Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

When this debate was interrupted, Tracey Martin had the call. She had 9 minutes and 55 seconds, but because our clocks do not work that way, we will give her 10 minutes.

I am sure there is many a member of this House who is grateful for that extra 5 seconds for me!

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: She’s just used it.

Ha, ha! I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to talk about the Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will not be supporting the bill. It should not be a surprise to anybody—I am sure it is not a surprise. There are reasons why. Look, there are pros and cons inside this bill. It is, I suppose, like every piece of legislation that the Government puts forward—there are some real pluses inside here. I think, for example, the strengthening of accountability and monitoring of tertiary education organisations—I mean, that is a good one; who can argue with that? What we have seen with the several instances of tertiary education providers that have had to pay back money or have had investigations into them is that we need to tighten up in these areas. But we probably need to tighten up on the front end.

I think that is where New Zealand First would like to see some more effort from the Government, particularly around what we receive in our offices—I suppose you would call them whistleblower complaints. It is when people inside the institutions actually call us to say “This is what is going on.”, and “This is not right.” But in two instances where those people have contacted my offices, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) has been contacted and it has made some inquiry into the organisation—usually by phone, which is interesting.

NZQA usually calls the private training establishment (PTE) and says: “Hey, this has been complained about. Is it true?”. I have got the records showing that one particular PTE said: “Well, yes. But we have changed our practice now, so we promise not to do it again.” The NZQA went back to the complainant and said: “Look, they have said they won’t do it again. So, look, it’s fine. We’re just going to leave it alone.” The complainant has then been threatened with legal action by the PTE for taking the complaint through the appropriate channels. So there are some issues there around not only the strengthening of accountability and monitoring but—and we hope that part of that monitoring is responding to complaints that are legitimately put through the system. Everything should be investigated.

I want to add to that that we are pleased to also see this one here about complaints being received in regard to international students. That goes to what we are hoping we are going to see, which is some more accountability from those labour inspectors and others who are supposed to be protecting those educational visitors to our country from the exploitation that is taking place. And we know it is taking place—we have got case after case after case. What we are hearing from the PTEs is that they are ringing up to, again, inform the appropriate Government body that this exploitation is taking place, but nobody shows up. Nobody follows up. So, if this bill goes through, what we are hoping to see and what we would love to see from this Government is actually recognition that there are holes in the accountability problem, and that we need to front-end them. This Government has done a good job—and you can see that I am trying to be conciliatory—on increasing the penalties once we catch individuals at the other end, but we are not, as a nation, following up at the front end. We need to be responding to these complaints, both for our international education reputation beyond these shores, so that these young people are not exploited, but also because there is money involved here and it is New Zealand taxpayers’ money.

What we cannot support is the extension, basically, to charter schools that is inside this piece of legislation. That is where tertiary providers can then become a charter school sponsor. There are some interesting bits and pieces about separating these people out and so on and so forth, and the way that they would report downstream and what would be public and what would be private information because they would be a going concern, etc., etc. We just cannot support it—the concept of charter schools does not work. Public money should not be provided to private assets of a private business. This bill takes public institutions, which are our universities, and gives them the capacity to create a private arm and become a sponsor of a charter school. We cannot support the widening of that concept.

It is worth mentioning, too, that there is no conversation in here—even if those tertiary providers were able to start charter schools—of any of the network mapping around provision. That is what we are seeing, and this Government is having to deal with the downstream effects such as that on, say, Ara Institute of Canterbury, and so on, where private providers have opened up businesses to directly compete with the public provision—and it is all with taxpayers’ dollars. That is the worst part of this concept—70 percent of the course costs that are being paid into both the public provision and the PTE sector are from the taxpayer. So taxpayers are competing with themselves across a network over which there is no oversight. Do we need any more provision in that network? And if tertiary providers were there, we would now even have public provision competing with public provision. It does not make sense to us. We would not be supporting that.

There are a couple of other things here. There is the allowance for integrated schools and charter schools to bring international students under the discipline process out of school hours. Now, again, with Mahurangi College we have dealt with that before through the contracts that we have had with agents and with the students themselves. But, obviously, there has been a hole, because the courts have ruled on this. Now, you cannot argue with that.

I do have a problem, and I am asking: why are charter schools looking at international students? If we listen to the rhetoric of why charter schools were originally set up, how is it that charter schools need this protection for international students when, according to the Government and the whole of its logic and the whole of its rhetoric, charter schools were set up for New Zealand students who were underachieving? So are we going to now ask for international students who are underachieving to come into charter schools? Is this a worldwide hunt for indigenous peoples who are underachieving? Originally, charter schools were for Māori and Pasifika students who were underachieving here. So we do not understand why a charter school would need this provision for international students. We get it around integrated schools, but we do not get it around charter schools.

There are several other little bits and pieces that concern us, but I am not going to take the whole of my call, because I am really looking forward to hearing from the National members, whom I hope we will work with constructively in the Education and Science Committee, with a respectful interaction and an open-minded environment, as we move forward towards the 2017 election.

I am going to rise and take a quick call on this Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and I am going to do so knowing that in the debate that happened on Tuesday the purpose of the bill was discussed extensively. I just want to summarise again that this is about funding flexibility, and also, as the previous member, Tracey Martin, has indicated, this is about identifying and closing the gaps where there have been issues reaching the courts. It is about strengthening the accountability and monitoring of tertiary education organisations.

On consistency of treatment, I am going to say that my notes tell me that when it comes to making sure that the management of misconduct is tightened up so that it does not go before the courts, my understanding is that it is State and State-integrated schools. Clearly, your notes, Ms Martin, are indicating charter schools as well. No doubt, in the course of our collegial working relationship in the select committee, we will work through that one, but I think we both agree that this needs to be dealt with. In respect of the export education levy, however, those reimbursement provisions are to cover private and partnership schools kura hourua, and that, in fact, is something that does cover right across.

I am going to stop now because I think the important thing is that we have talked about the purposes of the bill. We are going to work together to make sure that we modernise the environment and make sure that it is keeping up, and that, in fact, is what this bill is all about. Thank you.

Could I seek leave for the House to adjourn at the conclusion of this debate or at 6 o’clock, whichever is earlier?

You certainly can. Is there any objection to that? No one is foolish enough. There appears to be no objection.

I have no objection to this proposal from the Government, for a change, for the House to rise early. However, I cannot support the bill. I saw a flicker of excitement ripple through the green leather chairs, in the moment a gasp of excitement rippled through the consciousness of the National Party members that perhaps they were not going to have to listen to me attack the privatisation of education—that I was, in the spirit of enjoyment and pleasure, going to support their bill, but no.

Consistency is very important in education, and after 8½ years on the Education and Science Committee, this speech will be a continuation of the one I made earlier, because what is happening in the tertiary sector is reminiscent of early childhood, and is also reminiscent of what is being proposed for the compulsory sector, and we do not like it. Although there are some really good, solid measures in this bill that we agree with, in terms of creating some clarity around some of the ongoing issues, there is a fundamental problem, and it has been identified not only by my colleague Gareth Hughes in his first speech on this bill, but also by the Tertiary Education Union. Fundamentally, if we start talking about flexibility in funding, meaning that the private institutions will be funded similarly, at the same rate and in the same way as the public, we are going to change the game, and the game is already very fragile.

When I say “fragile”, I would just like to quote from the stress dossier, which you may have heard of, that the Tertiary Education Union, in calling for a review, outlined because it received 500 anonymous comments about stress, in relation to this bill. This is not just stress—the human condition—which I am sure we know about; this is stress related to being in a tertiary education occupation. Where staff have been put under greater pressure, the union wanted to shine a light on what it is like to work in the tertiary education sector under the current regime, because it was very worried about this bill. It was worried that changes are being enshrined in law without it having a proper opportunity to have a thorough sector-wide review.

I just want to quote one aspect of the funding issue that was in the dossier: “Ever since funding was linked to retention and success there has been pressure from management to pass more students while at the same time wanting more full-time students.” These are very concerning comments. Another quote: “We have been required to remove all internal compulsory items from our course. Now all assessment items are no longer compulsory. This was done with the rationale that more passes means more funding”.

So flexibility in the tertiary sector can have “enormous” effects, particularly in the regions, and particularly when the education sector has become, at the tertiary level, highly competitive. As Sandra Grey said, we don’t want to see National “enshrine into law its guiding principle of putting profit before students without first reviewing the impact … on the quality of tertiary education.” I think that quote is very fair, as is the other quote I will read: “The review needs to hear directly from staff about what it’s like to work in the sector”, rather than staff having to “set aside their commitment to quality education and change marks to fit National’s funding priorities.”

What the dossier does is reveal unintended consequences that the tertiary funding model has created. It is not saying that this is a machiavellian plot to create a distortion in education. We do not even need Machiavelli around here; things just happen around here because of people’s possibly genuine belief that the market will fix everything, in the face of complete evidence to the contrary. But this bill will go to the Education and Science Committee, and we will look through it thoroughly. I hope that we will listen to the voices of the dossier, not the voices of people who are convinced that funding needs to be modernised to be more flexible, at the expense of the quality of our education system. Because, read my lips—market and quality ain’t the same thing. Kia ora.

We will not be supporting this bill. The reason, really, is that we are disappointed with the fact that this bill just serves to exacerbate the problem that we have in regard to the eroding of our public education system, in terms of our polytechnics and our universities, and the options, the spread, and the relevance that we have across our country. Basically, that is our concern in regard to what this bill will do. We do acknowledge that there are some provisions in this bill that we support, but we cannot support it when it continues to promote a privatised model of competition in tertiary education, because that model does not serve us well.

The amendments insert a principle of consistent funding treatment into the Act. This will mean that tertiary education providers that offer programmes of study that result in similar qualifications will be funded at the same rate. This is clearly another step in the privatisation agenda that has seen polytechnics being gutted in favour of private providers. The recent contestable funding process has seen a significant transfer of funding from public institutions to private institutions—regional polytechnics and institutes of technology are, basically, struggling for survival. Public institutions should continue to receive a differential level of funding, because, among other things, their capital investments remain in public ownership. Private establishments are under no obligation to continue to use their accumulated or publicly funded capital for education purposes.

I am not on the select committee but we have been kept informed about what this bill entails, so we will not be supporting this bill for those reasons, amongst others that some of the other speakers have mentioned this evening in the House.

It is always an extraordinary slot this, is it not—just before 6 o’clock on Thursday—

💬 Hon Member: Drivetime.

—drivetime. The sort of wave of collegiality that flows over this place is quite something. From Tracey Martin’s warm wish that we can hold hands together, figuratively, as parties as we reflect on the various submissions that this fine piece of legislation is going to receive, to the extraordinary observation of Catherine Delahunty as she stood up and felt almost a frisson of excitement at the opportunity to be able to support something that the National Government has put forward as solid legislation, and, of course that very kind offer from Kris Faafoi to hand me his notes on font size 26 so there would be no problem with me reading it—very good.

I am actually just going to talk about one particular part—it has been very well canvassed, all the various components of this, and, as we have already said, significant debate will ensue when we move to the select committee presently—and that is the section on international education and the proposals within the legislation in respect of managing international student misconduct. I have a particular interest in this because the school that had experience in this recently, Tauranga Boys’ College, is obviously in a part of the area that I am from—indeed, I used to go to that school many years ago. I felt at the time that the fact that the current model constrained it, in my view, from effectively disciplining international students in this case, in respect of behaviour that occurred outside the school hours, seemed to be somewhat nonsensical. So this particular component for me is common sense, and I am sure it will assist in providing clarity for those secondary schools that provide very good education for international students.

I do hope, as we go through the process, that we do not necessarily instantly run to our corners and labels. We have a tendency to do that, and even, at times, it has come through this debate. I do hope that between us we will actually have a real, solid debate, because, as we heard yesterday on the select committee when we had the Productivity Commission report, there are some profound questions that need to be reflected on with due consideration. This select committee process that we are going to follow is going to assist that. I very much look forward to that process, and I support this bill at its first reading.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa. As my colleagues have said, Labour will not be supporting the Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I have been in this Parliament for over 2½ years, and in that time I think I have spoken on five education bills—this is my fifth one. I thought I would reflect on some of the commonalities between them, because there are some, and I want to do that to highlight one particular fact in my assessment of this piece of legislation. That is that this bill—and it is only a small bill; not as big as some of the others, but there are parts of this, like the other bills that I have spoken on in this House, that reinforce the privatisation model that the Government is hell-bent on pursuing, without actually coming out and being honest and saying it. I look forward to the submissions on this, because some of the submissions—I think they were on the Education (Update) Amendment Bill—actually highlighted that fact; they explicitly said it. That was from the New Zealand Secondary Principals’ Council. So I look forward to its submission on this, along with others.

On one bill, the previous speaker said that children should be “fit for purpose”.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Who said that?

That was Todd Muller, in his contribution to the Education (Update) Amendment Bill. I think it was a slip of the tongue, because surely—surely—that could not be the position of the National Government; surely it could not be, although if it was it would give us some insight into its thinking about constructing these types of bills.

Coming to that very fact, in this bill, as my colleagues have mentioned, there are some things that are good and there are some things that are not so good. I want to address the ability for wānanga to be able to use the title, in a descriptive way, that they are an indigenous university. I think, as my colleagues on this side—we are open to that discussion. I am very familiar with the arguments around that. Having spoken to a number of the wānanga, there are challenges that they face in being recognised for the level of education that they deliver, so I think that is a good discussion to have.

I look forward to those submissions and, as I have mentioned in the Education (Update) Amendment Bill debate today, I want to hear the voice of young people—the young people who need to have their voice heard on this. At the Education and Science Committee only yesterday, we were discussing and looking at reports around Māori and Pasifika educational achievement. I want to hear that. I think it is critically important not only that the select committee hears those voices but that we listen to them as well.

So I add my voice to that process. One thing I do agree with Todd Muller on is that we need to work collectively and collaboratively to make sure that this is the best piece of legislation that it can be, and I look forward to that process. Kia ora.

It is an absolute pleasure to be talking on the Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I know other speakers have come in and traversed a lot of the topics on this bill. I just thought I might home in on just one little area. The main thing I want to start out by saying is that it is appropriate that the Government has focused on making sure that our tertiary education providers are doing the right thing and providing courses that are meaningful, especially for overseas students, and that students, when they come out of those courses, have a meaningful educational qualification. It is great that there have been a number of investigations recently to address that issue.

This bill, obviously, covers other areas around tertiary institutes, particularly around how they are funded, and, I think, also around improving accountability. I do note that the bill specifically allows the Tertiary Education Commission to set conditions on tertiary education organisation (TEO) funding, which will enable the commission to more effectively monitor TEOs and the wider tertiary system. Secondly, it will require tertiary education institutions to maintain accurate records of Government funding and how those moneys have been spent.

But the bit I like is how this bill actually specifically provides for the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to pursue action against tertiary educational organisations for falsely awarding credits to students who have not been appropriately assessed for those credits. This comes back to the integrity of our tertiary organisations, and I think it is fundamental that we do enhance and improve and make sure that our tertiary organisations are regarded as world best practice, as most of them are. This particular change in the bill I think should be welcomed, and on that basis—and I know there are a number of other great amendments in this bill—I do support the bill.

Just as a matter for noting in the House, when this bill was first debated, the Minister at that time, on behalf of the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment, indicated intent to move a further motion, which caused some discussion and a ruling from me, as I happened to be in the Chair at the time. Since then there has been further discussion, and no motion of that type will be moved.

The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 23 May 2017, pursuant to the very good leave promulgated by Mr Doocey.

The House adjourned at 5.36 p.m.