Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Well, Madam Chairperson, thank you for that. Timing is everything, and mine was just off. But that’s OK.

Look, I wanted to stand and have the discussion about wānanga, and the ability of wānanga to be able to apply to use the term “university”. It’s a conversation that I’ve had in my electorate quite a few times with some of our whare wānanga that find it a bit hard to compete when attracting international students. When you get overseas students that are looking for a place to study here in New Zealand, unfortunately, they don’t understand the term “whare wānanga” like we do here in New Zealand, so the ability to be able to use that is very good, and the fact that this bill is addressing that is also very good.

My question to the Minister is just around the flip side of this, I guess—so the ability for universities to be able to term themselves a “whare wānanga”. And I just wondered whether or not there were any submissions around that throughout the process because, whilst this bill deals with the ability for whare wānanga to be able to be called universities, on the other hand, is it just as easy for universities to call themselves whare wānanga? I think that it’s a valid point that I’d like to hear a wee bit more about.

There’s also the second part around the refund entitlements for domestic students enrolled in short courses at private training establishments and the refund entitlements of international students—so just making sure that we’ve got a balance when it comes to that. My question to the Minister in the chair, Chris Hipkins, around that is just around what kind of submissions were heard on behalf of students in that particular area of refunds. I’m just keen to know what the arguments were from those submitters.

I think it’s a great piece of legislation. It’s something that’s necessary, and, like I said earlier, I think that as we go into O-Week all around the country at whare wānanga, at polytechs, and at institutes of technology, I think it is very apt that we’re taking calls on this part of the bill, Part 2, right now. Thank you, Chair.

I’m very pleased to take a call in the committee stage of the legislation. Firstly, can I just acknowledge my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith, who couldn’t be here this evening. But he has tabled Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 17, which is about amending a particular section that is in Part 2, and I will be very focused in my comments to talk to Part 2, but I’m just going to weave in a few broader themes into those clauses as well.

So I just want to mention a couple of things. Firstly, it is important to understand what we’re trying to do here with this legislation and how Part 2 works. Firstly, the reason that the Hon Paul Goldsmith has made this SOP—and the SOP is absolutely focused on equal treatment of tertiary providers—is very simple. There is one point, and it has played out throughout this Government’s tenure of office: ideology, plain and simple—ideology before the opportunities of young people. The Hon Paul Goldsmith’s SOP—I’d encourage all members to read it—is about a very simple principle that we have some equal treatment for all tertiary providers, and that was taken out of the legislation by the Government members at select committee, and we oppose that.

I do want to mention, today, I found out that the Aspire scholarships, for a whole lot of disadvantaged young people, have been scrapped, and that is relevant to Part 2 of the bill because it demonstrates complete ideology—whether it’s scrapping partnership schools or getting rid of all these opportunities for young people. Again, I come back to this SOP and say it’s all about ideology. A whole lot of young people are missing out. Shame on the Government—shame on the Government—that a whole lot of young Māori and Pasifika students will not get opportunities, as a result of these scholarships, and these partnership schools as well are being scrapped. So we on this side of the Chamber are not afraid to make amendments like the Hon Paul Goldsmith has made to ensure that every New Zealander understands that we on this side of the House will do what’s right for young people and those on the opposite side of the House will do what is absolutely about being anti-ACT or about ideology.

Just coming back to Part 2 of the bill, can I also mention that we are supporting the bill. There are some very good provisions in Part 2. There are some very good provisions around community tertiary education providers. Again, if we come back to what the heart of this bill is about, it’s about lifting quality in terms of our tertiary sector. That’s why we supported the provisions in Part 2 in terms of improving compliance. We heard in Part 1, again, that this bill does enable us to ensure that we’ve got quality, and where we might have issues with international students—corrected quite rightly by the Hon Tracey Martin—we have the ability to deal with that.

So this is a good bill overall—and I want to acknowledge that on this side of the House we will scrutinise the Government and sometimes we will oppose—but there are some fundamental flaws, like the issue that the Hon Paul Goldsmith has tried to address. It does come back to a very strong theme that many New Zealanders are starting to understand, which is that on this side of the House everything we do is about the best opportunities for young people and on that side of the House everything is about ideology and taking opportunities away from those disadvantaged young people who were getting $16,000 scholarships. Three-hundred and fifty young Māori and Pasifika students since 2009 have got those scholarships, but no longer. Why? Because of hell-bent ideology, which is very important to Part 2 of this bill.

Kia ora, Madam Chairperson Tolley. Thank you very much. I rise to speak on Part 2 of the Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and I recognise the bill because I happened to be on the hard-working select committee that discussed these items. So I thank the Hon Nikki Kaye for her acknowledgment of the select committee and the fact that the work done by it, predominantly about this bill, in the last Parliament was very worthy work.

Can I address the two Supplementary Order Papers, Supplementary Order Paper 15, in the name—actually, I’m not sure who this is in the name of. Oh, I know, it’s in the name of the Minister. First of all, what it does is, in clause 36, after section 253C(3)(d), insert, “(e) in … case of a wānanga, consult with … persons or bodies who are knowledgable in … (Māori tradition) … and tikanga Māori … with a kaupapa Māori pedagogy as the Minister considers appropriate.”

This, I believe, is an eloquent solution to what was submitted to us, that wānanga—and I believe my colleague Tamati Coffey articulated it very clearly—that are also trying to attract international students, that are also trying to spread the pedagogy that is based in tikanga Māori to the world, have a problem with the understanding of what is Te Reo Māori. Nobody should be surprised by that, because Te Reo Māori lives here, which is why it’s so precious. It’s the only place that it actually lives—not to be confused with Cook Islands Maori.

So I think what the Minister has done—if the public go and have a look at who the Minister must consult with when an application is made to use the protected term “university”—provides wānanga with an opportunity to present themselves to the Minister of Education and for him or her to also consider both sides of what is the educational story around that narrative before making a decision whether a wānanga can actually use the protected term. And it’s appropriate because wānanga are producing a high level of education for many of our students, in a different model. It’s something unique to New Zealand, and it needs to be recognised, I believe, inside New Zealand law. So, certainly, New Zealand First will be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 15.

If I can go to Supplementary Order Paper 17, which, I believe, if I listened to the colleague that just resumed her seat, Nikki Kaye, is in the name of the Hon Paul Goldsmith. Now, this is merely an attempt—if I read it correctly, and perhaps the Minister could clarify for me—for the National Opposition to reintroduce a requirement for funding for private institutions, profit-making institutions, to be enshrined in law to be paid for by the public purse so that no future Government could possibly have the opportunity to fund the public sector—as in Public Service sector—at any different rate.

The argument that was made—

💬 Hon Louise Upston: What about choice?

The argument that was made, Ms Upston, was that if this is enshrined in law, there is also no opportunity for any future Government to actually fund a private training provider at a higher level. That was the conversation, and that was the context with which I put it to the then National Government members on that select committee. There may very well be in the future of this nation a requirement for any Government to fund at a higher level—let’s say, rural provision, regardless of who is providing that rural provision.

We’ve heard the word “ideology” bandied about here today—we’ve heard the word “ideology”. The fact that both of these pieces of ideology that have come into this House have been part of a negotiating deal with a political party—and that’s how they ended up a supply and confidence agreement, and that’s how they ended up in legislation—appears to have been overlooked.

That is not how this current coalition Government has made policy. The current coalition Government changed no policy at all when they actually entered into negotiations afterwards, so it’s very interesting to hear that, supposedly, from the Hon Nikki Kaye, the problem with the Government—and we will be opposing Supplementary Order Paper 17—is all about ideology. Actually, it’s about common sense. It’s about the fact that the rural provision of education that is required may mean that any future Government needs to address shortfalls, whether that is a public or whether that is a private institution. There’s nothing ideological about it; it’s practicalities.

What drove this Supplementary Order Paper, what drove this piece inside the original Part 2 of the legislation, was, actually, a desire to make sure that no future Government—and I think that, possibly, the current Opposition had a little bit of an instinct that the future Government might have a Labour Party in it; they wanted to try and tie it up before that happened.

Just with regard to the community tertiary education provider, I’m very pleased to see this amendment also inside Part 2 of the legislation. There was a suggestion put forward at the select committee by the original architects of the bill—which was the National Government at that time—that the reason why private training enterprises (PTEs) should not be called that is because some of them were not-for-profit. Interestingly enough, the argument was made by the many submitters on this bill that nobody used the phrase “PTE” or “private training establishment except officials”. So, front-facing out to the public, any private training provider can call themselves anything they like—nothing required them to call themselves private training providers.

But, for some reason, they did not wish to be known as that when they were dealing with ministries or when they were dealing with funding models. And, again, the argument was that there were a few of them, or a few people in that playing field, that were not-for-profit. Now, I think that we have to have a look at that “not-for-profit”, when CEOs are paid $200,000, or whatever, a year. I think there’s some interesting statements being paid by not-for-profits and by trusts in this field or in the field of education, where they are paying far too much money for chief executives (CEs). They set up a not-for-profit, they set up a trust, and then they become the CE, and they find themselves with a $200,000 salary. But what we have done here, and what the Minister of Education has very cleverly, I think, done here, is identify community tertiary education providers—so the real providers that are not-for-profit, those that truly serve the communities that are needy, that nobody can make any money from—

💬 Alastair Scott: So profitable organisations don’t serve?

—that nobody can make any money from, Mr Alastair Scott. I’m sure that is not a part of the organisations that you decide to talk to, but these are for those organisations that nobody makes any money from. They deliver a public service, and that’s who we’re trying to make sure can be identified through this term, which is the amendment of section 159 in clause 9.

Again, New Zealand First will be definitely supporting the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 15. We will not be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 17 from Mr Goldsmith, and we are pleased to see the amendment to include a descriptor that is the community tertiary education provider.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson Tolley—part two of my attempt to speak on Part 2. I’d like to touch on three matters: clause 16, clause 17, and the Hon Paul Goldsmith’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 17, in so far as it relates to Part 2. Clause 16, which inserts the catch-all words “conditions that the Commission considers [are] reasonably necessary to enable the Commission to effectively monitor the performance of organisations and the tertiary education sector generally.”—this is a good amendment to the Education Act 1989, and it gives, of course, the Tertiary Education Commission the tools that they need to hold organisations and industry to the high standards that we all expect. The name of the game here, of course, is increased monitoring and compliance.

Clause 17 amends section 159YD of the Education Act so that institutions that receive funding under section 159YA are no longer excluded from the requirement to keep records relating to the funding and to make those records available for inspection by the commission. This may sound like a small clause to highlight, but it’s indicative, again, that this bill of National Government origins ensures that the public entities like these are being held accountable for the public funds that they receive. No one will be excluded from keeping records and making them available for inspection, so it’s one rule to cover them all.

That’s why it’s so strange that the Government may not support tonight—I hope they do—the Hon Paul Goldsmith’s amendment. It, too, is one rule to cover them all. I’ll switch to SOP 17 now. We can see no reason why the Government has removed a clause, other than pure political ping-pong. Really! The Government of the day wants to remove the clause that ensures private providers of tertiary education receive equal funding to public providers of tertiary education. This, of course, fails to recognise how private institutions contribute to the education sector, and contribute well. If private providers are delivering results, being monitored, and being accountable for their funding—which, ironically, is what the bill is trying to do here tonight—what is the problem? “Private” is not a dirty word, so I urge all parties in the House tonight to support the SOP in the name of the Hon Paul Goldsmith.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson Tolley. I’ve been waiting all night to take a call on this great bill, and I want to offer a contribution on Supplementary Order Paper 15 in the name of the Minister of Education as it relates to the Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I think there’s a lot of context sitting around the amendment, so I’d be interested in the Minister’s clarification or insight as to what led to the particular amendment, but I am certainly pleased to see it. For a long time, wānanga have argued about and contested whether or not they can use the protected term of “university” as it relates to the provision of education within their particular institutions.

If we think about the wānanga, there are really three key wānanga that this term could relate to: Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi, Te Wānanga o Raukawa, and Te Wānanga o Aotearoa. In particular, I much suspect that the amendment will specifically relate to Te Wānanga o Raukawa and Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi, because both of those institutions offer postgraduate and graduate degrees. Much of the debate previously around whether or not they could use the term “university” is because, I think, there’s been some confusion over the type of offering of tertiary education—graduate and postgraduate degrees—and the way in which study takes place at the wānanga. If I am right to suppose that the context for the amendment better allows for the way in which they deliver the style of graduate and postgraduate education at their institutions, and that’s the reason for the amendment, then I am really pleased that that will be taken into consideration in terms of their funding mechanism.

The other reason is that people who have insight into those institutions will know that in fact if you undertake a graduate or postgraduate degree at those institutions, they do hold wānanga, for a period of a week, over a duration of a two- to three-year period in which you not only study, but you also use quite a bit of time to prepare for the equivalent of a thesis. They also host a range of opportunities to have one-on-one specialist time with the equivalent of a supervisor. The point of difference really is not only in the delivery of the programme and the access that you have to specialist supervisors or leaders of learning in your graduate programme, but it’s also in the fact that many of these degrees are actually done in Te Reo Māori.

Now, if you’re going to a normal institution, like the University of Waikato—I’m sure not many people will know that if you actually do your thesis in Te Reo Māori, the institution gets a higher rate of funding for that. So there is a campaign amongst some institutions to actually attract students who will not only do their degree—postgraduate study in education, for example—but you will get a higher dollar if you write it in Māori because of all the extra resources that a tertiary institution, a university, will have to attract in order to provide the competence and the skill to be able to assess and supervise in that way. Now, if this particular amendment helps better lift the quality and support the quality of teaching within an institution that leads to a thesis in Te Reo Māori, then I think we’re all better advantaged for it. But it’s more than that, as well, because it provides for the perspective or world view of Māori knowledge systems to be integrated within their chosen course of study.

I think, again, I’ve made a lot of broad assumptions around the context for an amendment like this, and the context for this type of amendment is also in the ability for wānanga to use a protected term, “university”. If I’m somewhat on the right track, I’d love an explanation from the Minister, but I know that this clause alone will be appreciated by those wānanga that are contributing quite a bit in the postgraduate space. Why is that important? Because many private organisations and companies are seeking skill and expertise from people who have mātauranga Māori at the core of their study.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson Tolley. I’d like to reply to a couple of the points that have been raised so far, and I’ll start with a point raised by the Hon Paul Goldsmith just prior to the dinner break. He was speaking on Part 1, but he was actually making points relevant to Part 2. So I will respond to the concerns that he raised about Part 2, even though he was speaking on Part 1 at the time.

The allegation that he made was that the Government have made a number of changes to Part 2 without sending them to a select committee. In fact, I’m surprised by that, because he is a member of the select committee and the changes that we are debating in this bill have all been proposed by the select committee. This is not as a result of a substantive Supplementary Order Paper being tabled in this House, as Mr Goldsmith proposed. In fact, these are changes made by the select committee in response to submissions.

The concern that he had was that we were progressing these changes without the public having had a chance to have their say on it; that’s simply not the case. In fact, the changes that the select committee made were very much in line with the concerns that the public raised during the select committee process. So we could get into a very circular argument about this—that if every time a select committee made a change to a bill it had to reconsult, you would get to the point where the committee could never actually report the bill back to the House. So the committee made changes in accordance with the public submissions and has reported back to the House, so I think Mr Goldsmith needs to worry a little less about the democracy there.

But the wider substantive point that’s been raised in relation to his Supplementary Order Paper is around the equal treatment provisions regarding funding for tertiary institutions, and I want to refer members to new section 159NA in clause 12, which is the deleted part of the bill. The provisions previously proposed by Mr Goldsmith—because this was his bill—have been deleted by the select committee. If I turn particularly to clause 4, “For the purposes of this section”, it says “(a) activities are directly comparable if the proposed outcomes in relation to the activities are the same or substantially the same; and (b) approved programmes or training schemes are directly comparable if the qualifications resulting from their successful completion are the same or substantially the same.”

I just want the committee to consider for a moment the potential implications of that principle that we are putting in here. We currently fund degree-level programmes differently, based on the type of institution they are delivered by. A degree-level programme at a polytechnic may not receive the same level of funding as a comparable degree-level programme being delivered by a university. Is the National Party seriously saying that that should change? I’d like to hear their contribution on that.

The other point that I’d like to hear their contribution on is the position that they have left our regional polytechnics in, because this is a very real issue that this Government will face, and this is where this does come into play. We are going to have to put additional money into our regional polytechnics if they are not going to go broke. Tai Poutini Polytechnic, for example, today—we will be announcing very soon some additional funding for them. They are going to have to have that or they’re going to be completely broke. In fact, they’re barely solvent now. The previous Government employed, effectively, a commissioner to go in and run that institution because it was in such dire financial straits.

Is the previous Government, now the National Opposition, seriously saying that the Government should not put any additional funding into the public institutions unless they are willing to put a corresponding amount into private institutions as well?

They’re very quiet, suddenly, but I would very much like to hear from them about that, because this is the very real issue that this Government has been confronted with. We have a network of regional institutions—public institutions owned by the Crown—that are in serious financial difficulty, and this Government is not going to let them go broke. The previous Government was quite happy to let them fall over, because of their ideology—the ideology that underpins this amendment that says that, actually, it doesn’t matter whether an institution is public or private. It’s fine for the private providers to come in and hoover up the profitable bits, leave the unprofitable bits with the public institutions, let them fall over, and then let the regions lose their regional polytech provision. That was the approach taken by the previous Government, and it is not the approach that is going to be taken by this Government.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson Tolley. I appreciate the opportunity. I’d like to begin by acknowledging what the Minister just mentioned about the regional polytechs. I can certainly vouch for that, having travelled around the country and been involved in education before coming to the House—that many of our regional polytechs are struggling. It’s important that the Government take stock of that and look at how we can assist our public institutions in that way.

In terms of the bill, I’d like to focus on clauses 12 and 13. Just a little bit of background to clauses 12 and 13: when the bill was first put forward by the previous Government, clause 12 inserted the new section 159NA, which concerned the principle of equal treatment of all tertiary education providers—so, essentially, saying that both public and private would get the same amount of money. Then clause 13 relates to that—which amends section 159O to require the Tertiary Education Commission to have regard to the principle of equal treatment of all tertiary education providers.

Now, these two clauses received 2,035 submissions—2,035. That’s a significant number of submissions, and the submissions came from a range of areas, like University of Auckland, Universities New Zealand, the Tertiary Education Union—they came from a range of areas. So what’s happened is that with the change of Government, we’ve made amendments to these clauses, and the amendments can be outlined here, in new section 159OA, “Variation of determination of design of funding mechanisms”, inserted by clause 14. I’d just like to focus on that for a couple of minutes, and I’ve got a couple of question for the Minister, if he’d be so kind to answer them as well.

Now, when I read about this, about the determination of funding, where the Minister may vary the determination of the design of the funding mechanisms, it’s basically about valuing our public education system. It’s about saying, “Look, this is a Crown-owned entity and it must be supported.” There’s a phrase here that I’d like to use that relates to this bill, and that’s the fact that education is, first and foremost, a public good. The definition of public good is “A commodity or service that is provided without profit to all members of a society for the well-being of the public.” I wonder if the Minister would like to elaborate on the aspect of education being a public good, and how this bill will support public education providers and, in doing so, support students. So how will students on the ground be practically supported by this bill?

Now, if we have a look, going back to this section 159OA, there are a number of safeguards. There’s a number of safeguards if you look at subsection (2) here: “The Minister may only vary a determination—(a) if it is reasonably necessary to do so; and (b) by making changes in relation to the matters mentioned in section 159L(2).” Then it moves on to talk about consultation, and I think this is a very important point here. It says in subsection (3) there: “Before deciding to vary a determination, the Minister must consult—(a) all organisations that would be affected by a variation that the Minister proposes; and”—secondly—“(b) all other persons and organisations that the Minister considers ought to be consulted.” If I could ask the Minister a second question there, he might want to elaborate around the importance of consultation and what form that consultation will take. Then we move on to subsection (3A) there: “However, the Minister is not required to consult under.” some various areas.

So just summarising my points there, the first one is around the aspect of education being a public good—so how will the Government investing in public education support students, as opposed to what the bill previously sought to do, which was to give equal treatment to both public and private. So why has the Minister focused on the public aspect, and how will that benefit our students? The second is around the point of consultation. Having been a member of this Government for five months, there is a strong sense of collaboration that I’ve noticed from this Government, and I sense a real focus on collaboration, on consultation, and it’s something that I find very encouraging. So I look forward to hearing from the Minister exactly how he practically plans to consult before deciding to vary determination. Thank you.

Madam Chairperson Tolley, thank you very much. I wanted to pick up a short call, specifically on a couple of points raised by the National Party members, both Denise Lee and the Hon Nikki Kaye, particularly when the Hon Nikki Kaye got quite passionate and righteous about the damage that this was going to do for—I think she mentioned—a few hundred Māori and Pacific children, which we do like to talk about here in the Chamber, and how it was going to harm them. She was referring, I think, specifically to private education arrangements, including charter schools. I know this is the Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, but it does relate to Part 2 and, particularly, to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 17 from the Hon Paul Goldsmith, which, essentially, from what I’m reading, is about continuing with the ideological drive for privatising tertiary education and, particularly, allowing them to have a bit of a bite at public moneys.

So what I wanted to pick up on there is that privatisation is a failed response to when you have gutted funding from public education, when you haven’t paid teachers and tutors correctly, and when you haven’t provided for the education resources. When you are gutting and underfunding public education, that then allows for an ideological response, which is exactly what the previous National Government were trying to do with their original version of this legislation. So it is important that we keep actually saying: who are the ideological ones here?

It’s about making sure that we are clear and up front about the difference between private tertiary institutions and public tertiary institutions, and my understanding in Part 2 is that that was how we were going to start muddying those lines of differentiation, by trying to play around with the definitions and, I think, calling them independent—the proposal was to start to take away the word “private” and instead start calling tertiary institutions independent. That was the roundabout way, I believe—that’s, I think, what this Supplementary Order Paper is about. The Supplementary Order Paper from the National member is trying to put back in that attempt to continue with the privatisation ideology. The reason why the Greens support this now is because this part of the legislation, Part 2—I think it’s after clause 11—was taken out by a smart education Minister, Chris Hipkins, who understands that we do not want to continue to use more public moneys for private institutions. Public money is for public education. The member Paul Goldsmith’s SOP tries to put it back in—tries to put that ideology back in—so of course the Greens will be opposing this Supplementary Order Paper.

When we stand in this Chamber and we throw on to the floor of this debate Māori and Pacific children, who, apparently, are going to lose private contract funding through this legislation, we need to call that out, because we need to also throw on to the floor of this debate the hundreds of thousands of Māori and Pacific students who do not fare well when we gut public education. So if you want to throw numbers and throw Māori and Pacific Island students—I didn’t do it first—on this floor, how about we—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I didn’t do it at all, all right?

—throw on to the floor of this debate the hundreds of thousands who have not benefited from the very privatisation ideology that this legislation is trying to correct. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson Tolley.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Oh, good.

I know, my third time—third time lucky, they say, so I’ll give it another crack. There are several sections and clauses in Part 2 that are worth mentioning that haven’t been spoken about yet, but I would like to get something off my chest that we’ve been talking about quite a lot, which is the deletion of clauses 12 and 13, which go to the heart of the Supplementary Order Paper that has been put in by the other side of the House.

Ideology is not a dirty word. When the Hon Nikki Kaye left, she was getting very passionate about our ideology, and our ideology about people first—people before profit—is nothing to be ashamed about. Now, what the equal treatment principle would have done, as pointed out very eloquently by the Minister, is it would have given the same funding to private and public entities—as the other side likes to call it, one rule for all—where, at the same time, the other rules are not equally applying. You can’t have the same funding for private and public entities but not the same rules. You can’t have the same funding and public entities being accountable to the Government while private entities are not. So don’t call it equal treatment, because it is as far away as you can get from it.

What this equity of funding treatment would have done is it would have allowed private entities to go into unfair competition with our public entities, and that, ultimately, will start eroding the quality of our public entities, which are already stressed by having to compete with private providers. Yes, this has gone to the select committee, as has been pointed out by the Minister. More than 2,000 submissions from individuals and groups were heard and seen and perused by the select committee. None of them supported the change from private to independent. The majority of the 2,000-plus submitters did not support providing the same funding for private and public entities. There’s a Council of Trade Unions submission on behalf of 320,000 members that stated it quite succinctly when it said that they oppose public funding being used to subsidise for-profit private training establishments competing with public TEIs—oh, so many acronyms: TEI, not to be confused with the PTE, but the TEP includes all TEIs plus PTEs, but a TEO includes a TEI, a PTE, and an ITO. So you wonder why I got confused.

Anyway, where was I? Right, there are other provisions I want to talk about in Part 2. What Part 2 also does is it improves significantly the efficiency and effectiveness of the tertiary education institutions’ councils—I’ve got that acronym now. There’s a couple of things—clause 26 to start with. So councils are now no longer required to fill a casual vacancy on the council if that arises more than three months before expiry. So it really is insufficient time to go through a proper process to replace an incumbent, to get that person up to speed and appoint a successor. So what clause 26 does is extends that three months to six months, and that will be giving a good breather to those councils.

I have been on councils like that myself, and when people leave halfway through the term and you’ve only got a few months to go, you’re spending quite a lot of time and effort on trying to replace the person on that council. Sometimes, you’re even starting that process of getting them up to speed on all the knowledge, making them a small to medium sized enterprise, and before you know it, there’s another election and it’s, basically, all wasted. So that’s a really practical, wonderful addition to Part 2.

Clause 27 modernises the operation of the tertiary education institutions’ councils. At the moment, a council has to convene a meeting of council members in person. There’s actually no provision where you can conduct a meeting in any way other than face to face. So the legislation, in effect, restricts the ability to use any modern means such as electronics or digital media to have those meetings. So clause 27 amends section 178.

I move, That the question be now put.

Kia ora, Madam Chairperson Williams. Thank you very much. I did contribute earlier, but I actually want to just raise a couple of other areas in Part 2. The first part that I would actually like to address is the removal of new section 178A. Now, that was something that had been put in by the original authors of the bill, which was the previous administration, and it’s 178A, “Written resolutions of councils”. This has been removed. What it originally said was “(1) A resolution signed or assented to in writing (whether sent by post, delivery, or electronic communication) by all members of the council who are entitled to vote on the matter is as valid and effectual as if it had been passed at a meeting of the council.”

Now, I think, quite rightly, New Zealand First supports the removal of clause 28 inserting new section 178A from the original piece of legislation. This clause would have meant that councils could make decisions behind closed doors, and I don’t think that anybody would accept, when these are public institutions or when there are students who are paying fees and are affected by the rules that would be made or the written resolutions that would be made by councils, that it is appropriate that councils could—whether it be a series of emails or whether it be a series of phone calls—just decide away from the public face, away from stakeholders, and make decisions that will then, downstream, affect the students. So, I think, actually, the removal of new section 178A, “Written resolutions of councils”, is a very good removal, and we compliment the Minister upon that.

If we then talk about the replacement—so another clause that has been removed so that we can improve this piece of legislation is the removal, in clause 38, of new section 292C(2A). It previously said, “A person commits an offence—(a) who knowingly or recklessly makes a false representation on a student’s record of achievement that the student has achieved a credit: (b) who without reasonable excuse causes a false representation to be made on a student’s record of achievement that the student has achieved a credit.” Now, I would have to say this. This is based on real cases where fraudulent records were made of a student achievement. However, this Government is replacing section 292C(3) with “A person commits an offence if the person—(a) enters or changes an educational outcome on a student’s record of achievement, knowing that or being reckless as to whether the entry or change has the effect of falsifying the student’s record;”—that is, we make it clearer that it is deliberate. That’s something that I find very interesting—that the previous administration did not go that far. We are making it very, very clear that if it is deliberate, you will be held to account.

Replacement section 292C(3)(b) says, “fails to enter an educational outcome on a student’s record of achievement, knowing that or being reckless as to whether the omission has the effect of falsifying the student’s record;”. Now, people might think that’s odd that we’ve talked about an omission, but what we had was a particular case where a particular tutor passed certain students knowing—and with evidence—that they had failed, and yet because they perhaps didn’t like or they did not get some sort of compensation from other students who had passed or could have passed, the tutor did not enter those marks.

Now, this is something that for the reputation of our nation, for the reputation of international students and the international student industry in this country—a $4.5 billion industry—we must stamp out. This Government will be very, very, very clear that we have a high-quality, highly accountable international student industry in this country. We will support it to be that high-level, highly reputable international student industry, and to do that we will stamp out situations that we heard of through submissions. I compliment the Minister for replacing section 292C(3), because it needed to be stronger than what the previous administration had put into place.

Thank you, Madam Chair Williams. I just want to comment briefly on the “Meetings of councils” clause, clause 27, which the Hon Tracey Martin just mentioned, because this is something that was discussed in the Education and Workforce Committee at great length and, actually, something that I spent a little bit of time on, once I became the Minister, familiarising myself with the rules around that. It seems to me that we’ve got two pieces of legislation. One is the Education Act, which we’re amending here, and the other is the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, the LGOIM Act, which have some conflicting provisions. I think, at some point, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act also needs to be updated to reflect the fact that there’s now a whole range of technology available to allow meetings to be conducted more efficiently, for it to allow business to be conducted more efficiently, and I’m not convinced that that Act is actually enabling enough to allow all those bodies that are subject to it to do the things that they could do.

But, anyway, moving to the specific provisions that we’re doing here, we’re basically bringing this Act into the 21st century by allowing meetings to take place through audio, audiovisual, or other electronic communication, but there are some safeguards in place, and those are that they can do so provided that each member who wishes to participate has access to technology that will allow them to do so—and that’s very important—and a quorum of members can simultaneously communicate with each other throughout the meeting. So it’s not removing the requirement for people to actually meet; it’s just meaning they don’t have to physically be in the same place.

What the committee did stop short of was the written resolution alternative, which would be that a meeting would not need to be convened in any way, that a council could simply pass a resolution, say, via email, for example, in a written form without actually meeting. The general view, and the advice that we received, was that this would actually be in conflict with the requirement for meetings to be held in public, for the public to be able to follow what was going on, and therefore a closed-shop email loop, for example, to pass a resolution would not be in accordance with that. Now, somebody—I can’t remember who—then raised the question, “Well, what about a teleconference, for example—is that open to the public? Or a video conference?”, and the answer to that question is yes, it does need to be. And the provisions in this bill make it very clear that that needs to be done in a way that is publicly transparent as well. So there isn’t actually a conflict between removing the ability to pass a written resolution and still allowing a council to meet using digital meeting technology, because the digital meeting technology would still have to allow for that public transparency.

So the Minister of Local Government has been participating in this debate, and I hope that at some point the relevant provisions in the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act will be updated, because, to some extent, what we were trying to achieve here, which was a more efficient and streamlined way for the councils of tertiary institutions to conduct their business, is to some extent limited by our desire not to create inconsistencies between the two Acts. I think that that’s something that, in time, I’m sure the Parliament will be wanting to address.

Thank you, Madam Chair Williams. I’m pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill in the committee of the whole House stage. As we know, it’s about strengthening the accountability of the tertiary education sector etc., etc. A lot of my colleagues on this side of the House have talked about the fact that our public institutions are of extremely high calibre and, as I’ve said, I think we all agree on that. But I particularly would like to speak about Part 2 and clause 36, and I do have some questions for the Minister about this, but I will come to that soon. So, as we know, we’ve had over 2,000 submissions with regard to this bill, so I think it’s fair to say that it is of high public interest—well, reasonable public interest—with that many submissions, and I think that’s really good to see that people are contributing in that way.

I want to particularly refer to the amendments to section 253C in clause 36, where we’ve changed the heading and replaced it to say that the “Minister may consent to use of certain terms in name or description of registered establishment or wananga”. So, further down from that, we have replacement subsection 2 and new subsection 2A, which allows for registered establishments and wānanga to ask the Minister to consent for them to apply to describe themselves as a university, a polytechnic, or an institute of technology. So there were quite a few submissions opposing this, based on concerns about reputation risk. As we know, our universities and public institutions are ranked among the top 500 in the world. Rightly so, there were some concerns about this, but I think that with the changes to subsection 5, where the conditions have been put in place—and I note particularly replacement subsection 5(b) and (c): to “(b) ensure adequate protection of the quality and reputation of the institutions that may use the term without applying to do so; and (c) protect the interests of the tertiary education system and the nation as a whole.” So I think these changes in clause 36 strike an appropriate balance between protecting the integrity of New Zealand’s university system while giving the Minister discretion to allow wānanga to use the term “university”.

The other side of the argument here was that some wānanga feel that not being able to describe themselves using the term “university” has hampered their ability to market themselves as a credible option for students, particularly from overseas, as a viable study option, so I have some questions around that. Specifically, I want to know from the Minister what specific characteristics or what criteria the Minister would take into account before deciding to give wānanga and registered institutions the ability to use the description of “university” or such things as that.

The other thing that I would like to highlight on the argument side of wānanga wanting to use the term “university” as a description for themselves is that, often, their courses and programmes meet the required standards of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and they are held to the same level of performance as universities, so it’s, kind of, only fair that they should be able to apply for consent to describe themselves as one of the options that I’ve already mentioned previously.

I also have another question for the Minister with reference to Supplementary Order Paper 15, which states that “in the case of a wānanga, consult with such persons or bodies who are knowledgable in āhuatanga Māori … and tikanga Māori … within a kaupapa Māori pedagogy as the Minister considers appropriate.” So what I’d like to know is whom or which persons or bodies the Minister would consider to be appropriate.

One last thing, I have another question with regard to new section 253C(5A), inserted by section 36, which states, “The Minister may, at any time, carry out a review of a registered establishment or wananga …”, and I want to know under what situation or circumstances he would review.

Thank you, Madam Chair Williams. I have a number of questions for the Minister in respect of this amendment bill, and they are really around the integrity of the system. I must say, given the export earner that education is in New Zealand, I entirely understand the importance of maintaining the integrity of the system. Firstly, there are some concerns that they don’t go far enough, and then there are some concerns that other things could have been done that perhaps go a little further.

Clause 9 of the bill defines “educational outcome”, and I’m just wondering if the Minister might give a view on exactly how far that goes, because that feeds into an offence provision about falsifying educational outcomes, including all components of student achievement. If we do look at the offence itself, I guess I do have some concerns that it might catch some people who are fairly low down the academic chain. We have junior tutors marking papers and so on who may indeed come under some pressure—may perhaps misstep—but I’m wondering whether a falsification by some junior tutor, who may themselves be a student, really needs to invoke the full force of this legislation, or does that definition perhaps really mean something else and it means perhaps a full-time academic embarking on that conduct or something like that? So that’s my first question, and that comes out of clause 9, which feeds into clause 38.

Clause 38 increases the fine for falsification to $50,000, and I do note that that is a significant fine. I understand entirely the need for disincentive—and this is kind of a double banger, because in one sense I’m asking: is that too excessive? Is it comparable to other offences? Is there a wider justification for the magnitude of that fine? I’m suspecting the Minister will come back and say “Indeed, it is.” and give good reason for that. If that’s the case, the question for the Minister is: should that then be rolled out across the Act more widely, because a number of the other sections of the Act—the first offence section is section 292, Minister, and then the other parts of the section, section 292A to C, also have offences. But as I read it—and I may have this wrong—those offences remain at $10,000. So the question is: shouldn’t we be amending these all at once and having a much more even approach?

My final point—and I don’t intend to take too long here—is around clause 37, the use of protected terms. There is, of course, a list of protected terms, which I entirely endorse, including “wānanga”, and then the question I have is whether we should be having a catch-all provision in there. There is some concern that many private providers dress themselves up with coats of arms and the words “College”, the “New Zealand” this, the “Institute” of that, and they’re presenting themselves as if they have the imprimatur of the State, and that is dangerous. A private provider is one thing: it is subject to a qualifications regime, but it is no more than a private provider, whereas a university goes through a much more rigorous process, and anything that is, in fact, an arm of the New Zealand Government and the New Zealand education system is something quite different. My question to the Minister is whether consideration had been given to broadening that out to say that any educational institution who engages in misleading conduct as to the nature of their institution or its origins and relationships is indeed committing an offence.

So there really are four points there, and I would very much like to know the Minister’s thinking in respect of each of them. Thank you very much.

I move, That the question be now put.

Madam Chair Williams, thank you so much for this opportunity to speak on this Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I would like to talk about two Supplementary Order Papers (SOP)—the honourable Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 15; and I’d also like to address the Hon Paul Goldsmith’s Supplementary Order Paper 17—as well as the use of the term “university” by wānanga.

I’d like to begin with the Hon Paul Goldsmith’s SOP, and I refer to proposed new section 159NA, inserted by proposed new clause 12, where it states: “Funding mechanisms consistent with [the] principle of equal treatment of all tertiary education providers”. Subsection (1) states that “Every funding mechanism must be consistent with the principle that an activity or [an] approved programme or training scheme is to be funded at the same rate … directly comparable activity [to be approved by the programme training scheme] regardless of the identities of the tertiary education providers concerned.” Now, one reads this to mean that when any of our students attend a private training establishment, a PTE, and if a similar student was to attend a university to study a course that is similar—if this SOP was to be approved—the PTE and the university would be paid at exactly the same rate.

Now, herein lies one of the major differences between those of us on this side of the House and those on the opposite side of the House. We do not agree with privatisation of our education system. Our education system in Aotearoa New Zealand is world class. We would like to retain that world-class education system. However, we will do it by making sure that our education is fair and equitable for everyone. Now, another major difference between this this side of the House and the Opposition side of the House when it comes to education is the focus that we have, especially for our most vulnerable children—our Māori students, our Pasifika students—and how they are dealt with in the education system.

When we look at availability and accessibility of tertiary education, one of the things that has been mentioned is our polytechnics. Now, regional polytechnics have been discussed before—the fact that they haven’t been funded adequately. The outgoing Government did not fund our tertiary education system—especially our regional polytechnics—adequately, but what I can say is that I can say the same thing of Auckland polytechnics. The polytechnics in Auckland—for instance, MIT, the Manukau Institute of Technology, which is in Ōtara, as well as Unitec—have also not been getting adequate funding. Therein lies the difference on this side of the House, and our opposition to this SOP is because we will continue to ensure that we will fund the State education system adequately and we will ensure that all of our students, regardless of where they live and regardless of their socio-economic status, get access to good education, right throughout Aotearoa New Zealand.

The SOP of our honourable Minister, the Hon Chris Hipkins—in proposed new section 253C(3)(e) in new clause 36(5B), it states: “in … case of a wānanga, [we would] consult with such persons or bodies who are knowledgeable in āhuatanga Māori ([which is] Māori tradition) and tikanga Māori (Māori custom) within a kaupapa Māori pedagogy as the Minister considers appropriate.” Now, I have one question to the Minister about this particular SOP: who would the Minister need to consult with, with regard to the SOP that he’s proposing?

Now, the last thing that I would like to discuss is with regard to the use of the term “university” by wānanga. We know that under this particular legislation, when and if we pass it, a wānanga would have to apply—so the three wānangas that we have, Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, Te Wānanga o Raukawa, and Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi, would have to apply to the Minister for consent before they could describe themselves by using the term “university”. Now, I have a few questions for the honourable Minister. If a wānanga is granted consent to use the term “university”, would it then legally be called a university, honourable Minister?

The second question is: is there a risk that students and employers, especially ones overseas, who might be coming to attend one of our wānangas—may they be confused or misled into thinking that a wānanga is a university in the same way as Victoria University or the University of Auckland is?

And my last question, honourable Minister—and this is in reflecting with quite a few of the vice-chancellors that came and presented to us. Some of them, of course, did not agree that wānanga should be allowed to use the term “university” and they thought that it should be kept as a protected term. Now, in allowing wānanga to use “university”, would we create a reputational risk for Aotearoa New Zealand, and, if not, how can this risk be managed? Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair Williams. It’s a pleasure to take a very, very quick call on the Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill in its committee stage. I’ve got a question for the Minister: why are we here extending the debate on a bill that we all agree on? We all agree on this bill, and there are Ministers down here in the Chamber asking other Ministers minor questions like “What is the definition of the term ‘university’?” Well, I really want to know what the definition of the term “university” is. Or the other comment was “when and if we pass this bill”. Well, we are ready and we are willing to pass this bill and get on with it.

So that’s a very quick call. I don’t want to take up the committee’s time, but let’s just get on and pass this bill. Thank you.

I’m very happy to respond to that brief contribution from Simeon Brown, asking why we are here discussing this particular bill. That’s because that’s our job. It’s what the Parliament does. We scrutinise legislation in this House, and the fact that we have the largest and laziest Opposition New Zealand has ever seen should not detract from the fact that the Parliament still has a job of scrutinising the legislation that is being put before it.

It’s interesting, isn’t it, that the Opposition put forward a Supplementary Order Paper—an amendment to a provision of this legislation, which they think is so controversial they should change it—and now they can’t be bothered speaking to it. They’re too busy. They want to scurry on home. They don’t want to actually debate their own provisions—the changes that they want to make to this bill. It’s not unanimous. If it was unanimous, they wouldn’t be trying to change it. So I’m somewhat confused by the confused position the Opposition seems to be taking on this matter.

However, I do want to clarify one or two of the claims that have been made in the very brief contributions that have been made by the Opposition members—all four minutes or so of it—that we’ve heard so far this evening. When it comes to the issue around private training establishments (PTEs), that is because we are changing—we are rejecting the previous Government’s proposal to rename private training establishments as independent tertiary institutions. That was the proposal put forward by the previous Government, and it was strongly opposed by the universities, by the polytechnics, and by many of those who submitted during the select committee process. Why? Well, the reason for the opposition was quite clear. They are independent. The universities and the polytechnics are independent, and particularly the universities—they actually have legal independence. It’s enshrined in the Act. They were concerned that by calling private training establishments independent tertiary institutions, that would somewhat confuse that, and I think that’s a legitimate point.

There were some issues raised by private training establishments, which felt that the PTE descriptor was not accurately reflective of the very broad array of different types of education providers that exist within it. I think that is fair, and the Government thinks that that is fair, because there are a number of community organisations that, under the law, are actually technically currently called private training establishments when there’s nothing private about them. They’re often incorporated societies or various forms of other public not-for-profit entities, and at the moment they are described as PTEs. That’s the reason why I have proposed inserting a new category called “community tertiary education provider”, which would, basically, allow for that to be recognised—that breadth that’s currently lumped within the PTE sector to be recognised in a more diverse way.

I want to talk then about the issues around the term “university”. The National member who spoke said, “Oh, why are we debating what’s meant by ‘university’?” It’s actually one of the most controversial issues for the universities at the moment, as to what could be a university and what shouldn’t. The universities will fight very passionately about what the definition of a “university” is, and I think that they have a legitimate point.

But I want to talk in particular about the controversy, which is the previous Government’s desire—and a desire that’s been adopted with slight refinement by this Government—to allow wānanga the ability to apply to use the term “university”. I want in particular to talk about the things that would need to be taken into account by a Minister when they were deciding whether or not a PTE or a wānanga—because at the moment, a PTE can apply to be called a university, but not a wānanga. So a PTE can use the term, but a wānanga can’t, and that’s something that Parliament, I think, would find very difficult to justify, and that is one of the reasons we want to change that.

But what are the things that the Minister would take into account when making that consideration? The first thing is that the Minister—so if it was me, or whoever takes the job next—must take into account the characteristics of institutions described in section 162(4) of the Education Act. In other words, they have to take into account the characteristics of a university. So in order for a wānanga or a PTE to use the term “university”, the Minister, in doing that, would have to consider the extent to which they met the definition of a “university” in the Act. So this is not guaranteeing that the wānanga can use the term “university”, and I think that’s important. What this is doing is it’s allowing the wānanga their day in court, if you like, or their ability to apply and have their case considered.

The Minister must also, in the process, receive advice from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Tertiary Education Commission, must require conditions to ensure the public is informed of the legal status of the institution and to “protect the interests of the tertiary education system and the nation as a whole.”, and must “consult with [the] institutions, organisations representing institutions, and other relevant bodies, … the Minister considers appropriate.” One would think that the universities collectively, in the form of Universities New Zealand, which is technically the Vice-Chancellors Committee, would be one of those bodies.

I have to say that one of the clauses here, that “the Minister considers appropriate”, is one of the things that I previously criticised the last Government for. I actually think, when it comes to consultation provisions in legislation, we should actually be a little more detailed in what consultation is required rather than simply saying “whoever the Minister feels like consulting.” So I think that’s something that in a future bill maybe the Parliament will want to come back to. I think that, given the controversy around things like this, actually being a little more specific, guaranteeing, for example, that the current universities would need to be consulted when a new institution is applying to use the term—that’s actually quite a reasonable thing. I think that’s something that in the future, in another bill, the Parliament might want to consider.

I am comfortable overall. I have had representations from the universities, who are not happy about this provision. I am, however, comfortable that there are enough safeguards in place to ensure that the reputational standing of our universities can be protected, and that the term “university” is not going to be undermined by allowing wānanga to apply to use it. In order to use it they will need to, basically, demonstrate that they meet the criteria to use it, and, therefore, I think that this is a pretty straightforward decision.

I move, That the question be now put.

Before I take another call, I just want to say that I think that we haven’t been going for an hour yet. I’m still encouraged by the breadth of the debate, so I won’t be taking a closure motion at this stage.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Can I just seek your explanation? Are you saying that it is the time of the debate or the quality and the relevance of the debate, because if it’s the latter, we’ve heard nothing of any relevance whatsoever.

Thank you. Part 2 of this bill is actually the substantial part of the bill. So I’m prepared to listen to more debate on Part 2.

Madam Chair Williams, thank you for the opportunity to speak, which I assure the member will be a quality presentation, so the member can take notes if the member so wants to.

I want to look at section 292C in clause 38, which I don’t believe has been covered yet, and that’s around the accuracy of data. Now, our education system relies on accurate data. This is absolutely vital for our educational system to work. Now, I realise the members on the opposite side have had a leadership change, and if this is an example of the new leadership, then I’m a little bit confused, because we haven’t had any—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Relevance. Relevance.

I’m just responding to the member—but we haven’t had any quality conversations from the other side. But I’ll leave that to the Minister, and I’ll return to the bill.

So in terms of the accuracy of data, it says here “A person commits an offence if the person—(a) enters or changes an educational outcome on a student’s record of achievement, knowing that or being reckless as to whether the entry or change has the effect of falsifying the student’s record;”. This is vital, because, as I said before, our education system relies heavily on the accuracy of data. This is in stark contrast to what we’ve seen under the previous Government around national standards.

Just to juxtapose the two and explore this a little bit, in terms of national standards, I once spoke to a principal—obviously, I won’t mention her name—who said that she entered national standards data that went to the ministry and she got a message back saying, “This is not correct.” She knew it was correct, and so she had to change it in order for it to be accepted. So she, effectively, had to falsify it, which basically made a mockery of the system. Then she felt guilty. She met with a group of principals and said, “Look, I have to confess, I’ve falsified the data for it to be accepted.” And the principals in the circle, they said, “Oh, we do the same thing.” This was an example, unfortunate as it is, of data that was not accurate.

So I appreciate this clause being in the bill here, because, like I said, it’s absolutely vital for our education system to be respected and to work properly and that the data is accurate. I’ve got a question for the Minister if he could please answer it: how will the Minister know if falsification has taken place? So what safeguards has the Minister got to know that data is incorrect?

I had another example of this as an intermediate school teacher—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I’m sure that you’ve been listening quite closely to the contribution that’s being made at the present time, because you expressed a desire earlier to hear more in this debate. But, effectively, that member has just accused school principals of doing something that is totally illegal and that other school principals have had the law come down on them pretty hard for.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): And the point of order is?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, surely it is patently clear to you that it’s inappropriate for a member to make such an accusation here in this Chamber. Oh, the Minister of Education says it’s OK for people to falsify their returns. OK.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I don’t believe that is a valid point of order.

I was simply conveying an experience I had. This experience was unfortunate, because the accuracy of the data was not correct, and what I’m doing is highlighting one of the issues we had under the national standards that was presented to me. I’m stressing the importance of accurate data. So my question to the Minister is how will he know if falsification has taken place?

I’ve made my point. I’ll leave it over to others to speak, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister. Thank you.

I’ll just make a very brief contribution in response to that matter. I think it’ll be fairly obvious when institutions or providers have committed fraud. They’re now being picked up by the fairly rigorous checks put in place by the Tertiary Education Commission and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. That is why we’ve seen so many providers in recent months, basically, being cracked down on, including some of them having their registration cancelled by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority because they are, basically, undertaking very underhand practices that could be described as academic fraud. They’re being cracked down on, and that’s a very good thing. In response to Mr Brownlee, no I don’t condone people falsifying records.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, you can’t talk to a point of order afterwards.

I don’t condone people falsifying records, Mr Brownlee, whether they be in schools or tertiary institutions.

The naming of tertiary institutions is a difficult matter, and it isn’t just one of your holiday games. You may think at first I’m as mad as a hatter when I tell you a tertiary institution must have three different names. And that’s about as far I can get on bowdlerising T.S. Eliot on “The Naming of Cats”. It was brought to mind by a number of the clauses that are in this bill tonight, which I want to speak about. And it does go back to the issue of what gets called what. So I’m really delighted to see the addition of the idea of a “community tertiary education provider”. I think it recognises a really important group of people within the communities who are offering a type of education. So that’s a really good addition there.

I’m really pleased to see that “independent tertiary institution” is not going to be carried forward as a label. Partly that’s because I come from a university background myself and I’m really entrenched in it and I recognise the power that a name carries. And so that particular name, I felt, did trade on institutions’ standing. I was pleased to see that in clause 9. But the thing that really intrigued me was between clause 9 and then coming to what wānanga may call themselves on application.

In clause 36, which amends section 253C of the Act, we have here that a wānanga may apply for consent to describe themselves as a university, a college of education, a polytechnic, or an institute of technology. But I was just wondering whether a wānanga could also apply to describe itself as a “community tertiary education provider”. There are a number of entities that it can describe itself as—we’re bringing into being these institutions called “community tertiary education providers”—but will it be possible for wānanga to perhaps apply to use that, or is that something we might be able to consider at a future stage if it’s seen to be something that is important for wānanga to be able to do?

What I really like about this ability of wānanga to use these labels is that, to me, it’s very enabling. It enables wānanga to provide education in particular ways. And I think it provides credibility and standing beyond just New Zealand. We all know what a wānanga is here; so it’s great to have that extra recognition there that means something beyond our shores. But I do wonder about whether or not that “community tertiary education provider” could be extended to wānanga as well.

I just want to go back to something else that was raised—incorrectly—by Mr Simeon Brown, who asserted that we all agreed on this. Clearly, we don’t, because, on this side of the House, we don’t agree with Supplementary Order Paper 17. We don’t actually want that equal treatment principle. It’s an odd thing for people on this side of the House to say, because we are very egalitarian in our principles but, in this case, we’re saying, “Well, actually, no.”

I just want to hear a little bit of your thinking around that, because, again, I know, having come out of the university sector—you know, I’ve spent far more years there than I really care to count up, and it takes more than all my fingers and all my toes—I know the importance of research in universities. That’s a critical difference between, I guess, the universities and the polytechnics. It is research-led teaching. In fact, in order to succeed as a teacher at a university, you do need to be doing research. It’s measured. My experience is that the best teachers are often also the best researchers. They’re the people who do engage in that critical thinking.

So I was really just wondering if that was the kind of thinking that was underpinning what’s going on there, where we’re saying, “Well, actually, no; there’s something a little bit distinctive that universities do that is not the same as private tertiary institutions.” And I would like to hear a little bit more about that if you have time. And so that is something about which we do disagree on this side of the House. So, to the Minister, if you are able to enlighten me on some of those points, that would be very helpful. Thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 15 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 17 in the name of the Hon Paul Goldsmith to Part 2 be agreed to.