Education Amendment Bill (No 4)

I stand to speak to Part 2.

💬 Paul Quinn: Get with the programme.

Mr Quinn is telling me to get with the programme; I think Mr Quinn should look in the mirror. I am speaking to Part 2 of the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). Part 2 is about transitional arrangements and amendments to other enactments. Basically, when we look at the bill overall—then I will go into more detail just to put it into context—we know that the bill seeks to amend the Education Act. It includes provisions concerned with three broad policy areas. The bill strengthens the regulation of the tertiary education system by improving and modernising the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s legal arrangements. That is the intention. It facilitates the expansion of international education in New Zealand by establishing Education New Zealand as a Crown agency, and it safeguards the quality and reputation of the New Zealand education system by updating and strengthening the New Zealand Qualification Authority’s compliance and enforcement regime.

We know from some of the things that have occurred in recent times in respect of some of the qualifications offered that some international students have had unfortunate experiences here. They have come here expecting a standard of education or to go into courses that are made up of particular aspects or concentrated on particular areas, but there have been issues there. So we support the establishment of this Crown agency to ensure that the quality of our New Zealand education system is upheld. We on this side of the Chamber appreciate—in fact, I am sure all of us do, as parliamentarians—the importance of the international student market, and the fact that it is something that many of our institutions and schools are looking to expand into. We see the Crown agency as an important agency in respect of ensuring that we not only safeguard the quality of the international student market but also grow that market. We see it as something that will increase transparency and accountability in the tertiary education system with regard to compulsory student services fees, student loans, and student allowances.

The compulsory student services fees section of this legislation is something that we have discussed in detail. When we look at Part 2 and we look at the transitional arrangements, we see that it is fairly straightforward. There is very little that we can comment on. The amendments to the enactments are a necessary component of any legislation like this, in terms of outlining what enactments will be amended. As I have said, we support wholeheartedly the Crown agency and what that means for our international student market. I will leave it at that. I am sure that members on our side of the Chamber have calls and points that they wish to make. Thank you very much.

I will take a short call on Part 2, “Transitional arrangements and amendments to other enactments”. The transitional arrangements, particularly when we come to the student levy, are particularly important. As we know, there is another bill going through this Parliament in relation to students associations, which has been referred to on numerous occasions. The transitional arrangements in the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) will very much need to keep in consideration that legislation, which brings massive changes to students associations at the beginning of next year. The reason that this is important and the reason it needs to be provided for under transitional arrangements—Mr Quinn has his translation earpiece in, but I am actually speaking in English; I do not know whether it is breaking down the debate into simpler language for him. I was not aware that service was provided here at Parliament, but that is good to know.

The reason that the transitional arrangements need to take into account the early implementation of the voluntary student membership legislation is that, as we discussed in Part 1, numerous parts of this legislation relate to transparency around the setting of the student levy—Mr Quinn is listening to his iPad; that is why he has his earpiece in; he just did not want to purchase his own earphones—and the transparency around any increases in that levy, why they might be needed, and what that levy can be used for. As we know, given the reductions in funding for our tertiary institutions under this Government, institutions have been using some of the student levy to pay for staffing costs, not to pay for what the levy was originally intended to pay for. In that respect, the transitional provisions in this bill should take into account the fact that there will not be the organisations to consult that Part 1 has legislated for.

Part 1 is quite clear that there must be consultation around those aspects of the student levy that I referred to. The student body itself needs to be part of that process. The student body itself needs to be consulted around that levy. We saw at Canterbury University, I think it was, that the levy shot up 600 percent in one year; 600 percent. Well obviously that is unacceptable, and obviously that is part of the reason why this legislation is being brought in. It gives the Minister the power to cap that levy.

I come back to the important part of the transitional arrangements, which is the requirement to consult students. The question was asked, and it was not answered—who will they consult, once students associations have been destroyed by another bill currently going through this Parliament? How will that consultation be carried out? Because at the moment it is actually very clear-cut. The reason why this relates so closely to the transitional arrangements is that that legislation, which we are told the Government will make sure is passed before the election—even though the Government promised they would not support it, and promised that it would not be passed—will come into force at the beginning of next year, right in the middle of the transitional arrangements period.

The bill, as it stands, says the consultation will take place and the transparency needs to occur, and that is quite clear at the moment. At the moment we have democratically elected students associations. If someone wants to consult the student body of Victoria University, the student body of Auckland University, or the student body of Waikato University—whose students association membership went voluntary and then came back to being compulsory—it is quite clear what that body is. But if this voluntary student membership legislation goes through, it will not be clear. In fact it could be very unclear who exactly is meant to be consulted under the transitional provisions in this legislation. For our provincial polytechnics and private training establishments it will be even less clear. Although some of the big universities might hold out for a bit longer with their students associations, just because of the critical mass they have, our provincial polytechnics, such as Tairāwhiti Polytechnic in Gisborne where I live, will certainly be saying goodbye to their students associations.

Under Part l, who will the Minister consult? This should be part of the transitional provisions of this legislation. We cannot simply pass legislation in a vacuum. We certainly cannot pretend that the voluntary student membership legislation will not have an impact on this bill. It appears to me that the Government has ignored it. The Government is pretending that voluntary student membership will not go through. The question that was asked in Part 1, which was not answered, is: who will be consulted? Who will be the representatives of the students associations that Part 1 says will be consulted? This should be in the transitional provisions in Part 2. I look forward to a response from the Minister.

I move, That the question be now put.

I think it is important that we make sure that the debate in the Committee stage covers the bases of the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). In the earlier debate on Part 1 there were a number of questions raised by members on this side of the Chamber about the scope particularly around the student services levy section. As we move to the transitional provisions of the bill, about how this bill will come into force and how it will work in relation to a range of different entities, obviously I do not feel that a sufficient contribution has been made by the Minister for Tertiary Education on Part 1 on how some elements of this process will work. In particular I am concerned—well, “concerned” is not the right word; I think it is a good thing that there is a cap on the student services levy because it has clearly gone out of control—that as we transition to this new arrangement, the Minister now has an extraordinary range of powers. Mr Joyce is not so much “Daddy Cool”, as “Daddy State”, which is what he reaches in this clause. He gets to give a series of directions to an institution listing the categories of student services—basically the broad areas of student services that an institution can provide—and then if he is not satisfied with where the institution ends up in terms of those broad categories of student services, he can move to directing the types of services that are provided by the institution. As we move to finalise the arrangements in Part 2 for how the bill will come into force, I say that the Minister has not described to us exactly how he would do that, what sort of judgments he would make about a sufficient range of student services and a sufficient range of costs for student services, and most particularly, as was raised in earlier stages, whom the Minister will consult with.

Clause 227A(1)(c) “requires the institution or institutions to establish adequate arrangements for decisions to be made jointly or in consultation with the students enrolled at the institution, or their representatives, on all or any of the following matters:”, and that includes the types of services that are available and the amounts students will pay for them. Whom will the Minister consult with? As we move to bring this bill into force, we have another bill in the House that would wipe out the representatives as mentioned in clause 227A(1)(c), because those representatives would be from students associations, which will cease to exist within this bill. I am aware that we are discussing Part 2 and the transitional provisions, but it does matter as to how this bill comes into force. How will the Minister be able to enact this legislation if there is no students association for him to consult with? This is the problem we have on this side of the Chamber with the bill in general. Although it is a laudable goal to limit the growth in costs of student services levies, there is a squeeze on institutions in terms of their overall funding, and that has led to the rise in student services levies. There is now a squeeze from the other direction in terms of students associations, which provide a range of services, going out of action. On the top of that, students are now expected to be somehow consulted without their representative organisation being there. It is a laudable goal in this bill, but I really do not think the Minister has adequately answered the questions earlier about how it would actually happen, or how he would play the role of “Daddy State” for the institutions when it comes to deciding what student services they can offer. I just make that point, as we discuss the transitional arrangements, about how this bill will come into force. I feel there are some risks ahead for institutions and unless this Government is prepared to front up, fund tertiary institutions properly, and support students associations, it will be very difficult to bring this bill into force.