for the Labour Party and Trade Unions, all the advances in social policy that NZ has made over the years, would never have happened….
http://whangareilabour.org.nz
Times are tough, and its over to us in Labour and in the Unions to show people that we are in line with their needs, that we are relevant. that we are not on “airy Fairy” crusades and that they are needed now more than ever.
Wait … I’m confused … are student associations unions (per commenters) or local governments (per Grant)?
I’ve never liked this analogy.
If a university student is like a resident of a community then the local council is the University Administration, and the Students’ Association is a local residents’ association.
If you want to live in an area then you have to pay (directly or indirectly) rates to the local council.
If you want to attend university, you have to pay fees for tuition and services to the university.
In either case you can, you can choose to belong to an association that will fight for your rights with the local government/institution, and may, if the issue is important enough, even address the government(/government).
This isn’t about student government. You can have student government without having compulsory students’ associations. The closest we get at the moment is that university councils are required (whether there is a compulsory students’ association or not) to have a student-elected member.
Universities themselves could go much further. They could devolve university powers to student-run groups (which don’t need to be affiliated to an association, as the student reps on, for example, the Auckland Uni council show) for all sorts of things. They just haven’t.
examples of student government of student affairs include:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Virginia#Honor_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davidson_College#Honor_code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haverford_College#Honor_Code
The government itself could require student government of an in universities. But it hasn’t. Instead, students’ association focus on advocacy (internal and external) and services (like support for students in dealing with the university, orientation, activities, assistance to clubs etc.). These just aren’t governmental things; other things, like student health, learning support etc., are provided by universities: in New Zealand universities, the governmental-like things are not provided by the students’ associations.
It isn’t.
But since the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (and before, but unenforceably so in New Zealand), the right to freedom of association means that it’s wrong to force others to be unionists if they don’t want to be unionists.
Students’ Associations existed before compulsory membership, and they will continue to exist after compulsory membership ceases. They will be different beasts, but they will endure.
A final link to another university with strong student involvement in its operation; when I found out about this one, it blew my mind:
Saint John’s College
@ Graeme, thanks for the BORA reminder. Does that mean that if a group agree to be bound by a vote, and the vote doesn’t go the way of a handful, they can overturn the vote? If so, does that mean that those who do not vote for asset sales can overturn the sales if they do it anyway?
The mere thought process that it should be compulsory to belong to a union is wrong.
Again, your call in that you believe in it being compulsory, but for goodness sake Grant, don’t apologise for fighting to stop VSM, that is admitting defeat up front!
Watching the debate on Parliamentary television was a fascinating insight into the manipulation of parliamentary procedure by the Right Wing to achieve their goal of advancing the VSM bill.
Could Grant (Or Anybody Else) advise if there is anything that is able to be done to avoid a repeat of that manipulation occurring on the 17th?
No.
[...] where to from here? Grant Robertson gives a good, accurate account of where we are all at, and it is worth a read. He mentions at the end that the next Members’ [...]
“in fact it actually reduces the choice of student associations to decide their own destiny”
Grant, it is laughable that you think student associations should have greater choice to decide their own destiny, while wanting to deny the choice of membership to students.
Graeme Edgeler is correct. If freedom of association is enshrined in the BORA, then freedom not to associate must also be so enshrined.
“For me student associations are like local government. Enrolling as a student makes you part of a community, and the student association is the organisation that helps govern that community”
Does this mean you support compelling people to vote in local body (and national) elections?
While your tactics in the house of late may be within the rules, they have been nothing more than a cynical abuse of process to delay a bill you don’t like.
If student unions do such a great job as you say, VSM won’t make the slightest bit of difference as students will flock to join voluntarily.
Fred – I’m not sure you can complain about the right wing manipulating parliamentary procedure in this instance. They used it, certainly, but that’s what it’s there for. They haven’t cut off debate on the Royal Society Bill, they’ve just put it off for another day.
I don’t believe there is anything that could be done to prevent this happening again, however, it may not be necessary. The remainder of the Committee stage shouldn’t be too long.
Edge
No-one can quibble with your assessment of some prima facie limitation of a freedom protected in the NZ Bill of Rights Act. However, here, I suspect all the action is whether that limitation is a “reasonable limit … demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.
While I recognise that views will differ, I think a strong case can be made that the existing regime is justifiable. In particular, the productive benefits of students associations (for students and the public interest generally) and dispensing provisions (campus-wide plebicite and individual conscientious objection) mean there is no breach of the NZ Bill of Rights Act.
@Jennifer. I probably did not express that as well as I might. I was really making reference to criticism of the tactics that we had employed rather than apologising for the in principle defence of student asssociations.
@Graeme and others. My understanding, though I could be wrong, is that the Human Rights Commission have said that they do not believe that there is a BORA issue with regards to compulsory student association membership (with its accompanying conscientous object provision). Will try to find it.
@Fred. The use of the standing order by Heather Roy within the rules. A question arose during the following discussion about how often such a motion can be put, and that is headed off to the Standing Orders Committee.
Fred – by the same token then is it not a manipulation of parliamentary procedure to Filibuster for months on the Royal Society Bill in order to prevent the debate of the VSM Bill that was up next?
Labour were beaten at their own game. They knew it and all their time wasting to date has come back to bit them big time. All made worse because the filibustering to date has prevented any Private Members Bill put forward by Labour progressing.
This is a just retribution and has been a joy to watch.
Grant you were wasting hours and hours of parliament time talking nonsense about the Royal Society Bill. You were using a private bill about one issue for months to stop debate about the VSM legislation. When you’re not in government and don’t have the numbers to decide how legislation goes, it’s undemocratic to abuse process like you have done for months.
Parliament’s rules were not designed for that purpose and you made a joke of them, so did Trevor with his timewasting. Why you want to die in the ditch over student unions is anybody’s guess. What promises did you make to them? If you want compulsory student union membership then you have to get the votes in Parliament for them by winning general elections, not by making a mockery of parliament.
Even more hypocritical was every time one of your guys talked about putting up a member’s bill (like Jacinda’s adoption bill) they knew they were telling untruths because they knew that nothing could ever get introduced while you were filibustering the the VSM bill, that was talking out of both sides of your mouth grant, if you want to win elections you need to start being straight with people and not treat voters like they’re stupid.
So Grant what you are saying is that students are too bigger bunch of morons to decide whether or not to join students associations? But hey I guess the Labour partys zealous support of compulsory student membership will be a big vote winner in provincial NZ, why it is even more important than stopping assets sales and same sex adoption as your tactics are preventing private member bills on those topics advancing.
Dean – plenty of people quibble with that.
Grant – I believe that may have been in the HRC’s select committee submission. I just happen to think they are wrong. I don’t believe proper regard for freedom of association requires opt-in as this law proposes, but opt-out is needed at the very least (and we don’t have this).
I am very surprised Labour didn’t propose this as soon as the bill was sent to select committee. National would prefer opt-in, but they would have jumped at the compromise. And at every campus, one or two hundred ACT/Young Nat types would have left and gotten their money back and 98% of students would still be members through inaction.
Thanks for the response Grant, though perhaps you could explain how the Standing Committee works (or point me where I can learn myself). For example what I would like to know is will they have actually meet and made a decision by the 17th and what is the likely hood that any decision made by them will be radically different from the one made by the speaker last night?
In which case it would seem that while there may be some minor stalling still able to be made effectively the VSM bill will move onto the next stages?
@Graeme. Trust me Graeme Labour has made a number of approaches around opt-out provisions, and you are right that National MPs expressed interest in them. But in the end they decided to back the Bill. I talked a bit about this in my speeches last night. You need to ask them why they suddenly stopped talking to us about a compromise.
@Fred. Not sure if Standing Orders Committee will have met by the 17th, but I suspect you are right that their final ruling will not be radically different from the SPeaker’s interim one. On your other point, to be a bit obtuse, i follow the words of a former colleague of mine in negotiations at the UN. He said “even the last minute of the last hour of a day has sixty seconds in it.”
Are you fighting this for yourself? Or for students?
How many students are for and against this bill?
I think Graeme E’s frequent lengthy posts are becoming an abuse of the comments provision.
The facility to comment is not a licence to expound a totally different world view at inordinate length – if you want to do that, put it on your own blog.
I rarely read the comments sections now precisely because so many are just by trolls wasting spce.
Dorothy – I think many people on a number of blogs find Graeme’s comments very informative and useful. The only “different world view” he expounds is being better informed.
I think Dorothy’s constant complaining about civil rebuttals put forward by someone in the know are starting to become a bit tedious.
Perhaps she should stop reading the comments section altogether if she believes it should be filled merely with a barrage of empty slogans being slung from one side of the political spectrum to the other.
Grant: I know the procedural argy-bargy can look a bit unedifying, but it is, and always has been, part and parcel of Parliament.
Unedifying?????? I wish the whole nation would have seen you guys. Below 20% in a hurry I reckon. It’s a pity not more people see parliament TV, then they can see Labour as they really are.
Dorothy,
I find Graeme Edgeler’s comments to be incredibly informative, and certainly more worthy than the (admittedly shorter) “bahahahaha” sort of comments that often show up on comment threads.
Fred: Watching the debate on Parliamentary television was a fascinating insight into the manipulation of parliamentary procedure by the Right Wing to achieve their goal of advancing the VSM bill.
I agree. Everyone should have seen Labour yesterday. I know what the reaction of the average citizen would have been. They were, as someone put it, screaming like banshees. That’s exactly the sound they made.
Yesterday should be required viewing by the NZ public.
@Grant – I suspect they decided to stop talking to you because cabinet had made the call. I know there were approaches, but I suspect they were too late. I truly believe that had Labour publicly announced (perhaps at, or just after the first reading) that they opposed any change, but would support a law-change that resulted in full opt-out that National would have gone for it (despite it not being their ideal option), but it had to be done early, and was best done publicly.
Grant: I know the procedural argy-bargy can look a bit unedifying, but it is, and always has been, part and parcel of Parliament.
“Unedifying” is a pretty diplomatic way to describe it Grant.
That was embarrassing to watch & must have left viewers scratching their heads as to how we can justify paying politicials $150,000 per year to screech, finger point, filibust & name call for hours on end.
Numerous members did their vocation & the New Zealand public a disservice in the house yesterday.
I note the right-wingers who frequent this site are spending a lot of time complaining about Labour’s filibusting techniques. They didn’t complain in the nine years of the Labour govt. when National indulged in the same practise, and reaching a level never seen in this country before.
What’s source for the goose, is sauce for the gander!
Anne,
I’d be interested to hear if you have a single example of National filibustering a non-controversial Bill (Royal Society Bill) for 9 months.
@Graeme. Do you actually know that Cabinet discussed this? What are you basing your views about what National MPs might or might not have done? And what do you know about when approaches were made?
I know when discussions took place, I know what National MPs told me, and the option was on the table in plenty of time. The history of this issue going back to the 1990s is of deals being done at various stages of the process, and always after people have put their view in principle on the table.
oops computer issues, the end of the sentence was and always after people have put forward their in principle views on the issue.
What’s source for the goose, is sauce for the gander!
That attitude keeps perpetuating the worst of parliament. Like:
Just accepting it as “part and parcel” is weak and lazy, or it’s deliberate perpetuation. The people look for leadership, not loutishness.
It’s supposed to be a House of Representatives, not reprehensibles.
Pete George, you fool no-one. Except perhaps your own kind.
VSM is small fish. I was at university not too long ago and the student union was run by young nats. That union in particular being one of the biggest in the country.
Ahh curious, I remember those lovely days at Vic. Funnily enough, i remember the Labour youth and the green uni wing trying desperately to call the election void. Funny how the left can’t seem to get anything right. also funny how they never stop screaming how things aren’t fair for them. Boo hoo.
VSM sucks, they should have let the student bodies decide for themselves whether they wanted VSM or not. For a flat rate students get so much value for money: Student magazine, radio station, facilities, advocacy, events, advice, support, basically all the things that make being a student fun.
!!!!!!
VSM makes joining a student union harder cos you are forced to put the levy on yer, stingy
,$1000 course costs 
or pay for it out of yer pocket. That’s tough. The course costs as they stand don’t cover everything and should be increased. A student might not want to have to choose between buying a text book and joining their association! 
!
Plus, students are busy at the start of the year setting up house and partying, it may slip their minds to join the student union.
Yay Spud!
Cheers mate !
@Spud
“For a flat rate students get so much value for money: Student magazine, radio station, facilities, advocacy, events, advice, support…”
I used none of those things when I was a student. I still had to pay for them.
I suppose I used some facilities but the vast majority of those were owned and run by the provider. The student union increased the levy from $80 to $600 at the end of my final year.
Still small fish I say.
Anne @ 2.47pm – the reputation of MP (cross party) behaviour in Parliament is widely seen as terrible, and seemingly here accepted as just the way things are done. I don’t think that’s good enough, and if you think it’s fine I suggest the fooling may be on you.
@ Spud “Plus, students are busy at the start of the year setting up house and partying, it may slip their minds to join the student union.”
If students can’t find the time to join a student union between drinking sessions, then clearly they don’t see much value in membership. Tertiary students are adults who can decide what their priorities are.
Some good footage of the protest on Ch9 – local TV – available online http://www.ch9.co.nz/content/ousa-protest
How do you all feel after your being called to accouint for the disgraceful conduct in the house last Wednesday, by that known “leftie” reporter John Armstrong, in the Herald this morning?
Your MP’s and in particular the shadow leader of the house shoud hang their heads in shame.
Just read John Armstrong’s article in the NZ Herald. It seems a pity that Labour has to resort to such unedifying behaviour in the House to make a point.
I tuned into the House on Thursday and was not impressed with those I support. I was appalled that Labour kept referring to Paula Bennett as “she” instead of “The Minister”. This is disrespectful to the position, whatever you might think of the person. Carmel Sepeloni’s behaviour over “withdrawing and apologising” was petulant to say the least and I was surprised that Lockwood Smith did not evict her from the Chamber.
We don’t need bad publicity like this, so close to the election.
Jane, it seems like it’s “part and parcel” of how Labour wants to do things.
@Curious – you still used some of them! And many people have had the benefit of these resources.
I have to pay for stuff in life that I won’t use, like mammograms, but don’t mind.
@Craig, – why spoil the party with yet another thing to do?
@David Clark –
!
@lofty – Blinglish got chucked out!
I bet it was a long, sad, drive back to Dipton to explain himself. 
@Jane. In opposition we have a limited range of things available to oppose things that we think are wrong. Delay is one of those things. I understand that John Armstrong does not like aspects of the tactics that were used, but I think his criticism is over the top. There was a period of procedural argument and some testing of rulings and I accept that is something some people will dislike, but for the most part we have used the tool of debate over the last few weeks and on Wednesday to oppose something that we do believe is wrong.
On using “s/he” rather than “the Minister” is not generally something that is seen as demeaning, it is more often than not shorthand, in part because we are not allowed to use the word “you”.
Thanks for commenting, and like you I want the focus to be on the positive ideas that Labour is putting forward.