Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

We come to the summing-up part of the debate, and all I can say is thank goodness for Gerry Brownlee. At least he was here to call for a vote on the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by the Hon Paul Goldsmith, which no one in the National Party wanted to speak to. So passionate were they about the issue, that they didn’t want to speak to it.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Relevance. Relevance.

So as we sum up—I’d accuse the member of many things, but balance is not one of them—but, as we come to this summing-up part of the debate, it’s very clear that there are some themes that have emerged from this. There is only one side of the House that is actually willing to scrutinise the actions of the Government, and that is this side of the House—clearly not that side over there, despite the fact that that is actually their job. But that’s OK, that’s OK. We’re getting used to that—the largest and laziest Opposition New Zealand has ever seen.

But there are also some other broad themes that have come out of this debate, one of which is that only members on this side of the House seem to be taking seriously the fact that we do have a responsibility to ensure the welfare of international students in New Zealand and we do actually have a responsibility to crack down on some pretty dodgy practices that have been happening in the international education sector. The only members who actually spoke to those issues, even bothered to raise them in the committee, were members of Labour, New Zealand First, and the Green Party—not a jot from the National Opposition on those matters, despite the fact that they are big and serious matters. So I think we can draw that as a theme from this particular debate.

Another theme that we can draw from the debate is that now that they are in Opposition and the Māori Party is out of Parliament, the National Party doesn’t really care what happens to the wānanga. The wānanga have campaigned for a very long time to have the ability to apply to use the term “university”. It’s not a guarantee, as I stressed earlier on; it’s their ability to apply. This was something that the previous National Government were encouraged to adopt by the Māori Party, as one of their partners when they were in Government, and now, of course, they’ve just completely forgotten all about that, now that the Māori Party are out of Parliament and the National Party are free to revert to type.

So, it’s interesting that they didn’t have anything to say on those provisions at all. They didn’t have anything to say on the provisions around providers who are ripping off the system by falsifying student records. I thought that was interesting, and I thank the members to my right who took the time to scrutinise those provisions in this particular bill.

So, overall, I think this bill is a positive development for the tertiary education system in New Zealand. It updates and modernises legislation. Another piece of scrutiny that we received from the Government side of the House was around the modernisation of meeting provisions for tertiary education institution councils—nothing on the National Party side of the House with regard to those provisions, of course. One or two members are still figuring out how to actually use their phones, so I can understand why they found those provisions slightly perplexing. But, overall, this is a good bill and I welcome the National Party’s support for it. I think it does deliver welcome and needed changes to our education legislation.

Kia ora, Madam Chairperson Williams—just a quick call on the commencement, the title, and just a summing up generally on the Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Just to support Minister Chris Hipkins’ statements—I mean, I sat through the select committee with regard to this bill, and the Opposition members who at that time were Government members had a lot of say about this bill with the 2,000-something submitters that came who requested the amendments that have now actually been happening with regard to this particular bill.

I’m going to have to disagree slightly with the Minister. While the Minister says this is a good bill, I would have to say this is a good bill now. And I hope that we’re going to hear, at some stage this evening, from some members who were in the 51st Parliament who were sitting on the Education and Science Committee and argued against the changes that have made this a good bill now, because they were so articulate, on why the things that have now been removed that submitters asked us—and let’s be clear, we’re here to represent the voice of the people of New Zealand, the voice of the public of New Zealand, and when you get that many submitters who come in to tell you that, actually, the Parliament, the Government, had got it wrong in the first drafting of this bill, its behoves us to listen. It not only behoves us to listen; it behoves us to actually interact, because those 2,000-odd submitters are currently sitting, watching, waiting to hear that the people that they have asked to represent them give enough of a damn that they actually participate in the debate.

So I’ll wrap it up there because I’m aware that there are many other members who wish to speak, but just to say that this is a good bill now and it is because the Government of the day—the Government today—listened and took on board all those voices from the education sector and from the public out there, and particularly the wānanga. All they’d been asking for was a level playing field and an opportunity to have the Minister balance his view and who he consulted with when they applied for the use of that term. So I’ll leave it there, but I thank the Minister in the chair for finally listening and bringing this piece of legislation to the House—much improved from when it first came.

I think it’s worth pointing out, after the last two contributions in the House, that this was a bill brought to the House by the previous National Government. We were very happy with that, and we continue to support it here today with Minister Chris Hipkins’ amendments, which we voted for.

Now, I know that Tracey Martin likes to put the slipper in all the time at every opportunity she gets, but I think, in this case, she’s pulled out the speech from the bill that she was talking on earlier this evening, which happened to be the wrong bill, and has read the wrong speech for the wrong bill one more time. The reason that we’re here tonight spending so much time on a bill that the Opposition is supporting is because of the dysfunctional nature of the current Government—the accidental nature of the current Government—where their members need to come to the House to talk for their Minister because they can’t sort out these things in any other forum.

For Mr Strange to come to the House and start saying he wants to know about how the data is going to be dealt with simply indicates that when he went to knock on the Minister Chris Hipkins’ door, it was locked, he was too busy—no time for the backbench in the Labour Party. And so we come down here and find ourselves with member after member standing up asking questions of a relatively trivial nature for a bill that has widespread support across the House.

Now, of course, another reason for that could be because the Government has an exceptionally light legislative programme—an exceptionally light legislative programme. I think it would be interesting if this evening we had got as far as the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill. But no, the Government wants to spend a lot of time talking about a bill that the vast majority of the House supports because, quite clearly, a bill in the name of the Hon Julie Anne Genter from the Green Party does not have unanimous Government support, let alone cross-party support. They’re all saying “Oh, no, that’s not true.”, but how else do they explain the extraordinary spectacle of so many Labour Party backbenchers being forced to give long speeches—because five minutes is a huge effort from anybody in that party asking questions of an exceptionally trivial nature and wasting Parliament’s time? Well, I think the answer, simply, is that the Government is not organised to progress its legislative programme in a timely fashion.

And I have to say, while we’re on that, why don’t we get to the international treaty examination of the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) Plus? I’ve never seen that sort of debate called for in this House outside of extraordinary hours in the whole time that I’ve been in this Parliament. It simply demonstrates the dysfunctional nature of the current Government, and also, I have to say, the inability of the people responsible for the legislative programme to put cohesive, strong legislation on the Order Paper.

We are supporting this bill. There was no need for this nonsense in here tonight. It is simply a convenience for Mr Hipkins’ inability to get a programme running.

I just want to make sure, Madam Chair, you did—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I did call you, Kieran McAnulty.

Oh, how exciting. You know, as a new member in this House, it’s quite disheartening, really, to see former Ministers stand up and be so cynical about the process. You know, the fact is I’m starting to understand why indeed they are former Ministers, because they are not taking this seriously. All we’ve heard tonight from that side of the Chamber is “This was our bill. We like this SOP, and let’s get on with it.”

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: What’s wrong with that, cobber?

I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it, Mr Brownlee—and I understand the fact that the people here have elected us here to debate the issues, to do the job. You know, some members, like the MP for Pakuranga, might be satisfied by finishing after 30 seconds, but we want to do a proper job. We want to actually do this properly. You know, we’re not going to enter into this debate and withdraw straight away. That is not how we go about this.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Listening to the impassioned pleas of that member to discuss the bill, I think you should pull him back right on to the topic.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I think that’s a very good idea.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I must admit, I shouldn’t have followed the previous speaker’s example. I should not have thought that I, as a new member, would learn something from a previous Minister—the previous speaker, the Hon Gerry Brownlee—and stand up here and abuse the other side of the House. I forgot, from the previous example, that I should have actually stuck to the bill. So thank you for that guidance.

The fact is that previous speaker did, in his contribution—and I understand that I can refer to previous contributions; that is relevant—referred to a minor mistake. That side of the House knows about mistakes. They’ve made two today: they have elected Simon Bridges as leader and they have kept Paula Bennett as deputy leader.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Even with the greatest breadth of lenience—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yes, I completely agree with you.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: —that you might like to exercise as Chair, that is completely unacceptable.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I completely agree. Please bring it back to the bill.

I thought it was quite good.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The last few minutes of this debate—please bring it back to something substantial.

You know, the major focus of the other side of the House tonight, for those who did decide to stand up and speak on it, was the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that was put forward by the Hon Paul Goldsmith.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: He didn’t take a call, though.

No, he did not. He did not take a call. Not many people did. When they did stand up, they wanted to close the motion. What does that say to the people of New Zealand? Does that side of the House take education seriously? I would suspect that they do not.

But this SOP wanted to bring in some sort of equality measures, so-called.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Talking about an SOP that’s been dealt with by the committee is not relevant for this part. Now, the member says he wants to learn a lot from me. Well, the first thing I’d say to him is: in a tight situation, don’t make it harder for yourself; concentrate on what’s in the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Absolutely. I think this is the last chance.

Gee, this is a great bill. This is a great bill, and I’m so pleased that this Government has improved it by taking out that measure that I was referring to, the equality funding measure, because in doing so this Government has said that we’re not going to restrict funding to private or public institutions. We’re going to make sure—and that is why it’s called the Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This indeed is another matter.

I don’t want to take too much time of the House, because it is an important thing and we do want to get on with it, so I’m going to sit down now. But I thank you for the opportunity for contributing to this debate.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson Williams. It is an honour, actually, to stand up and take a call to summarise this bill. It is a bill that will strengthen accountability in the tertiary education system. It’s a bill that will provide for consistent treatment of the tertiary education provider organisations, and it will broaden student protection arrangements. I outline these for a specific reason. I came to this country as an international student myself. This is a sector that I understand intimately, and it is a sector that for many hasn’t really worked.

I want to begin, actually, by addressing some of the comments made by members from the opposite side of the House, which I actually take umbrage to. Firstly, members opposite—specifically the member Denise Lee—have talked about the fact that “private” is not a dirty word. To a large extent, I agree, but I will tell you why for many it actually is. Private providers, she says, are doing such a good job in contributing to New Zealand’s economic landscape. Now, I want to deal with this sensitively, because there are many who do. However, there are many others who don’t, and who have actually been caught out. I mean, if you look online, in about two minutes you’ll find at least 10 names of private providers who have been dodgy. I will broaden it out, because there are specific parts of this bill that address that, and that’s why it’s important.

Now, the member the Hon Nikki Kaye sort of threw around the word “ideology”. We are actually proud of the ideology that underpins a lot of what we do, on this side of the House. It is a system of ideas and ideals that form the basis of policy and that explain how society works, and that’s exactly why we have prioritised public education over private. I had a really good quote here, which I’ve just lost. The fact that education is a human right and a public good has underpinned global public policy since the 1940s. It’s not something that’s new, but it’s something that remains incredibly important.

The specific parts of the bill that I just wanted to draw attention to—and the reason I do this is the number of years I have spent talking to international students who have come here who have been rorted by the system; who have come here because they think that they’re going to get a specific deal from certain private providers, and they don’t. Many come here and find themselves in positions where they are barely able to feed themselves—who have come out and who rely on the goodwill of people from the New Zealand community to actually survive.

Now, members across from the opposite side of the Chamber have accused us of spending time on this bill because we’re a dysfunctional Government. They have said that we’ve been forced to stand up and speak to this bill. They’ve said that questions and comments or points that we raise on this side of the Chamber are trivial in nature. I tell you, for the hundreds of students who have been exploited in this country, they are not trivial. It’s about their well-being. It’s about their safety. It’s about their lives. And I remind you that while we are here, elected to serve the people of New Zealand, we have a duty of care to those we invite to this country. Members on that side of the Chamber have systematically, in the best-case scenario, referred to these people as cash cows, and, in the worst instance, as faulty fridges.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. To my knowledge, there is no one on this side who has ever referred to any foreign student in this country as being a cash cow. The real question is why that member is supporting a party that wants to shut the door to immigrants in this country. [Interruption]

Thank you. [Interruption] Thank you, members.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.