Education Amendment Bill (No 4)

I move, That the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Education and Science Committee, that the committee present its final report on or before 29 July 2011, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 187, 189(a), and 190(1)(b) and (c). The purpose of this motion to bring forward the report back of the bill is to ensure its enactment by 1 September 2011. That will enable the new Crown agent for international education to begin operating from 1 September 2011.

The Government is committed to achieving ongoing improvements in the performance of the tertiary education system. In the Tertiary Education Strategy 2010-15 we have signalled our priorities for the sector, which include enhancing quality assurance, providing incentives for providers to respond better to students, and building international linkages. The bill introduces a series of measures that will assist with achieving those priorities.

The first objective of the bill is to strengthen the regulation of the tertiary education system by improving and modernising the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s legal arrangements. Parts 18 and 20 of the Education Act 1989 cover most of the functions of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. They have not been significantly amended since 1990. The bill revises the authority’s existing functions and powers. That includes creating a rules regime to replace the authority’s current powers to issue policies and criteria, and removing the authority’s power to delegate its quality assurance functions. The bill also establishes in law the New Zealand qualifications framework. The bill creates a stronger regulatory and enforcement regime for the authority—in particular, in relation to managing private training establishments. This includes raising the threshold for private training establishment registration, giving the authority powers of entry to premises in cases of non-compliance, and introducing new targeted offences. Good providers will benefit from the raising of overall standards in the private training establishment sector.

The second objective of the bill is to encourage the expansion of international education and to safeguard the quality and reputation of the New Zealand education system. This includes the establishment of a new Crown agent called Education New Zealand to lead New Zealand’s drive to expand international education. The new agent will combine the functions and funding of three separate entities currently, enabling it to more effectively and efficiently manage the Crown’s investment in New Zealand’s international education promotion and offshore activities.

The third objective of the bill is to increase transparency and accountability in the tertiary education system—in particular, to students. This is achieved in two areas. Firstly, new measures are introduced regarding the setting of compulsory fees for the provision of student services. Under the bill, the responsible Minister will be able to issue directions on compulsory student service fees, including the categories of student services to be provided on a compulsory basis, how the fees are held and reported on, and arrangements for joint decision-making or consultation between a provider and its students. If a tertiary education provider does not comply with a direction, the Minister may issue a further direction specifying to a provider the maximum limit on the amount that can be charged for the services. Secondly, the Ministry of Social Development’s ability to administer student loans and allowances will be strengthened. The bill clarifies the ministry’s powers to request information from tertiary education providers, and creates a new offence aimed at deterring any providers from knowingly providing false or misleading information.

The bill also contains a number of miscellaneous amendments. Minor, technical amendments are made to the international education sections of the Education Act 1989. They include the rationalising of definitions and the streamlining of administrative processes.

In closing, the bill will strengthen our quality assurance system in the tertiary sector, facilitate the expansion of the international education sector, and improve accountability and transparency for students and providers. I commend the bill to the House.

I congratulate you, Mr Assistant Speaker Ross Robertson, on your post. It is a pleasure to have you sitting in the Chair today.

I will start by saying that Labour supports the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) going to the Education and Science Committee. The bill contains some good provisions that are designed to tighten up the tertiary education area. For that reason, it is important that the select committee hears from submitters on those provisions.

As the Minister for Tertiary Education just said, the bill seeks to strengthen three areas. The first area is strengthening the regulation of the tertiary education system by improving and modernising the legal requirements of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. Most people would say that although the changes are not completely overdue, they are positive and are working in a positive direction.

The second area is facilitating the expansion of the international education system and safeguarding the quality and reputation of New Zealand’s education system. International education is an extraordinarily important industry for New Zealand now. It is a $2 billion industry. It has grown incredibly rapidly but is also quite fragile. Looking across the Tasman at Australia, we saw what an assault on an Indian student in Australia did to the Australian international education system. The publicity around that event caused many students from India who were wanting to study in Australia to consider going elsewhere. I think New Zealand picked up a number of students as a result. So the international education system is extremely fragile. I think that by strengthening it in this regard—and I believe that this is overdue—we will be able to maintain those standards and to continue to attract not just any student but the top students into New Zealand because of the system we have and what we can provide.

Lastly, the bill looks to increase transparency and accountability in the tertiary education system. Once again, I think that is an important area. In the past couple of years universities in particular have started to increase the levies on students. In 2010-11 many universities’ levies have gone up about 100 percent. Rather than being $200, they are nearly $400. In other tertiary providers the increase has not been as great, but nevertheless has been fairly significant.

Although on the one hand I applaud the Minister’s desire to change the situation and to put a cap on the levies, we need to look a little more deeply at why the levies are being imposed in the first place. The real reason is that funding for universities is being capped. As a result of that, last year 9,000 potential students were not able to gain entry into our tertiary institutions. As a result, universities have decided they need to levy students for really basic stuff like buildings, libraries, and extra student places. They are increasing their fees so that that stuff can take place. In addressing a number of students who were protesting about this issue, Professor Rod Carr, the Vice-Chancellor of Canterbury University, said that the students are getting “a crap deal” from the Government, because it is freezing all the other funding to universities, which has meant that the universities have had to impose these levies. The levies are not imposed because the universities feel they can gain more money—no, not at all—the universities are imposing the levies because they cannot afford to run the university to the right and proper standard that might attract the international students I was just talking about. The universities simply do not have sufficient funding. They are levying students to pay for the most basic of things.

It gets worse. It gets much worse, because at the same time that the bill is coming in and the Minister is making a big deal about capping levies, regulating the levies that the universities are charging, and making them more transparent so that the student body can have a greater say in the way that the levies are imposed—again, I applaud that initiative—we have the voluntary student membership bill coming through. That bill will gut the very representation that the Minister wants to consider the levies. It will gut that advocacy and that representation.

The students associations in New Zealand will have much less representation, much less health-care, and much less in the way of sports, cultural events, and advocacy. They will have much less of a whole range of support structures that students have come to rely on and that I and others who have gone through university paid for in the past. Students are not going to have them any more. It is very simple. We know that for a fact. It is not fiction. This bill is not about anything other than a piece of ideology looking around for a problem and saying that somehow we will provide more choice in the system. Students actually have the choice now to opt out of the students association—they have the choice now. What we know for a fact—what we know from Australia—is that as soon as we take away the nature of students associations as they are today, the money that goes into them collapses. As a result, we end up having less money, fewer services, and less voluntary support for the services the associations provide. We end up with a poorer university environment as a result.

What happens then? Well, strangely enough, the universities take over the funding of some of those core activities that the students associations up till now have been providing. While the Minister is laudably bringing in this legislation to cap, restrict, regulate, and come down on those universities that are levying students, what will actually happen is that, with the voluntary student membership bill coming in, the fees that universities are charging will have to rise. If they do not rise, the core services that the students rely on will disappear. On the one hand this bill is laudable, but on the other hand it completely ignores the real problem facing universities today, which is a lack of funding, and the fact that the Government is about to gut the students associations and the services they provide.

While we are on the subject of the gutting of services, the pulling of services, let us turn to another area of tertiary education, which is adult education.

💬 Hon Members: It’s gone.

It has gone. Let me tell members what has happened to adult education over the last few months.

💬 Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was just wondering about Kelvin Davis, who is sitting opposite me with his computer out in front of him like that. I was wondering whether it was appropriate to have, basically, a broadcast from Toshiba in the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ross Robertson): No, the member will be seated. It is perfectly legitimate.

Adult education, which has been gutted in this country, was an institution that New Zealanders relied on. I relied on it. Many people in this House, I bet, went to night school as part of their educational experience. The number of schools that are offering night school education has gone from 212 down to 24. Well done! A whole bunch of people out there who wanted to enter the education system for the second time because they had missed out somehow the first time round now do not have the opportunity. On average, 200,000 people a year used to enjoy adult education; now the number is a fraction of that—a fraction. Here is the kicker: for 300 metres of Mr Joyce’s “Holiday Highway” we could have had adult education every year; for 300 metres of the “Holiday Highway”, which has a cost-benefit analysis of less than a dollar, we could have actually funded adult education. It is about priorities.

I take just a couple of seconds, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, to say how pleased I am that you have resumed your rightful place as an Assistant Speaker in this House—your rightful place.

I listened with great care to the Labour Party’s new spokesperson on tertiary education, David Shearer. It probably would have been better if that member had made his opening statement supporting the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) and then sat down. After his first sentence I thought that maybe those guys over there were at last getting the idea that this Government knows what it is doing. But the longer he talked, the less relevant he became to this bill and to this debate. It just brought home to the House again the yawning gap between the Government and the major Opposition party—the gap that is seeing the Labour Party slowly consigned to the rubbish bin of history.

It became apparent that the Labour Party has no interest at all in developing a higher performing tertiary education sector. It has no interest at all, unlike the Government, in ensuring better value for every dollar that the Government spends. Remember that better value means a better education for the students who are paying part of the cost of being in a tertiary education system.

I invite the next Labour speaker—and looking across the floor it is rather difficult to imagine who that might be—whoever it is, to get on their feet and tell this House that the Labour Party supports a high performing tertiary education system, and supports the policy to be introduced by this Government for 2012 that will begin to link Government funding to the performance of the institution. No other measure is guaranteed to ensure a better education for the students in this country than requiring performance from the institutions they attend. That is partially what this bill is all about.

I invite that speaker, Carmel Sepuloni—I see she is desperate to get on her feet, though she will have to wait a minute or so longer—to also tell this House that Labour supports the Government’s policy to increase the number of university places for young New Zealanders. While she is doing that, she may like to take the opportunity to apologise to young New Zealanders for Labour’s ineptness in administering the tertiary education system during those long, dark 9 years when Labour had the opportunity to influence things.

This is good legislation, it is sound legislation, and it will go a long way to meeting what should be the first requirement of every student in a tertiary education organisation: the assurance that they are in a quality organisation, an organisation that has been judged on its academic performance, and an organisation that puts the quality of teaching first.

I welcome the comments from the next Labour speaker, and I hope that that person addresses the issues that I have raised. I commend the bill to the House, and I look forward to its eventual passage.

I will start by saying that I have spent some time working in the tertiary sector. I spent about 5½ years working at the University of Auckland and 2 years working at a private training establishment. I trained as a primary school teacher, and I do have an appreciation of good education policy and can differentiate between the two.

Labour supports the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). We agree that it makes some necessary changes to the tertiary education sector. Mr Peachey, unlike as usual, is not entirely wrong. However, we have some reservations. Before I get into those reservations, as I have worked in the tertiary education sector I want to thank the previous Labour Government for the funding and the resourcing it put into the tertiary sector and for the difference that it made to communities, like the Māori and Pacific communities, in terms of participation in, and completion of, higher-level tertiary qualifications. I thank the Labour Government for its understanding of the fact that having a highly skilled population was all part of a successful economy. I thank the Labour Government for being in touch with communities, in terms of the value that Labour placed on tertiary education and ensuring that communities had access to quality tertiary education.

From there, I want to talk a little about what this bill does well—the good things in the bill. Labour supports the creation of a new Crown agency to cover export education. We believe that it is a vital part of our economy and that it needs to be properly managed and fostered. We perceive the private training industry as an important part of the tertiary sector, and we want to protect their reputation and the subsequent reputation of the wider tertiary sector. In saying that, cases of qualification selling and falsifying results do harm to both. It harms students and it harms the sector. Therefore, the introduction of stricter rules around the registration of private training establishments is welcomed by Labour.

Tonight, in this House, the public and the other members will hear a great deal about Labour’s view that the bill’s ability to regulate student levies will be undermined by the voluntary students association membership legislation, which will subsequently undermine the student voice. This House has been told by my colleague David Shearer that huge levy rises last year were the result of the National Government’s squeeze on tertiary funding, which is forcing institutions to lay off staff or pass the buck to students. We hope that the National Government and the general public have listened to the concerns that David Shearer raised and that my colleagues will also raise when they get to their feet.

I want to discuss the creation of a new Crown agency to cover export education. As I said, it is a vital part of our economy and we support the creation of a new Crown agency to cover export education. However, although on the one hand the National Government is working towards increasing the overseas market for our tertiary education sector, on the other hand the Minister for Tertiary Education is saying publicly that we must dampen down the demand for tertiary education by New Zealanders or by our domestic market. I find it strange that the National Government would be all about encouraging international students to participate in our tertiary sector, when it cannot even do the same for students in New Zealand. I think the general public would be concerned that the National Government wants to open up tertiary education to the international market, but not to the domestic market. We are wondering whether the National Government’s grand plan is that we run a tertiary education system that largely caters for overseas interests, rather than our own. It kind of sits alongside that whole “sell off State assets” subject as well. Tertiary education in New Zealand should be about New Zealanders and should be about, first and foremost, making sure that people in New Zealand have access to high-level, high-quality tertiary education, but the Government wants to sell it off overseas. It is exactly the same as what is happening with our State assets.

When we hear the Minister for Tertiary Education say that we must dampen down the demand for tertiary education in New Zealand, we need to keep in mind that youth joblessness is remaining extremely high. The latest OECD figures show that one in every five young Kiwis is now out of work. When we look at the statistics for Māori and Pacific Islanders, since that Government came into office an unacceptably high number of Māori and Pacific students are not only not in employment but also not engaged in any education. Yet we have a Minister for Tertiary Education who would say publicly that we need to dampen down the demand for tertiary education in New Zealand.

We have seen the National Government do things, like slash funding to Adult and Community Education and night schools by a massive 80 percent, that led to a trebling in fees and hundreds of courses being shut down. We should keep in mind that for many people Adult and Community Education is often their first step back into the education system.

Steven Joyce has done little to increase the number of places in universities and polytechs. By refusing to adequately lift the cap on numbers, thousands of students are being turned away from study each year. Last year Steven Joyce cut $55 million from industry training funding, which could have provided places for an extra 55,000 trainees who would have been able to fill the looming skills shortage. Not only have the decisions made by the Minister for Tertiary Education made us question how valuable the National Government thinks tertiary education is for the everyday Kiwi in New Zealand, but we have even seen changes in our social development policy that sit alongside that theory in respect of an under-appreciation of the importance of high-level tertiary education for New Zealanders.

We have seen cuts in the training incentive allowance that take away the opportunity for sole parents to have access to tertiary education, which would not only benefit them but also their children. We have seen welfare reforms whereby, from memory, sole parents would be encouraged to go back and study up to level 3, but not to level 4 and beyond because for some reason or another that would not be of any benefit to them.

It is time that the Government looked at the solutions used in Australia—for instance, investing heavily in skills training and tertiary education—to help young people into long-term work. Instead, this Government does nothing but deliver more cuts to the very programmes we need. Yet, as I said, with the expansion of international education and to safeguard the quality and reputation of the New Zealand education system, Labour supports the promotion of our quality education to the international student market, but we do not like it being done at the expense of ensuring that our domestic student market has access to quality tertiary education and promoting access to quality tertiary education to that market.

If this Government does not get its act together in respect of providing those opportunities, we will see a very abysmal future for New Zealand down the track. If our young people do not have access to quality tertiary education, then what hope do we have of a strong economy in this country in the future? Thank you.

Kia ora. Tertiary education is vital to our future prosperity and to building a smart economy. I am glad to take a call tonight on the Education Amendment Bill (No 4), which amends the Education Act 1989.

I will make a quick comment on the debate so far. I think David Shearer deserves an A for his analysis of the situation. Minister Joyce has a number of portfolios, and when it comes to it he seems to have his keys on the ministerial printing press. He has $43 million to bail out his mates in MediaWorks, he has billions of dollars to throw at reducing competition and increasing the price when it comes to ultra-fast broadband, and he has $10.7 billion to spend on motorways when we are borrowing $300 million a week. He needs to pour some of that money into our vital tertiary education sector. Mr Peachey is a well-noted educationalist, but if I were to grade his speech I would say: “Needs to do more work; needs to do his homework.” It is a big bill and there are lots of parts he could have spoken on. Maybe he would get an A for his creative writing. I liked the allusion to 9 long years of Labour. There was some good creative writing there. I think if Ms Sepuloni was giving a history speech, she would maybe get a C. I do not know whether she was a student under those 9 long years of a Labour Government, but I was. I saw increasing fees, increasing student loan burdens across the whole country, and interest on student loans for 6 years before it was rightfully taken off. So I would maybe give her a C for historical accuracy.

The Green Party will be opposing this bill tonight on its first reading. We have a mixed view on the bill, which is a grab bag of things. There are some good parts, some mixed parts, and some bad parts.

First, I will talk about the good parts of the bill. The Green Party supports strengthening the regulation of private training establishments. Many private training establishments do fantastic work. However, the whole industry can be affected by cowboys in the market. We support establishing new rules for their registration and operation, and handing quality assurance back to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, but we have some grave concerns about the authority implementing the new New Zealand qualifications framework and listing approved qualifications, and about its enhanced enforcement powers.

Secondly, the bill establishes a new Crown agent, Education New Zealand, to replace the functions of the three organisations currently managing and promoting international education as a New Zealand export earner. We are talking about New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, the Ministry of Education, and the Education New Zealand Trust. Streamlining seems to be an ideological mantra often repeated by the National Government without much actual evidence presented. We look forward to seeing the benefits outlined in the select committee of merging the three operations into a single agency operating under a board and being accountable to the Minister. We take this opportunity to stress that when discussing international education a strong focus on student welfare and pastoral care is vital.

Thirdly, we think it is common sense to make it easier for the Ministry of Social Development to administer student allowances by giving it the power to request enrolment information from tertiary providers. The ministry already has these powers in relation to student loans, and the fact that it does not have them for student allowances seems to be a historical oversight. The bill also creates a new offence if a tertiary provider knowingly provides false or misleading information to the Ministry of Social Development regarding the administration of loans and allowances.

Then there is the bad. The other two objectives of the bill are more problematic. Regarding student services fees, it is true that they have increased dramatically in recent years, but it has not happened for no reason. Institutions use them to fund vital services to get around the fee maxima, which applies only to tuition fees. In short, facing inadequate funding and further budget cuts from the Minister for Tertiary Education, it is not unrealistic that new sources of income would be identified so that we can keep providing a world-class education service.

In the lead-up to May’s Budget, I ask how decisions that are being made currently or are about to be made will impact on our universities and polytechs. If it is to be a zero Budget, as has been promoted, I ask whether we will see yet another cut to our tertiary education budget. As of last year we already spend $3,000 less per student than the OECD average, and we are in the bottom quarter for expenditure on tertiary education as a percentage of our gross domestic product.

On the face of it, the Green Party supports moves to keep student fees down, and we believe that core education services should be paid for via adequate tuition subsidies and fees, not via these alternative sources. The Minister seems intent on addressing the symptom but not the cause, which is the fact that he will not fund tertiary education properly.

We welcome increased student involvement and increased transparency; the irony, of course, is that no students will get a chance to vote on how the student levy is raised or spent, as they currently do through their students association fees. The risk is that the Minister will decide to limit the ability of students associations to make up fee shortfalls through the levy, leading to a situation where either student services or core services will be cut. Facing a recessionary environment and a stagnant economy dependent on international commodity prices, we need to follow the lead of Australia, which is investing an extra $5.7 billion over the next 5 years to achieve its goal of 40 percent of Australians having degrees. We need to invest more in the tertiary education sector, not play student services off against core services.

The bill gives wide-ranging and extensive powers to the Minister to dictate the terms on which institutions can raise and charge service fees, including which services the fees are used for, and potentially to set dollar amounts. As with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, power is being concentrated more centrally in ministerial hands. It is as if a memo has been circulated around the National Party trying to secure as much power as it can in executive hands over the legislature or the public.

In a voluntary student membership environment, institutions will have to pick up the tab for many services currently provided by students associations, and there is the risk that this bill could constrain their ability to do so if the Minister sets strict rules. Whole services could fall through the gaps if the Minister decides to do so.

I do not think it is good lawmaking to leave this important question up to the inclination of a particular Minister. The Minister needs to identify what categories of services will be allowed now, because it seems unlikely that we could vote for them in further readings, based on his deplorable track record in the portfolio. If a clearer framework and clarity is the policy objective of the Minister, he should include that information in the legislation; he should not leave it up to a future Minister’s whim. Likewise, the Minister should spell out exactly how students’ views will be represented effectively in the legislation. With a different Minister, change like this could be positive, but the fact that it places so much power in the hands of whoever is in power is good reason to oppose the bill.

Lastly, the changes regarding the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the regulation of private training establishments are extensive. The changes implement recommendations by the targeted review of qualifications undertaken from 2009 to 2010, which was focused on the proliferation of low-quality courses. The bill establishes a new New Zealand qualifications framework that lists the approved qualifications. We look forward to finding out more in the select committee as to what is likely to make it on to the list of approved qualifications, because in an increasingly complex world, we need to provide students with all the opportunities their creativity, their entrepreneurial skills, and their social potential demand.

Some elements are concerning—for example, the fact that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is given quite Draconian powers under this legislation for enforcement. The authority can enter premises, access or copy information, and question staff.

In conclusion, the Green Party supports some of this bill, but other parts, like those provisions relating to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the student levy powers, are concerning. We may change our vote down the line, but only if the bill actually sees better tertiary education outcomes. Kia ora.

It is a pleasure to speak in the first reading debate on the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). I will start with some thoughts about what the tertiary education strategy says. The strategy calls for an ongoing improvement in the educational and financial performance of tertiary education providers. It also says that during tight fiscal times tertiary education organisations need to improve their efficiency and performance. That is probably a very appropriate theme, because when we compare the previous administration with the Government of today, we see in particular in respect of the health portfolio that billions of dollars were thrown at health with no noticeable improvement in outcomes. It was exactly the same case in regard to tertiary education. Enormous amounts of money were thrown at tertiary education with no real noticeable improvements in outcomes.

This bill is very appropriate at this time, because it is the first occasion that we are making amendments in respect of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, which was set up in 1990. We are talking about an authority that was set up 21 years ago. Although it was cutting edge at that time, it needs modification. When we look at that authority, we see that it had over 6,000 qualifications, and on that basis it was essential that we went through those qualifications in order to rationalise them. The Minister for Tertiary Education has begun that job, and an outcome of it all will be a much improved, more appropriate, in tune New Zealand Qualifications Authority.

The Minister talked about reporting this bill back to the House on or by 29 July, so that gives us only 3 months. The select committee will need to be very adept at hearing the submissions and working collegially on the Minister’s vision for tertiary education. Many speakers tonight have talked about tertiary education, and I am sure they were not intending to talk about tertiary education in a context of its own. Education definitely needs to be a continuum, and when we hear about and lament the people who find themselves unemployed at the moment, it really does drive home how important it is that education has that continuum and that our children learn to read and write and become independent learners.

One of the things that is very noticeable is the fact that unless secondary school students get up to level 2 of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement they will more than likely fail when it comes to doing a national qualification at level 4 independently. There is a lot of very, very positive stuff in this bill. It has been a long time coming. A lot of thought has been put into it, and I certainly see some good outcomes coming from this work.

I want to pick up on a comment that was made about the industry training organisations and $55 million being stripped out of them. I tell members that $55 million was put into universities to create more opportunities at a higher level. We were aware that some of our industry training organisations had up to $20 million in surpluses, so it is about using the taxpayer dollar more effectively. I understand why Labour will try to pick holes in things; it was in Government for 9 years and did nothing. I commend the bill to the House.

It is my pleasure to rise and speak in the first reading debate on the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). I was very excited when I saw this bill tabled in Parliament just last week, because I thought that maybe the Government was about to do something about the shambles it had created in education. Maybe, I thought, this was the time when it would introduce legislation to reverse the funding cuts it meted out to the early childhood education sector at the last Budget in May 2010. I thought that maybe that was what the Government was amending in the Education Act 1989, but I was disappointed to find that that was not the case. Perhaps it was the Government’s opportunity to realise that it had made an absolute shambles of the national standards in the primary school sector. Maybe the amendment to the Act would address that critical issue in the country, but I was disappointed on that front as well.

Perhaps the Minister had realised that it was not OK to try to resolve the very serious bullying issues that are going on in our schools at the moment simply by sending a letter to schools. Perhaps the Minister had been, all along, working on a legislative approach to that very big problem that our secondary schools, in particular, are facing at the moment, but that is not to be addressed either.

I wondered whether in fact this bill might retrospectively show a realisation on the Government benches that cutting funding for adult and community education was a big mistake as well, but the bill did not recognise that issue. I thought, in a last-ditch attempt, that maybe—just maybe—this Government had realised that recessionary times were the very best time to allow New Zealanders wanting to get that step-up in their lives to access a tertiary education if they had not had the opportunity to do that at any other time, and that the Government could do that by lifting the cap on tertiary institutions and investing in skills development for this country’s future, but I was to be disappointed on that front as well. This is very much a lost opportunity. The Education Amendment Bill (No 4) could have addressed the significant issues at the heart of this country’s problems as we go forward into the future. That is what education is all about. It is the best opportunity for this country to build its future, and, sadly, this bill does not address any of those issues.

But what more can we expect from a Government whose goal, it seems, is to lower wages in this country—as a strategy. Bill English is now telling this country that he is deliberate about having wages 30 percent lower in New Zealand than they are in Australia. He thinks that having lower wages will give us a competitive advantage. Well, that is not the vision on this side of the House; I can inform listeners to this debate of that very fact. That is why I was worried but not surprised to see that the Government had once again failed to take an opportunity by introducing an education amendment bill that would do something to make a difference in terms of lifting living standards in this country, and lifting people’s opportunities to get the very best education. The Government has missed the opportunity in this bill to address those very substantial issues.

However, on the issues that are in front of us in this amendment bill, I will say that Labour is prepared to support the bill to select committee, so that we can hear how the public responds to it. I am pleased to say that we will get to hear from the public this time. We never ever heard from the public on national standards, and look at the shambles that has turned out to be. Not one parent, teacher, student, or board of trustees member got to come to this Parliament and say what they thought about the concept, principle, or legislation on national standards. They never got that opportunity, and therefore we have the shambles that is in front of us now. National standards are a complete and utter shambles, and it started from that process. Just this weekend 750 principals voted no confidence in the Government’s education policy.

💬 Jo Goodhew: They did not.

Oh, yes they did, I say to Mrs Goodhew. They absolutely did.

💬 Jo Goodhew: I read the press release. That’s not what it said.

They voted no confidence in the education policy of the Government, and they voted no confidence in the leadership given by the Minister over the introduction of national standards. If the Government has not heard that, and if it is in denial about that, it does not listen and it is completely out of touch with what is happening in the education sector. The Government does not want to hear from the leaders of the school communities, the principals up and down the country—750 of them. It is unprecedented. For the first time ever, the Principals Federation voted no confidence in the Government’s education policy. I think it is a great shame that Government members opposite are shaking their heads because they have not heard it or they do not care. That is how out of touch they are with the current issues facing the education sector.

This bill, however, introduces some positive changes. They are not the changes that we really need to see made to our education system, none the less there is a little bit of tinkering around the edges, which is what this Government tends to do. We would like to hear the views of the sector on those changes. We support the creation of a new Crown agency to cover export education, because that is a vital part of our economy, and it needs to be properly managed and fostered.

We approve of the introduction of stricter rules on the registration of private training establishments. That is also welcome to Labour, but we are keen to hear what the sector has to say on that. I say “the sector”, and my definition of the sector includes those who work in the industry and those who use it, so we want to hear from the students, the families of the students, and the training providers. The private training industry is an important part of the tertiary sector, and cases of qualification-selling and falsifying results do harm to that sector, to students, and to New Zealand’s reputation, so we look forward to supporting the aspects of this bill that will help to resolve that problem and tidy it up.

Here is the real doozy to do with this bill: student levies. This Government now wants to pretend that it wants to sort out the huge increase in student levies that has happened under its watch in tertiary institutions up and down the country. Here is the real joke: the right hand does not know what the right foot is doing. Another bill that came from the ACT Party but was supported by the Government is making institutions pick up more and more student services by getting rid of the student unions that provide those services now. The Government wants those student unions to go down the tubes. The student support services the unions provide will go with them, and the institutions will be left to pick up that problem, but this bill comes in to say the institutions should not even think about increasing levies on students as a result. We know that institutions will not get any increased funding from the Government, so what are they to do? Student services will decrease, and students will be the poorer for it.

The Education Amendment Bill (No 4) gives this Government a very important opportunity to continue to work towards a more accountable, higher-performing tertiary education sector. That is consistent with what this Government is hoping to achieve right across the State sector.

We are absolutely focused on getting better value for every dollar—not our dollars but the dollars of every taxpayer in New Zealand—and we take that very seriously, unlike the previous Government, which squandered that money as if it was coming off a tree or being printed by somebody, not coming out of the real, live pockets of New Zealand taxpayers. We will get better value for every dollar spent.

It is time to put a little bit of truth and a little bit of perspective into the argument, and to talk about some of the stuff that is already happening in the tertiary education sector. To set the scene, I tell the House that we will be funding almost 3,000 extra university places over the next 2 years, with a stunning total of 119,000 university places in 2011. That is an absolutely stunning total; it has never been as high as that before. We are also funding 16,500 more places in tertiary education than were funded in 2008 under the previous Government.

Members opposite are quiet now; I wonder why. It is because they cannot refute this argument—these are the facts rather than the rhetoric. It is time for the facts. I hear some agreement coming from Opposition parties about our plans for international education. That sector is worth close to $2 billion to this country, so it is important that this bill deals with it.

I will spend a very short time talking about the reasons for some of the provisions in this bill. On the tertiary education side of things we are looking at the Minister being able to issue directions on student services fees. Why would that be? Well, it is because there has been a creeping unease amongst students, and amongst those of us watching, when we have seen the average levy increase by 102 percent between 2009 and 2010, across all universities. That is an increase in the average levy from $194 to $392, but it is an increase by stealth.

The increase is not really for what the institutions say it is for, so the Minister has decided to rein that in, to make sure we know what those fees are for. Under the bill the Minister will be able to require that fees are for a specified reason and held in a separate audited account, and that the categories for student services be made available. This bill is about transparency, which is something this Government really values.

When we look at the regulatory impact statement on the changes to student services levies, we can see why we have to introduce those measures. Currently, the Government has no power to control the amounts that tertiary education providers may charge as compulsory student services fees. There is a risk, without such controls, that there will be very little incentive for providers to prioritise the services they deliver, and to deliver them really efficiently.

I can tell members that State sector employees are getting a very clear message from this Government that when they spend taxpayers’ money they need to do it efficiently. They need to get absolute value for money. This bill is a continuation of that requirement, and most certainly the message is getting out there.

Do members know what? My constituents say that they like that. They like the fact that this Government demands value for money at every turn. It demands value for money. They understand when this Government says that something is nice to have but is not necessary. This bill will be a good bill. I will enjoy hearing from submitters in the Education and Science Committee, and I commend the bill to the House.

The previous speaker, Jo Goodhew, mentioned that we had gone quiet on this side of the House. It was because we had all fallen asleep. But I have to admit that with that gnarly voice, it was like being lulled to sleep by the Wicked Witch of the West.

I also draw attention to the contribution that Simon Bridges made to this debate on the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). When we wanted to talk about education, what did we get from a member on that side? We got points of order about laptops. That just about describes the quality of their debate about education.

I have to commend, though, the Minister for Tertiary Education. I see here a press release of his from 6 April 2011. The headline is: “Combined international educational agency to boost sector”. I will not read it all, but I will read the part where he says: “We have in New Zealand excellent schools, well respected Universities, institutes of technology and private providers.” It is wonderful at last to hear an education Minister from National actually showing that he values education and that he values educators.

When we look at the first part of the sentence, “We have in New Zealand excellent schools,” I have to ask what makes an excellent school. We have students, first and foremost, and we have communities. Then we have the teachers; the teachers make excellent schools. But above the teachers, guiding and leading, we have principals. As my colleague Sue Moroney stated just before, 750 principals from around New Zealand descended on Wellington and on Parliament to have their annual conference. The feedback we have received is that they were absolutely stunned that the Minister of Education, Anne Tolley, who was invited to welcome them here at Parliament on the Wednesday evening, did not even reply to their letter inviting her to come and speak. They wrote to the Prime Minister and asked whether he would be interested in coming to the opening of their conference, but he said that that was a job for his Minister of Education. There was still no reply from Minister Anne Tolley.

I received today an email from a principal, a friend I went to teachers college with, who was at that conference. I will not say his name but I invite anybody here who wants to to come and see the email later to verify that it is a genuine email. It says: “Greetings. It was good to catch up at the Beehive last week. I am pleased that there are people, like yourself, with common sense kicking around parliament. I liked what Sue Moroney talked about.” Sue Moroney is our spokesperson on education, and a woman who speaks sense when it comes to education.

Here we get to the sad part: “Unfortunately I was disgusted by the Minister on Saturday and her comments following her address to the conference. Calling NZPF a one issue political lobby group that has never [brought] anything positive to the table is offensive and shows her total lack of any thought of negotiation or discussion. Anne Tolley obviously believes she knows best and is not even willing to talk to anyone else. I despair at where our education system is heading with her trying to lead change. Maybe it is time I gave it away”—this principal is so disillusioned with the direction of education in New Zealand that he is considering giving the game away—“and did something else—I do not want to be forced to implement such a terrible system that National Standards offers. Thankyou again to you and your colleagues for your hospitality.”

Here is the clincher—here is the clincher, everybody: “I have never voted Labour in my life but in the coming elections will be doing so—National no longer represents what I believe in for the future of New Zealand. Keep up the good work!”. I tell Dr Paul Hutchison that that email is from a principal from his electorate. He needs to be concerned because the tide is turning when it comes to educators. That email is indicative of how people in the sector are feeling about the direction that education is going in New Zealand.

This is the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). As I said during the debate on the Education Amendment Bill (No 3), in the debate on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2), and probably in the debate on the first Education Amendment Bill, once again we are debating an educational issue that actually does nothing to raise achievement.

Here we have an education amendment bill that looks at export education. “Export education” is code for trying to lure international students into New Zealand. There is nothing wrong with that. It is about tapping into the lucrative Korean market, Japanese market, Chinese market, and Indian market. Each of those students brings money into New Zealand, and that money helps to subsidise the education system, which is so underfunded by this National Government.

Talking about tapping into that lucrative Asian market reminds me of the old Billy T James skit where Billy T James is asked what he thinks of euthanasia. Billy T James says: “Well, I think we should look after our own kiddies first.” I totally agree. We should look after our New Zealand students before we start looking after everybody else’s. Nothing in this bill will actually help New Zealand students to lift their achievement, or make them achieve better so we can have better social outcomes at the end of the day.

In terms of the national standards debate, obviously kids are meant to achieve national standards, and they can then go on to university and tertiary education. But National has actually said, because of the disjoint between its policies, that it does not believe that national standards will work when it comes down to it. All the rhetoric over on that side of the House says that it is the best thing for New Zealand, but when we look at National’s policies in totality we see there is a disjoint between national standards and other policies.

If national standards are to work, then we would expect all of these really positive outcomes. We would expect better health outcomes, less incarceration in prisons, and all those sorts of things. But Bill English stood up and said that over the next 10 years the biggest Government department in New Zealand will be the Department of Corrections. I ask how that can be—how the Department of Corrections can be the biggest department over the next 10 years—if national standards are meant to cure all those ills. If New Zealand students are meant to be achieving and doing so well, why will they head off to prison and make sure that the Department of Corrections is the biggest Government department? It proves the disjoint between National’s policies. As a colleague said earlier, the right arm does not know what the right foot is doing. They are trying to take them both out of their mouths at the same time.

I am also Labour’s spokesperson on tourism. Tourism New Zealand is an organisation that promotes New Zealand internationally so that tourists will come here. Let me tell members now that Education New Zealand, the new organisation, might as well be an arm of Tourism New Zealand, because its job is “to deliver strategies, programmes, and activities for promoting … New Zealand education overseas;”. There is nothing about making students learn; it is all about promoting New Zealand as an educational tourism destination.

We are debating the Education Amendment Bill (No 4), and we should be debating something that will make students learn better, learn faster, and achieve beyond their potential. Instead, all we are talking about it is how we can attract students to come to New Zealand so that they can spend more money to subsidise the underfunding of the New Zealand education system.

The one part of the bill I agree with, though, is that once we get those students here, we need to have rules about making sure they are looked after, and that the courses are not trying to rip them off. There has been a bit of a history of dodgy training programmes, and some students have been ripped off. I agree with the part of the bill that looks at the private training establishments. We cannot have our educational reputation being sullied because students come here and are ripped off by dodgy courses.

Labour supports the bill to go to the select committee.

on behalf of the Minister for Tertiary Education: I move, That the Education and Science Committee consider the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) , that the committee report finally to the House on or before 29 July 2011, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 187, 189(a), and 190(1)(b) and (c).

Motion agreed to.