Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Education: I move, That the Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I thank the members of the select committee, who have done a lot of work on this bill. I would also like to thank the over 2,000 individuals and organisations who made submissions during the select committee process. Their suggestions have helped to improve this bill. I would also like to acknowledge and thank the Minister of Education, the Hon Chris Hipkins, in advancing this bill.

I want to focus my comments tonight on three key themes of this bill: first, I want to talk about increasing provider accountability and strengthening monitoring and compliance; second, I’d like to discuss supporting fair treatment of tertiary education providers; and, third, I’d like to talk about broadening student protection arrangements, as proposed by this legislation.

I now turn to the first—increasing provider accountability and strengthening monitoring and compliance. This legislation balances a more flexible system with appropriate accountability and monitoring, to ensure that our providers can focus on delivering better outcomes for all of our students.

Firstly, the Tertiary Education Commission, TEC, will be able to recover costs for an investigation when a provider is found to be at fault. We know—we have read in the news, in the media—of many instances where this has been the case here in Aotearoa New Zealand. This legislation we’re introducing will actually address that issue. This provides a strong incentive, we believe, for our providers to cooperate with our investigations and to ensure that the investigations conclude quickly.

Secondly, this bill will allow the Tertiary Education Commission and the Minister of Education to make funding approval subject to conditions that they consider reasonably necessary for effectively monitoring the performance of the system and the tertiary education sector overall. This can be useful to quickly address any unforeseen issues and it should help prevent potential misuse of public funding.

Thirdly, this bill aligns record-keeping and inspection requirements for tertiary education institutions with those of private training establishments. All tertiary education organisations will therefore be required to maintain records of their use of Government funding and how they are complying with funding conditions. This will ensure that the Tertiary Education Commission is able to access important information when required.

This bill will introduce a new offence provision for making false representations on a student’s record of achievement and it will significantly strengthen the offence provisions by increasing the penalty for such offences concerning falsification of student records from $10,000, as it is, up to $50,000. These changes will provide a strong incentive, we believe, for providers to act honestly and with due diligence in their maintenance of student records. And, again, we have read many media coverages of instances where this has been the case, where, unfortunately, some of our providers have falsified some records, and it does not help Aotearoa New Zealand’s international standing when this happens.

And what we know is, whether it is private training establishments, whether it is a polytechnic or any other institution, when this actually happens it actually, unfortunately, smears the reputation of our tertiary education institutions internationally, and it is not in any of our interests that this kind of behaviour continues in the future. So we believe that, overall, these changes will increase provider accountability, that it will strengthen the system, and that monitoring and compliance of tertiary education providers across the system will be so much more improved.

The second theme I would like to discuss is the fair treatment of tertiary education providers. This Government is committed to supporting a better and fairer tertiary sector. That is why we have listened to the submissions of over 2,000 individuals and organisations when they presented to the select committee, when they have told us that they would like fair treatment, especially in terms of funding.

We are introducing a new term. Currently, we have what’s called the private training establishment—PTE. This legislation will introduce a new term called community tertiary education provider—CTEP. The current term “private training establishment”, or PTE, does not distinguish between for-profit and not-for-profit education providers, nor does it accurately reflect their intentions. In our opinion, this is not fair. When you cannot tell whether a provider is a not-for-profit or whether it is for profit, it is not fair, and so we will be addressing this.

This bill will also allow wānanga to seek consent to use of a protected term—terms such as “university” or “polytechnic”, which are currently protected in legislation. Currently, only wānanga are disadvantaged because they are not having their own title protected in law, and we don’t think this is fair to wānanga, that they face difficulties in finding an appropriate English translation of their own institutional title or the fact that they cannot put in an application to use a protected term. We believe that allowing wānanga to use protected terms such as “university” or “polytechnic” will be treating our wānanga fair.

There will, however, be a tough test for applicants to use protected terms. The Minister of Education will have to be satisfied that consenting to the use of protected terms such as “polytechnic” or “university” must be adhered to, and for this to happen, the Minister will also have to consult with experts in Māori education, who have the knowledge. We are confident that in consulting with experts who have the knowledge of who should be able to use the protected term of “polytechnic” or “university” with the advice of specialists in Māori tertiary education, the term will indeed still be protected. So I’m comfortable with the use of the term, and the fact that wānanga will now be able to apply to use these two protected terms.

The third and final theme that I would like to discuss tonight is broadening student protection arrangements. To fulfil the pastoral care responsibilities to international students, schools need to be able to respond to situations, especially those where an international student’s behaviour puts themselves or puts other people at risk. This bill clarifies that international student enrolment is governed by the enrolment contract.

What this means is that we will ensure that the contract relating to international students under the age of 18—that the Contract and Commercial Law Act of 2017 as well as the Education (Pastoral Care of International Students) Code of Practice will apply to those who are under the age of 18. The change that we’re proposing will allow schools to move effectively to manage international students’ misconduct by taking appropriate disciplinary action if students breach their enrolment contracts. This bill will extend the coverage of the export education levy to international students enrolled in private schools. This will protect those students in the same way as PTE students are currently protected. The bill also aligns entitlement for domestic students enrolled in a short programme at a PTE. In conclusion, I would like now to commend the Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. National will, of course, be supporting this piece of legislation in the third reading. It was introduced in our time in office and does a few simple things that I want to just cover off in my brief address. I just do want to pick up on one point, though, and I want the House to reflect on that as we go through some of this discussion. The Minister, in her speech, outlined that the broad intent of this is about fair treatment, and of course there is one considerable area where there is absolutely no fair treatment in a change that the Labour Government have made to this legislation.

But in terms of the broad perspective of the legislation, it was around making sure that tertiary education organisations (TEOs) were delivering for students, first and foremost. So it was making sure that they were in a strong enough position to be delivering the skills that we need for the 21st century. It’s also about making sure that they are run well, day to day; have greater levels of accountability; and are delivering for each and every student. That’s the expectation that taxpayers would have—that there are strong accountability measures, but sufficient flexibility for the TEOs to deliver what students need, and, actually, what our workplaces need in our employers of the future. So there were already significant improvements in terms of the monitoring of tertiary organisations that resulted in some of the investigations that took place, and so the proposal in this bill also improves some of the information collection and oversight.

But when it comes to fair treatment—I do want to come back to that point, because there is one significant change that the Labour Government have made to this legislation that absolutely is unfair, and that is around the fairness of funding. The intention was that there be fair funding, equal funding, irrespective of whether it’s a for-profit or not-for-profit provider. The Minister of Education, Chris Hipkins, has actually been on the record stating that private training establishments often do better than the Government-owned, public sector polytechnics. And yet even having said this, even having said that the quality of delivery in the private training establishments is often better than the polytechs, he’s said no, they’re unwilling to fund them equally.

There is no reason for doing this, other than pure ideology, so I do want to correct the Minister who made the first speech in this third reading, because this is one component where there is absolutely not fair treatment. It is pure ideology. I think it’s probably more spite from the Labour Government, because they don’t like anything that actually might turn a profit, and so it was an ideological removal of that. When we put forward a Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Hon Paul Goldsmith to correct this—to make it fair—of course they opposed it.

So the broad objectives of this bill—it was our legislation, so of course I’m very proud to support it in the third reading.

Tēnā rā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tuatahi, māku e hiahia ana ki te mihi atu ki ōku hoa minita, arā ko Te Hon Chris Hipkins, rāua ko Te Minita mō Ngā Take Mātauranga, me Te Hon Jenny Salesa, Te Minita Tuarua; nā rāua i kōkirihia tēnei pire ki roto i Te Whare. Kua hanga mīharo ana ahau. Kua hanga mīharo ahau kia rongo ai neke atu i te 2,000 ngā kaitono i tukuna mai ō rātou whakaaro mō tēnei pire. He mea pai tērā i te mea he tini ngā tāngata e tukuna ana ō rātou whakaaro hei whakapakari ake, whakapakari ai i tēnei pire.

[Greetings to the Speaker. Firstly, I would like to greet my ministerial colleagues, the Hon Chris Hipkins, the Minister for Education, and the Hon Jenny Salesa, the Associate Minister; they have led this bill in the House. I am amazed. I am amazed to hear that nearly 2,000 submitters submitted their thoughts on this bill. That is great because many people are submitting their thoughts to strengthen, to strengthen this bill.]

First of all, I’d just like to acknowledge the work done by the Hon Chris Hipkins, the Minister of Education, and the Hon Jenny Salesa for bringing this bill through the House and getting it here to its third reading stage. I was pleasantly surprised to hear the number of submissions—over 2,000 submitters—who added their thoughts and gave their opinions to strengthen this bill. We, of course, welcome people when they contribute to democracy. So I welcome the amendments proposed in the bill, as they will support better educational outcomes for our tauira—that is, our students—and, overall, fairer treatment in the tertiary system.

As my colleague the Hon Jenny Salesa has expressed, the bill aims to improve accountability, strengthen monitoring of tertiary providers, strengthen equitable treatment of tertiary education providers, and broaden the student protection arrangements. So this Government wants to remove unnecessary elements and barriers and ensure that we have an education system that delivers for all students.

The changes proposed in this bill are a reflection of this Government’s priority for greater accountability in the education system and more equitable opportunities for all parts of the education system. It’s also a reflection of this Government’s priority to listen to Māori about what Māori aspirations are for education and how we can help them to reach those aspirations. As we know, there is a gap between Māori achievement and non-Māori achievement. Our Government sincerely tries—and I’m sure the Opposition, when they were in Government, sincerely tried—to make sure that Māori achievement is as good as, if not better than, any other achievement of any other sectors of society. This Government is about supporting Māori to succeed as Māori.

I particularly want to draw attention to the current treatment of our wānanga. So, for those who don’t know, there are three wānanga: Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, Te Wānanga o Raukawa, and Te Wānanga o Awanuiārangi. I just want to he tuku atu ōku mihi ki a rātou mō ngā mahi e mahi ana rātou hei whakapakaria, he whakahāpaitia i te mātauranga o ō tātou tauira Māori, nā reira e tika ana kia mihi atu ki a rātou mō ā rātou mahi, e whakapau ana ō rātou kaha kia tukuna ai Ngāi Māori mā kia angitū ai ki roto i tēnei ao hei Māori [express my acknowledgments to them for the work they carry out to strengthen, to promote the education of our Māori students, therefore it is right that I acknowledge them for their work, the energy they expend so that Māori can be successful in this world as Māori].

So it’s important to acknowledge the work that those wānanga do: striving to allow our students to achieve academically, but as Māori. I’d just like to acknowledge the work they do.

At the moment, private training establishments are able to apply to use protected terms such as “university” or “polytechnic”, but wānanga cannot. This isn’t a level playing field. It’s particularly unfair, given that there is nothing stopping universities from using the word “wānanga” in their name—so Te Whare Wānanga o Tāmaki Makaurau, the University of Auckland—but a wānanga couldn’t use the word “university”. So there wasn’t a level playing field, and it’s unfair, given there’s nothing stopping universities or polytechs using the term “wānanga” in their Māori names.

A key shift in this bill is to allow wānanga to apply to use protected terms. This shift will provide wānanga with an avenue to pursue their aspirations and to be recognised as high-quality education institutions. Any tertiary education provider wanting to use protected terms already requires ministerial approval—a process that includes consultation with institutions and organisations deemed appropriate by the Minister. But for wānanga, this bill also requires consultation with experts in Māori education who are knowledgable in āhuatanga Māori—that is, in Māori tradition—according to tikanga Māori, which is Māori custom within a kaupapa Māori pedagogy. This will give the Minister a fuller understanding of the wānanga in a Māori tertiary education context and it adds balance to the consultation process.

This kind of consultation reflects the Government’s wider focus on genuine and meaningful engagement with Māori, and this is also the reason we have created the Crown-Māori relations portfolio. I’m pleased and proud to say that both as Associate Minister of Education and as the Minister for Crown/Māori Relations, I’ve been able to engage with wānanga around their aspirations.

In fact, there’s one wānanga that has had an issue that’s been floating around for many years, in fact, and they were getting nowhere, to the point that they decided to take their issue to the Waitangi Tribunal. Myself and Minister Hipkins visited this wānanga and, in one meeting, engaging with them personably and face to face, we were able to, basically, say, “Do we think we can sort out this issue within a matter of months? It’s been going for a number of years. We think we can sort this out in a matter of months.” Just by engaging with the wānanaga in both an educational sense but also in the Crown-Māori sense, we were able to get what we believe is going to be a fine outcome for that wānanga.

Just on that, I said to them, “I can engage with you as a Minister of the Crown and you as Māori, or we can engage whanaunga to whanaunga.” I think they appreciated that change of approach, and I think it’s going to reap rewards.

So we want to reset the relationship between the Crown and Māori, which has been less than ideal for the last 178 years. Like our broader work with Māori, the changes in the bill recognise the importance of Māori having more say in education that impacts Māori.

One possible reason why a wānanga might want to describe itself using a protected term is to help explain the institution to international partners and potential students, and, in fact, for the wānanga that we engaged with, that was indeed one of their aims. They wanted to be recognised as providing courses—internationally recognisable, acceptable courses—and to be able to attract people from overseas, because they are providing those high-quality courses. The term “wānanga” is not well-known or understood outside of New Zealand. For them, being able to use the term “university” will help them.

So, as I said, I recently met with one of the wānanga, and they expressed that with this change they hope to open their doors to the world and market themselves as a world-leading indigenous university. That’s how they want to be known, and we believe—well, we don’t believe; we support that aspiration. The Ministry of Education hasn’t received any evidence of reputational harm to universities or even to wānanga about this change.

Although we’ve got a long way to go to address inequities in our education system, we should be proud of the indigenous education system we have, and that goes from kōhanga reo right through to kura kaupapa, to wharekura and to our wānanga. Many indigenous communities from around the world look to Aotearoa as models of what can be done to grow and nurture indigenous language and knowledge systems. Growing Māori-medium education sector from kōhanga through to wānanga is a key priority for this Government. The change through this bill is one of the steps that we intend to take to improve and better support our wānanga, and it is part of a wider goal to grow mātauranga Māori and support Māori succeeding as Māori.

So, more generally, the bill is about increasing accountability in the tertiary sector. The bill supports better outcomes for students in the tertiary system by providing better tools to identify and manage questionable practices in tertiary education providers imposing higher consequences where contract breaches or legal activities are confirmed, and by broadening protection arrangements for students starting—

I apologise to the honourable Minister. His time has elapsed. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Well, I rise to take a very short call in support of this Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and in support because, of course, this is a National Government bill. It was interesting that the previous speaker, Kelvin Davis, paid praise to the current Minister and Associate Minister of Education for shepherding this bill through the House, but, of course, this was an Hon Paul Goldsmith bill from the National Government.

It reflects the respect that this side of the House has for tertiary education, and, in particular, international education, not just because the sector is the fourth largest export industry, generating $4.28 billion per annum, but also because of the role that tertiary and international education play in regional development, in diversifying communities, and in adding to the vibrancy of provincial cities—and that’s certainly the case in Invercargill in Southland.

So what the Hon Paul Goldsmith wanted to do was to modernise the framework governing our tertiary institutions and private training establishments. He wanted to make the framework fit for purpose for the 21st century, to allow institutions to innovate and to provide a better system for students to learn in and to gain qualifications that are fit for purpose in today’s modern world. So what this bill does is, of course, create an accountability framework for tertiary organisations that ensures consistency across the board; obviously, monitor performance of those tertiary institutions; introduce a code of conduct for international students that are coming to the country to study; and put in place standards that they must adhere to while they are here in New Zealand—as I said before, evolving the system to make it better, not only for New Zealanders but also for those international students.

This is a good bill. Of course, my colleague, the Hon Louise Upston, talked about one of the changes that the current Labour Government have made with respect to creating an uneven playing field between private providers and public providers relating to the fees structure. That is unacceptable on this side of the House, and has resulted in the Hon Paul Goldsmith’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 17 to challenge this. Apart from that change, that the Labour Government have made regardless of Paul Goldsmith’s SOP, we do support this bill, because it was a National Government initiative, and we do need to make tertiary education and the framework of such fit for purpose in the 21st century.

This is my last contribution as the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee. I’d like to finish by thanking the current members and saying that it is a very good committee, and I wish them all the best moving forward with the work stream that they do have, in the workforce section but also in the education sector.

It’s a great pleasure for me to rise in support of the Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I would also like to commend Minister Hipkins on tidying this bill up and bringing it forward. I also would like to acknowledge the Hon Tracey Martin, who I am speaking on behalf of this evening. She has done most of the heavy lifting on behalf of New Zealand First for this bill, and what a fine Minister she is proving to be in a number of fields. These are big boots to fill tonight, but I will be doing my best. I’d like to also acknowledge the officials. I have come on to this Education and Workforce Committee and seen the wash-up of the bill, as we tidied it up from those 2,000 submissions that we heard about—both private and institutional submissions. I would also like to acknowledge Sarah Dowie, the outgoing chairwoman of the Education and Workforce Committee. As a new committee, coming in with lots of new members on our side, she’s been very fair and helped shepherd some of this stuff through, and we wish you well in your new spokespersonship, Sarah.

I know that this is a National Government bill, as the previous speaker, Sarah Dowie, has alluded to, although the priority that she discussed probably is overstating a bit given that it took nine long years for them to lumber into action on this, and given this has been such fast-growing sector, with lots of publicity around issues, I think it was probably a bill that is long overdue. The aim of the bill is to update the legislation and the running of tertiary education and the organisations. It’s a wide-ranging bill. It clarifies many important issues, and it adds accountability.

I’d like to focus a little bit on the international student side of things. Of all our tertiary students, 15 percent are now international students—some 50,000 of them in 2016, and rising. The $4.3 billion in revenue that has been mentioned makes it our fourth-largest export earner, and by gee do we need those funds. As we go around the country trying to rebuild under-invested infrastructure, housing, and regional development, we need this money. The danger, I guess, with this sector is that it can be a commodity, and we don’t want to become the international education equivalent of what Nigeria is to banking. I think that from my agricultural background I can see, actually, that there are a lot of parallels in this. We need to be aiming at that high end. We need to be adding value, not just going for numbers. We need to have really high-quality courses, attracting the best and brightest pupils and students, and this legislation gives us a strong regulatory base on which to build and continue to evolve and develop this very important sector.

It is also important for our international reputation and the pride that we take in being good international citizens. Those 50,000 young people coming here represent sons and daughters of people who have entrusted us with the care of their children. They’re sending them here with great hope and expectations for their future, and it’s important that we have the legislation in place, and the accountability and the structures, to make sure that that is exactly what we deliver.

Just in terms of the penalties, I think that’s a pretty important provision, because the integrity of those qualifications that these international students are investing huge amounts in coming here to get needs to be beyond reproach. They need to be qualifications that they can take into the international market, or, indeed, for those that choose to stay here, they need to be of value, and the raising of the penalties from $10,000 to $50,000 sends just that signal to the institutions.

This bill gives these provisions teeth. It also responds to a High Court ruling. There was a high school that had its right to respond to some poor behaviour by a pupil or pupils outside of school—it had its code of conduct that was written into the contract that it had with those particular pupils overturned by the courts, so we have to address that. The ruling found that schools could not stand down, suspend, or exclude international students for misconduct outside school, even though it was part of the contract, so the law actually overrode that. That has massive consequences for the safety and well-being of international students. We are, as it stands, effectively, unable to manage risky or potentially harmful behaviour, and imposing higher penalties on the perpetrators, as mentioned, also will be helpful in this regard.

Just some of the other provisions: the discretion that it gives the Minister to let the wānanga apply for university or, you know, the protected terms—the polytechnic. New Zealand First did have a few concerns about this. We wanted to know that the bar was going to be high for that. I think, given that we want to strive for quality, our universities, for example, need to be of the highest level. We don’t want to be watering down or diluting those institutions without thinking really carefully about it. So the bar’s got be high, but we felt that the provisions within this bill certainly meant that the bar was high enough. The Minister does have the discretion, but there is a wide range of consultation that can happen, and it allows the wānanga to level the playing field a little bit for them in that.

The other side that was also mentioned by the previous speaker and others is Supplementary Order Paper 17, which looks to have private, for-profit providers treated at the same level or be able to get the same subsidies as the public educators. New Zealand First makes absolutely no apology for backing high-quality, publicly delivered education, certainly with support from our colleagues on this side of the House within that. That is important for us, that we back our public educational institutes. I guess the paradox there is if these private, for-profit entities were any good, they would be attracting that private investment anyway, so it shouldn’t really affect them too much at all. If they want to play in that space, that’s fine, but we as a Government are here to promote the public-good entities, and that’s exactly what this bill does. So we will not, as New Zealand First, be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper.

But we will support the wider bill. It is a bill that tidies up, adds accountability to the current laws, adds to the credibility of this incredibly important, emerging sector of our economy as we try to add some value, not just volume, and that’s got to be a mantra that we have across the spectrum of our economy. This is a very important sector, so New Zealand First has great pleasure in supporting this bill. Thank you.

As my colleagues before me, I’d like to confirm our support for this third reading of the Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I too would like to take just a quick, brief moment to acknowledge our outgoing chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, of which I’m a member, the honourable Sarah Dowie.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Soon to be!

No? Sarah Dowie—she’s honourable as far as I’m concerned. And, from what I can see, there are genuine accolades from both sides of the House for the role that she’s undertaken.

The bill that we are having our third reading for here tonight will update legislation that affects the day-to-day running of the tertiary education organisations (TEOs) and will help the system deliver the right skills for the 21st century. Like all entities that receive public funds, it’s important that TEOs are being held accountable and that they’re delivering for students—actually, all students, students that may be in both private and public institutions. So it’s a real shame—it’ll be no surprise that I’m going to raise, as other colleagues have before me tonight on my side of the House that the Hon Paul Goldsmith’s amendment calling for equal treatment of all tertiary education providers didn’t pass. That seems a no-brainer.

International education is our fourth-largest export industry, worth somewhere in the vicinity of $4.3 billion to our economy every year. So it’s vital that this industry receives the support, and the right support, and this bill does go a good way to doing that. It is a shame that we can’t see all providers in the same bracket, but we do, however, confirm our support for this third reading. Thank you.

Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to support this legislation.

Let me just say after nine years it’s good to be here in a Parliament on a third reading of a bill to be voting for positive tertiary education policy, because for the last nine years what this Parliament has rammed through is a huge number of incredibly negative tertiary education policies. Remember this was the Government that restricted access to student loans for over 55s, reduced access, reduced ability, increased the fees on student loans, rammed through the additional student loan takeback, which affected, basically, the tax rate that graduates pay on their student loan, and arrested graduates at the border. For nine years, we saw a Government whose policy was to reduce access, reduce affordability, and, in fact, make it harder to be a student in New Zealand.

Now, when former Minister Woodhouse talks—I remember talking to him about the voluntary student membership legislation, another negative National bill, where they gutted university governance, where National said Steven Joyce should decide what happens with students’ compulsory levies, not students themselves, democratically. It’s like going to a council—Lawrence Yule, you’ll know about this—and actually saying, “Steven Joyce is going to decide what happens with your rates, not the students.”, because that’s exactly what a student council was, it was the governance body representing students.

On that note, let me say tonight, though, how good it is to be voting for positive legislation which is going to support students, which is going to support those institutions. Now I welcome the National Party supporting this legislation, because the history, for people watching, is that the Hon Paul Goldsmith originally tabled this legislation, and it was incredibly negative. Now, sure, there was the marginal common-sense stuff around the common seal of institutions, the common fund, the enrolment of international students, and some penalties that can be applied—no one could disagree with that stuff.

Now what the member Denise Lee was just talking about was the crux of the issue and why these parties were opposed to the original legislation, because the member Denise Lee talked about the need for equal funding. Now successive Governments, both blue and red, have not used this principle, because, sure, the State does pay for private, for-profit education providers, but they’ve never done it at an equal rate, because that would be unfair, because the State has to pay for all the capital costs of institutions—the physical assets, the buildings, the infrastructure. When you’re talking to private providers, when you’re talking about equal treatment, what you’re actually talking about is the State paying for the capital assets of the private, for-profit providers.

That’s why I’d like to acknowledge the excellent work of the Tertiary Education Union. They brought in thousands of academics and workers at tertiary institutions up and down New Zealand to submit to the committee, many of them orally, and they made the point that this is unfair. In fact, what the Government, under Paul Goldsmith, was trying to do was bind the hands of future Governments to subsidise for-profit private providers’ capital assets so they could accumulate more at the taxpayers’ expense. So, sure, talk about equality of funding sounds nice, but, in practice, what you’re talking about is subsidising private for-profit providers.

And then they went and changed the language to make private for-profit providers sound more innocuous. Now National, while I welcome the support, as in previous readings, at the committee stage decried this legislation. They were calling it ideological, yet what their naming change to private, for-profit operators was was simply an ideological tool to make it easier to get more cash out of the taxpayers.

So, look, the Government’s taken a very pragmatic approach. They have changed the language. For example, community or not-for-profit private providers are now called independent tertiary establishments, which describes what they are. It’s not trying to play ideological language games, which is what previously happened. So, look, it’s fantastic to be voting for positive legislation which is going to make high-quality education more likely for New Zealanders.

We’ve got a fantastic tertiary sector, and I want to also acknowledge the private providers. They do do sterling work. I don’t think the taxpayer should be subsidising their private asset increases, but they do do excellent work, and I’d like to acknowledge everyone working in the sector.

Look, when you look at the other positive change we’ve seen in only the short amount of time of this new Government—historic, significant funding increases to make it easier for people to study in New Zealand—this is a really good Government for students, this is a really good Government for universities and polytechs and wānanga, and this is a really good Government for education, which, ultimately, is going to build a richer Aotearoa New Zealand.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia orana to you, tēnā tātou katoa e Te Whare. It’s always interesting, I find, to speak after Mr Hughes, and, I have to say, I often enjoy listening to him. I think he frequently talks absolute nonsense, but he’s extremely articulate and he always delivers his speeches with great passion. I have to say, I found that a particularly entertaining contribution, because he waxed eloquently over the fact that after nine years of a National administration he was delighted to be able to speak so enthusiastically about such a great piece of legislation.

The only thing he omitted to mention was that, of course, it is a National Party bill. So for nine years he’s apparently opposed everything that we were doing, and now that he is part of a Government responsible for the same piece of legislation, he’s finally woken up to the fact that it’s a really good piece.

So I will keep my contribution fairly brief because others have already endorsed it. There’s clearly great support for the bill across the House. I have to say I take great umbrage with both Mark Patterson and Denise Lee, two members I used to consider to be mighty fine people. But for them to have paid such lovely tributes to the outgoing chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, Sarah Dowie, without mentioning the fact that I too am leaving the committee causes me great pain and suffering—ha, ha! And if I can only ask them to take a point of order and correct that egregious oversight—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Haere rā.

Ha, ha! Yes, I’m being told by even my own colleagues that perhaps that’s enough, but let me just conclude. As others have noted, this is an eminently sensible piece of legislation, not least because of the greater flexibility that it introduces into the system. I’m delighted that it is so warmly welcomed across the House, and for that reason I, too, have great pleasure in supporting it.

I call Marja Lubeck. I understand this is a split call.

Thank you. Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to take a call on the Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I’m sorry to the previous speaker, Tim Macindoe: I’m going to cause a little bit more pain, because I too, at the risk of overkill, will pay my respects to Sarah Dowie. It was my very first time on the select committee, and I think she did an absolutely fantastic job, in sometimes challenging circumstances, to be a fair and neutral chair. So I thank her for that. I hope her successor is going to be just as good.

So this is the first time I’m speaking to a bill going through all the stages in the House. This bill has been before the Education and Workforce Committee but, of course, it started its life with the Education and Science Committee, that the previous speaker referred to. I believe they received and considered over 2,000 submissions from organisations and individuals and heard oral evidence from 49 here in Wellington. Now, it is important that we do mention those submissions, because the 2,054 submissions on this bill had a vast majority that did not support the equity of funding treatment that the member for Taupō earlier mentioned and other members subsequently picked up on. So, really, why the other side of the House keeps going on about this particular issue is a mystery to me. The vast majority of submitters thought it was not a good idea. It was widely felt that spending public money on what is, essentially, a private business was incorrect and would give those private businesses an unfair competitive advantage. Also, I think, during the committee of the whole House, Minister Hipkins made another excellent point in that regard: namely, that if the Government were not able to put extra funding into our public institutions without also having to put it into private ones, there would be a whole network of regional public institutions at serious risk of falling over because the previous Government put them into serious financial difficulty, and this Government will have to fix that.

So what this bill does is it does strengthen the tertiary education system in several ways, and it does that in two parts to the bill. We have already spoken at length about the clauses where international students are now better managed because schools will be able to control misconduct outside of school hours, and that will be welcomed, we know, by many of the schools as a way for them to uphold their obligations and ensure the welfare and well-being of those international students. That was pretty much Part 1.

In Part 2, there are quite a number of significant changes. We have mentioned the loophole with regard to falsely awarding credits on students’ records of achievement, and as a result of the changes that this bill now makes, providers can be held to account for not only issuing false qualifications but also now for false representation on a student’s record of achievement. At the same time, the penalty is increased for a fine up to $50,000, which is comparable to offences of a similar nature. The increase also allows for an increase in the time that a prosecution can be pursued, from what is now 12 months to five years under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. That makes that particular issue a lot more workable.

We’ve heard from Minister Davis about the wānanga. This is really important because, at the moment, a wānanga cannot use a protected term such as university to describe themselves, which really puts them in a difficult situation if they want to market themselves overseas. It is a term that not very many people will understand outside of New Zealand. There was, in fact, a submission from Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi, specifically pointing out that it was difficult for them to market themselves because of that misunderstanding or non-understanding of the description of whare wānanga.

There are so many of these changes to the bill in Part 2, but I see that I’m running out of time, so what I would like to do is I would like to commend and say thank you to the previous select committees, thank you to all the 2,054 interested groups and individuals who provided submissions, and commend this bill to the House.

It gives me pleasure to speak to this third reading of the Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and I do want to reiterate something I said in the House earlier today, which was that, actually, it’s nice to see National Party policy and bills making their way through the Parliament, even if they’re not completely intact. I acknowledge the Hon Paul Goldsmith for the work he has done on it, and I also acknowledge Sarah Dowie, but I do so in order to acknowledge my friend the Hon Tim Macindoe, who’s been left out of the acknowledgments so far, because his work on the Education and Workforce Committee and the Education and Science Committee over several years has greatly improved the quality of this debate and this bill, and his former knowledge as a teacher no doubt had a significant part to play in how this bill was considered. So I thank the Hon Chris Hipkins for picking this bill up and bringing it before the House.

There’s two parts I wish to particularly comment on because they haven’t really been mentioned a lot so far in this reading. One is the false declarations provisions. We have heard this is a response to some abuse that’s occurred in terms of how records are kept and used and certified, and I think by lifting the level of fine up to $50,000 that is a significant disincentive for people to breach that. The second one, really, is around international students. I think it’s great that this House has acknowledged the importance of them—15 percent of the tertiary student population, on average worth about $4.3 billion to the New Zealand economy—and it is important that the pastoral care and the activities of those students outside of the schools is able to be managed and monitored so the experience both for the students and for the school and for New Zealand can be as positive as possible. How we achieve that I think is clearly set out in this bill, and I congratulate the Parliament on getting to this point.

So that’s all I wish to say. I think it’s a significant achievement after a long and hard battle by the National Party in the first place, and I’m grateful that’s been taken up by the current Government. Thank you.

Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take what will likely be the final call this evening. I am still in a state of shock, realising that my Hamilton-based fellow MP is leaving our committee, the Education and Workforce Committee. I hope it wasn’t something I said.

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: I’ll miss you too, Jamie.

Yeah. We will miss you—we will miss you, Tim—and we wish you all the best for whichever committee you are heading to.

Now, this bill was a National bill and it’s now become a Government bill. So it was with the previous Government; it’s now with this Government. Like many bills in the past few months, it’s been improved. It’s sort of like taking a car, putting some mag wheels on it, and maybe a bit of a tinted paint job, and, basically, improving the quality of this bill, and I am going to go on to talk about how this bill has been improved, but before I do—

💬 Hon Member: It’s still a car.

With a better engine as well. But before I do, I would like to pay tribute to some of the quality institutions that have had a big impact in my life. So I studied at Wintec in 2007 to 2009, I studied at the Waikato University in 2010, and, after a stint in the education workforce, I decided to go back to Waikato University and I finished my Master’s in educational leadership, which I finished about three weeks ago, and I’ve just found out I passed, so I’m very happy to announce that—only just, but we’ll take that.

So I would like to pay tribute to the importance of our tertiary institutions. We’re proud of these in our country. There’s a high level of integrity, respect, and competency, and, as we’ve heard tonight, these institutions provide our fourth-largest export industry, so it’s absolutely vital that we protect these industries, that they keep their area of accountability—

I apologise to the member.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.