Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20924. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Education Amendment Bill (No 4) 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Following on from the comments made by the chair of the Education and Science Committee I want to say that the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) is good legislation. It does a number of important things. But to coin a phrase no man is an island and this bill cannot stand alone without being looked at in the context of other relevant legislation and I will refer to that in a moment. Perhaps I will start with an area where the House agrees and that is the importance of a number of the changes here particularly those in relation to for instance private training establishment regulation.  
It is fair to say that private training establishments play a very important role in filling the gaps in the education system that the public institutions are not able to fill. Many of them do a very good job of that and provide educational opportunities for people who perhaps would not get them in other ways. They also provide a part of the arrangements that allow for international students to come to New Zealand and therefore they play an important role. But the truth is that there have been examples in recent times where private training establishments have not lived up to the marketing they have given overseas. In some extreme cases people have essentially allowed degrees to be bought for very little actual work or study. That is not good for the reputation of New Zealand internationally. So I think it is important that there have been some moves in this bill to tighten up the way in which private training establishments are accredited and able to offer programmes and courses.  
Can I perhaps offer at this point my belief that there are one or two other areas in terms of the overall registration of private training establishments that could still be looked at to further enhance the improvements in this bill. One of those is what might appear to be quite a simple point but is actually quite important and that is the names that private training establishments use when they market offshore. In fact one of the cases that caused a problem in recent times around private training establishments was an institution called the New Zealand Academy of Studies which was caught selling a business diploma for $12000. There was a related school called the City Language Academy which was eventually deregistered for false advertising. When an institution is overseas and markets itself as the New Zealand Academy of Studies it gives the impression that it is a national nationwide institution. I do believe that the time has come for us to look more carefully at whether we allow institutions to market themselves as the “New Zealand Academy” or the “New Zealand Institute” of something. It does give an impression which in most cases will be false about whether it is a nationwide institution. So I would urge the Government to think about that. I know that my colleague Raymond Huo has looked at this in terms of a member’s bill and I think it is something that should be considered because it is an important part of the way we market tertiary institutions or private training establishments.  
The other issue in terms of private training establishments that is not covered by the improvements in this bill is around whether there needs to be some self-policing and whether we can get private training establishments to work together in the same ways that universities do through the organisation Universities New Zealand and in the same ways that polytechnics do through a couple of organisations they have that bring together the institutes of technology and the polytechnics. I think that would help. It would raise the bar in terms of the quality of private training and I think that is an important factor. So although I welcome the changes in respect of private training establishments in this bill I think more can be done to ensure they do provide quality.  
I want to briefly refer to the creation of Education New Zealand the combined agency that will work on marketing and promotion of New Zealand education overseas. I welcome this change. I think it is timely to bring this exercise together. As somebody who worked in this field and travelled to Asia to help promote the institution I was working for I can say that when we work together we do it better. We are a small country. One particular visit I was on was to Viet Nam and we went to a meeting with a number of tertiary providers. The Vietnamese Government officials asked us whether we would be able to take 50000 students over the next couple of years to do English language training. That was a challenging task for the institutions that were there. We could not do that but by working together the institutions were able to take a large number of people. The bill will allow institutions to work more efficiently with the Government. It will allow Ministry of Education officials to focus on what they need to focus on and to stay focused—just as Mr Quinn is. The officials will be able to make sure they have an excellent programme for promoting New Zealand education. I welcome the changes to Education New Zealand in the bill and congratulate the new chair Mr Charles Finny who I am sure with his experience as a diplomat will be able to lead that organisation. I hope that it will see the continuation of the importance of international education and export education as part of the New Zealand economy.  
I now want to return to the question that dominated the Committee stage of the debate which is around the changes to the management of compulsory student services fees. I will clarify for those new to the debate that compulsory student services fees are the kinds of fees that get charged for things in tertiary institutions like the student health and counselling services the careers advice services or creche facilities that might be provided by the institutions. These fees are charged by the institution. They are compulsory and they are part of enrolling. The problem emerged in recent years that there was a massive increase—an over 100 percent increase in some cases—of fees by tertiary institutions. One of the institutions that was singled out in the debate earlier is Canterbury University which increased the fee enormously in 2009 and 2010. I will quote Rod Carr the vice-chancellor of Canterbury University when he was explaining the increase to students. Rod Carr said that students were getting a “crap deal” from the Government which was refusing to fund higher education at the levels it should. He said: “The underlying problem is we have not been successful in advocating for more money for higher education … The Government made it very clear the real resources allocated to the universities will reduce over the next three to five years.”  
That is a significant problem and one that we have to acknowledge. This Government has failed to invest in tertiary education to the extent needed at this time. In a recessionary environment more people are looking for tertiary education opportunities and the funding has simply not been forthcoming from this Government. In fact Minister Joyce said his goal was to dampen demand in tertiary education which I think is the opposite of what should be happening if we are an aspirational country. If we are ambitious for New Zealand then we need to be encouraging people into tertiary education. Unfortunately some tertiary institutions without the level of Government funding they wanted have put up student services levies in reaction to that. That is wrong. That is not what they should be doing. Student services levies should be for student services. That is why I welcome this change in the bill which will make it more transparent. There will be more accountability on institutions to provide student services with the money they generate from student services levies and it will be possible to cap those levies if the Minister is not satisfied. The Minister will have a very hands-on role here in being able to direct institutions to the categories of student services they provide and even to the types of student services they provide. That is a good thing.  
As I said this bill is not an island; it exists alongside the voluntary students association membership bill—I say with respect to Allan Peachey—which is related for two reasons. The first of those reasons is that students associations provide important services on campus which they now will not be able to provide if the voluntary students association membership bill passes. That is the experience from Australia: 75 percent of the services that were provided went west when the voluntary student membership bill went through over there. That will mean that those services will be transferred to the institutions to provide and if they are working in a capped environment then that will put a great deal of pressure on them. The other factor is that students associations will not be there to be able to be part of this decision-making process. There will be no one for the Minister to actually consult with in terms of representatives. So the two bills are linked.  
I urge the Government to rethink its support for the voluntary student membership bill because the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) in and of itself is a good thing. It will increase accountability and transparency around student services levies but the quality of services that students will be able to get is compromised by the voluntary student membership bill which in turn compromises the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). But we do support the bill. It does a number of useful things in the tertiary education sector and I commend it to the House. 
HILARY CALVERT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to commend the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) to the House. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 There are three main aims in the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). It sets out first to amend the Education Act 1989 in order to strengthen the regulation of the tertiary education system by improving and modernising the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s legal arrangements; second to facilitate the expansion of international education and safeguard the quality and reputation of the New Zealand education system; and third to increase transparency and accountability in the tertiary education system.  
They are all good concepts: improvements modernisation quality transparency and accountability. There is nothing wrong with that but there are some other concepts that we might add to the mix: cultural competency inclusion diversity consistency and equity. From the consultation we have had with Maori education providers we have heard that the international student changes will have minimal effect on Maori students but could affect the future direction of organisations such as Te Wananga o Aotearoa in this area. We are also informed by Te Mana Akonga the national Maori students association that it opposes this bill and it is happy for its comments to be made public. I guess this brings us to the point that the Maori Party places a great priority on ensuring that every aspect of legislation is placed under scrutiny as to its consistency with Maori world views and its impact on tangata whenua. We know that unless we provide that specific lens when looking at legislation that voice will be absent from the debate. No other party here in Parliament is present to speak on the issues from a Maori perspective in the debate on this bill or in fact on any of the bills that are being put through under urgency.  
Te Mana Akonga told us that Maori need to be represented at council level to ensure that Maori views are heard where decisions are made. This has not occurred in this bill. Te Mana Akonga also told us that Maori students need to be included in any group that determines key performance indicators for tertiary institutions. Again this bill does not provide for that. Of course a key concern for Te Mana Akonga as it is for the Maori Party is the consequences if the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is passed into law because if that bill succeeds as it appears it will it will provoke increased demand for strong Maori student representation and advocacy if associations are compromised in their ability to represent and serve students. Maori student representation must be given a seat at decision-making boards throughout the institutions to ensure consistent feedback and representation throughout. Te Mana Akonga supports the need for the student body and their representatives to engage with tertiary institutions on matters regarding student services levies.  
In other consultation we have had with Maori students we heard that they have the same fear that if students associations become voluntary the assumption is that many of the services that were previously provided by students associations would be passed on to the institutions. If this was to occur this bill gives the Minister for Tertiary Education the final say on services so really those services could disappear altogether.  
The Education and Science Committee specifically addressed compulsory student fees and it provided a clarification on the powers the Minister would have to determine student services fees. It also clarified that the Minister would have the power to require institutions to establish decision-making arrangements jointly or in consultation with the students enrolled at the institution. Essentially this spells out that if the Minister so chooses students must be involved in a determination of student services. I guess our concern remains that the incentive must start with the Minister. The “what ifs” continue to plague us. Representatives in wananga whom we talked to shared this concern. They were nervous that their future leadership could be constrained in their ability to provide some resources for students because the Minister might not allow it.  
They were particularly concerned about the student services fees section. In their view we need to watch out because with a conservative Government Maori student services could disappear. There needs to be some recognition for services to Maori and this bill does not enable that. The prevailing concern was that it depends largely on how the Minister for Tertiary Education uses his or her powers. If the Minister decides to cut all underperforming services in a focus on education quality one has to wonder what compromises will be made and how these cuts would affect students. The Minister would have the power to effectively dictate the services a tertiary institution could offer which could potentially jeopardise student services.  
The other key concern raised during our consultation was quality assurance and qualifications particularly in relation to the implications for wananga. As a result of this bill the New Zealand Qualifications Authority will now be solely in charge of quality assurance which means it is taking that function from universities. The wananga are already a key part of qualifications assurance and qualifications but their desire is that they have delegated powers for quality assurance. The changes threaten rangatiratanga by taking away the autonomy of institutions and centralising it in Government. From the point of view of wananga they are disappointed that wananga will never it seems be able to do their own quality assurance in the future. So we continue to raise the question from wananga as to whether the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has the capability to carry out quality assessment for a kaupapa Maori approach as well as it needs to. Universities have always been allowed to self-assess and the wananga are hoping that they would also have that opportunity one day.  
There are other good points in the bill. The Maori Party supports the Government’s intent to reduce the exploitation of students by some institutions. The changes around the administration of student allowances seem reasonable in terms of enabling data to be accessible for better administration. But our other concerns particularly in the context created by the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill mean we are honour-bound on behalf of Maori students Maori providers and wananga to oppose this bill at its third reading. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand in support of the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) in its final reading and I am pleased that members of the Opposition also support this legislation. Lifting skills is a key part of the Government’s plan for economic growth in New Zealand. Part of that plan is making tertiary education more accountable and having a higher level of performance for its students which is of course good for the students involved and good for tertiary education providers but more important good for taxpayers and good for the country.  
If we look at the focus on quality we see that one of the other areas where the House has had quite a lengthy discussion is that of supporting students. I refer in particular to giving students improved transparency in terms of how student support services fees are set in order to enable there to be less of a disparity around the range of those fees both in terms of the financial level and in terms of the services that are provided within that. So the legislation provides students with a decent voice. I have spoken quite a lot about the other changes so I will not spend any more time on them.  
I will give a final plug for the changes in international education including the creation of the Crown agent Education New Zealand which will basically unleash this country’s ability to export education across the globe. Also there were changes in the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and its legal arrangements which were more of a technical nature.  
I am very pleased to support the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). It is another fine bill brought before this House by a fine Minister who is committed to lifting performance in tertiary education. We have 16500 more tertiary places than we have had since 2008 and I think that is a fine achievement; another one we can tick off for this fine Government. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am happy to take a quick call on the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). It may or may not be quick depending on how I go.  
Allan Peachey 
: Keep the emphasis on quick. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I know Allan Peachey wants me to take my full 10 minutes. He looks like he is sitting on the edge of his seat. He cannot wait for me to get into it. The Labour Party supports this bill.  
Amy Adams 
: He loves his own voice. He’ll speak for 10 minutes. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is right. The Labour Party supports this bill but I do have some concerns. Before I move on to those I will talk particularly about the importance of transparency in the setting of student services levies. Increased transparency around the setting of those levies is very important. The ability of students to understand what they are paying for and to have some say in what they are charged for student services is very important. In my time at Victoria University I had a huge amount to do with the student services there which were paid for out of a levy that covered the Student Health Service student counselling and a variety of services that I think all of us in the House would agree are really important to provide to students and therefore it is important that they be paid for.  
Of course the question that remains is that if the Minister for Tertiary Education uses his power under this provision we are about to pass in order to cap the amount of money that student services can charge for those services by way of a levy then that leaves them two options: to increase user charges or to cut student services. I know what is most likely to happen. The most likely thing to happen unless the university polytechnic institution or wananga comes to the party and increases the— 
Paul Quinn 
: Or prospect for members. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: What was that? 
Paul Quinn 
: Why don’t they go and get some more members? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I am not sure what Paul Quinn is talking about. He asks why they do not go and get some more members. I say to Paul Quinn that the institutions cannot get more students because his Government has capped the number of students whom an institution can enrol. I notice that Paul Quinn has finally woken up. It looked like he was dozing off. He might want to go back into his slumber lest he look like more of an idiot than he already does.  
The issue is that tertiary institutions—the universities polytechnics and wananga—will have a choice between increasing levies and if they cannot increase levies to pay for the increased cost of students services they can introduce more part charges more user charges for students or they can cut services. Having seen a reasonable amount of what universities and polytechnics have done in the past I think that they are most likely to cut student services. I think that would be a great tragedy.  
The critical issue in tertiary education is making sure that the institutions are adequately resourced to deliver all of the services they need to. That includes student services some of which are paid for by way of levy and some of which are cross-subsidised from tuition fees. There is absolutely a cross-subsidy between tuition fees and student services because some student services are integral to the institutions’ abilities to deliver academic programmes. For example the provision of student computing facilities is a student service but it is absolutely integral to the ability of a student to undertake their course of study. In some institutions there may be some levy costs associated with that; in other institutions it will simply be paid for out of the tuition fees. Transparency around that arrangement is important and this bill delivers greater transparency. I think that is very important.  
I will talk about a potentially significant increase in student levies coming up around the corner if this Government has its way and passes Heather Roy’s Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill that will introduce voluntary student membership. At the moment students association membership is a levy and if the tertiary institutions pick up the services provided by students associations they will almost certainly fund that by way of a levy. In 1999 when students were given a choice between whether they wanted a compulsory or a voluntary regime for students association membership they overwhelmingly voted for compulsory membership. It is always useful to remember that. But Victoria University where I studied decided that it would provide many of the services the students association provided if voluntary membership was voted for. The university would still provide subsidies for clubs it would still provide a certain number of activities and so on. It would have levied students for that. The university’s levy would have delivered fewer services and cost more than the students association levy would have cost because the university could not do it as cheaply.  
This is the very real prospect that tertiary institutions will face next year. If this Government passes the bill which it promised it would not pass but now says that it will then tertiary institutions will face a very real dilemma: do they increase the levies that students pay or do they cut services—do they simply accept that those services will go? I suspect that in a lot of cases students will end up paying more for less. One way or another they will end up paying more in order to get less. That is one of the downsides of voluntary students association membership. There are many others but we will come to those I am sure when the voluntary student membership bill ends up being debated in the House again. Transparency around the way those levies are set will be very important.  
Another concern of course is that students at the moment have a real say on how the levies are set because the levies that are charged by a tertiary institution are ultimately determined by the governing council. At the moment students are guaranteed representation on that governing body. In most instances where there is a strong students association it is done through the students association. With a voluntary regime there is no guarantee that the quality of student representation will be maintained and therefore students may not have an effective voice in having their say on the way the student services levies fixed by institutions are set. I think that that would be a great tragedy.  
Labour supports the parts of this bill that introduce greater transparency around the setting of student services levies because we have seen a significant increase in student services levies under this Government—up 600 percent at Canterbury University. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: How much? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Six hundred percent at Canterbury University under this Government and I think there should be a great amount of scrutiny around the setting of student services levies. One of the concerns that students will of course be expressing is that in an environment where institutions are choked of funding by this National Government one option they have is to increase their revenue by increasing the amount that students pay directly for services through increased student services levies. So placing a greater control on that is important but of course that does not remedy the problem. It puts a control on the transfer of costs to students; it does not remedy the problem of where the institutions get the money from to provide those services in the first place. If the Government is not willing to front up with the funding that creates very real dilemmas for the institutions.  
The price of tertiary education—the amount that students are forking out—has gone up 18 percent since National took office and student services levies of course are only one of the causes with tuition fees being the lion’s share of that. Increased costs for tertiary education mean increased student loan balances and longer repayment times. There are a whole lot of other reasons why that is a bad idea. We want to bring down the cost of tertiary education. Of course this is what the National Party campaigned on at the last election—bringing down the cost of tertiary education. Well no one is hearing National members talking about that any more. They are not talking about bringing down the cost of tertiary education any more because there is irrefutable evidence that is absolutely clear: the cost of tertiary education under this National Government has gone up by over 18 percent since it took office. National has not kept its promise to keep down the costs to students and some of the measures it is proposing including voluntary students association membership and further capping of the funding for tertiary institutions will only exacerbate that problem.  
I will briefly talk about some of the other aspects of the bill that the Labour Party supports. We do support the establishment of the new export education body. That is a good thing. I encourage the Government to keep Murray McCully as far away from that as it possibly can. He has plenty of other things that he likes to meddle in and I think he could keep his hands off the export education industry—it seems to be doing pretty well. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Arrogant! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I agree with Jonathan Coleman; Murray McCully is incredibly arrogant. He is possibly the most arrogant Minister in the Government so I think it is important that Murray McCully be kept as far away from international education as is possible. [ 
Interruption 
] Old “Maestro” over there—maybe they should let “The Maestro” take over international education. If he did as good a job of that as he did of running Melissa Lee’s campaign in Mt Albert—[ 
Interruption 
] I want Jonathan Coleman to come and run the National Party campaign in my electorate; I really would like that. I would be quite happy to pay his air fares for him to come and run National’s campaign in Rimutaka. I would be in in a landslide after the fantastic job that he did in Mt Albert!  
Overall to return to the bill that we are debating the Education Amendment Bill (No 4)—as tempting as it is to continue to talk about Jonathan Coleman just because there is so much material there to work with—I say that the Labour Party supports the bill. This is the final reading of the bill and we are very happy to support it. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is indeed a pleasure to take a brief call on the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). May I congratulate the superb chairmanship of Allan Peachey and the cooperation from all those parties on the Education and Science Committee. I would also like to acknowledge the officials. This is a bill whose time has arrived. On that basis I commend it to the House with great conviction. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is nice to see the Government members working so hard to pass legislation that they are so passionate about! Labour will be supporting the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) and we are supportive of most of the provisions within it. Where we become critical is in the broad area of tertiary education and the kind of blinkered view that Government members and Ministers are taking when it comes to this legislation and the impact of other changes they are making in the tertiary education sector. There are clauses in the legislation we will pass this afternoon that may in effect become redundant or out of date within weeks of the legislation being passed.  
Certainly as my colleagues have said we support the establishment of the export education outfit. We think it is a good idea to get standards in that area. Too many organisations have been going overseas and calling themselves the “New Zealand institute” of such and such which carries with it a certain expectation of quality which unfortunately has not been there in many cases. We believe that regulation in this area will be for the benefit of all New Zealanders.  
The only part of this bill really that has been contentious is the setting of student levies. This really does need to be looked at in the broader sense of the funding for the tertiary education sector and the current environment it finds itself in. Although the capping of levies that can be charged to students is a good thing—we absolutely agree with that and we have seen across the country that student levies have shot up—and we want to be able to reduce the cost of tertiary education to our students as much as we can the fact is that we cannot look at that in isolation. We need to look at the reasons why those student levies have increased as dramatically as they have.  
What we know is that because of funding cuts in the tertiary sector tertiary institutions have been cross-subsidising. They have been using the student levy to pay for things such as staffing. Staffing is a core function of any university or polytechnic or any other tertiary institution around the country and they have been paying for staffing out of the student levy. Because they have had their core funding from the Government so constrained—and we heard from the comments of the vice-chancellor of Canterbury University that they have basically been told that funding will go backwards over the next 3 to 5 years under this Government—they have had to look elsewhere in order to fund things that have traditionally come from Government funding. One of those things has been something as core as staffing.  
I remember the first Budget introduced by this National-led Government. One of the first things it did was cut the assistance fund which enabled tertiary institutes to bring experienced academics out to New Zealand to work in our universities to add to their research programme and to add to the quality of teaching. That is something that goes on in every country around the world. Tertiary institutions are constantly involved in a transfer of knowledge and a transfer of the individuals who carry that knowledge. But the reality is that in order to be able to match the salaries that these individuals are able to attract from other countries there needs to be a little bit of assistance. There was a fund there that enabled tertiary institutions to do that and that funding has gone.  
Well tertiary institutions will not want to see their standing in the world go backwards because of this. They naturally look to other areas to supplement their funding for such things as bringing overseas experts into this country to add value to the tertiary education sector in this country. One of the areas that has been looked at is the area of the student levy. Well that is not what the student levy was proposed for and in that respect we support the Minister’s ability to say very clearly what the student levy is for and that students deserve to know what their levy will pay for. They deserve to know how it will be set and they deserve to have input into that process. But that cannot be divorced from the core issue which is a constraining of funding in the tertiary education sector.  
That is why the tertiary institutions have done it. They have not done it because they want to rip students off and they have not done it because they are wasting money. They are doing it because their funding from the Government is going backwards. Government members have not referred to this in any way when they have been speaking. They have looked at this bill in isolation from the reality for our tertiary education sector particularly for universities. On this side of the House we support the provisions in this bill. But one cannot look at it in isolation; this legislation does not exist in a vacuum.  
The idea that National is aspirational for New Zealand is a joke quite frankly if one of the most important sectors in this country will end up going backwards in international rankings because of funding cuts. 
David Bennett 
: Oh rubbish! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I am interested to see the member from Hamilton guffawing at that. Of course the university in the city he lives in is also not happy about the constrained funding environments under this Government. So he can guffaw all he wants but he knows— 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Who’s the member? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I am not sure what his name is but he knows very well what I am talking about. 
The other area in which we cannot look at this legislation in isolation is in relation to the legislation currently being put forward by the ACT Party on voluntary student membership. Currently in most of our universities in New Zealand we have a system where we have compulsory student membership of student associations. The fee is not all that expensive. Membership provides an extraordinary amount of benefit for the fee that is paid.  
For those members of a student association who really strongly object there are conscientious objector provisions in the legislation that they can use if they want to. But the reality is that most students are happy with the services provided by their student association. They know that the services are a lot cheaper than they would be if they had to pay for them outside the student association and they know that the student associations provide their services on a much much more cost-effective basis than if the institutions were providing them or if they had to go out privately.  
I am talking about services like medical services gym services creche food banks hardship tutoring and counselling for students who are undergoing stressful situations. A whole range of services is provided as well as all the clubs on campus and the events run by the student association. As part of that as well they have an elected executive that is involved in the running of the university and in the decisions that are made in that regard.  
So one would have to wonder what is so broke that it needs to be fixed because all it needs is for 10 percent of students to sign a petition to say that they do not like compulsory membership and they want to have a vote on it and the student association could go voluntary. Waikato University which is in Mr Bennett’s city did that. That student association went voluntary and the whole thing fell apart just like student associations did in Australia where 75 percent of student services were lost. The whole thing fell apart. Do members know what? They had to bring it back. They voted to bring it back because voluntary student membership was such a resounding failure. Yet here we are again. The reason that is relevant to this legislation can be found in new section 227A(1)(c) which is to be inserted in the Education Act 1989 by clause 26 of this bill. The new section requires the Minister when he is setting the student levy when he is deciding what it will pay for and when he is deciding how high it will be set where it will be capped and all these things to see that arrangements have been made “for decisions to be made jointly or in consultation with the students enrolled at the institution or their representatives”—or their representatives.  
Well if voluntary student membership goes through the students will not have representatives. So whom will they consult? At the moment it is quite clear. At the moment there is a democratically elected student association executive to consult. Whom will they consult? Will they consult the Young Nats on campus or ACT on Campus?  
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: And they’ll hand-pick them. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Of course they will—they will hand-pick them. But at the moment we have a system that is not broken that is cost-effective and that works amazingly well providing good-quality services for students at a price they can afford which is often free of charge. We have had cases where universities in New Zealand have gone voluntary and have come back because voluntary membership was such a resounding failure. More important under the legislation there was a clear clear organisation for the university to consult on matters pertaining to students. In new section 227A(1)(c) in clause 26 the Government will be requiring tertiary institutions to consult students yet in their blinkered view Government members who promised not to support voluntary student membership legislation at the last election—breaking that promise— 
Jo Goodhew 
: No we didn’t. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I tell Jo Goodhew to ask Paul Hutchison. He went to the New Zealand University Students’ Association conference and promised that National would not support this legislation. Well we may be looking at legislation here that will be out of date within weeks if that voluntary student membership legislation goes through and I do not think that that is good lawmaking. Thank you. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 My call will be brief; it really has already been said. The Education Amendment Bill (No 4) is about National’s key message. We believe in getting the most out of every dollar that the taxpayers of New Zealand spend on tertiary education. We also want to know that students are getting value for money. We want better performance from students and the tertiary education organisations and we want a simpler funding system. We are committed to supporting students and moving towards a more accountable higher-performing tertiary education sector.  
Many members opposite have commended this bill and have said that it is a good bill and I also believe that that heads us in exactly the right direction. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 13 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a third time.