Martin Tracey: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10509. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Chair. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak particularly on the areas of Education New Zealand and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority.I will pick up on some of the comments by Dr Jian Yang the chair of the Education and Science Committee particularly around export education which is covered by both Education New Zealand and by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. If I can just quote from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s annual report one of its key pieces of work is: “administering the Code of Practice for the Pastoral Care of International Students which involves working with other quality assurance providers and the International Appeal Authority and Review Panel to verify that Code signatories perform as required and that international students receive ethical and responsible care from their providers.”What I want to touch on here is that it is interesting—Dr Yang actually touched on it—that in 2014 there were 110000 international students inside the post-secondary environment here in New Zealand. Just the universities alone made $883 million from those studentsfor that particular year. Education New Zealand for example spent approximately $31 million on marketing overseas and so on in order to get those 110000 students to come here to New Zealand. They were given a marketing opportunity by this Government in the last few years which was the ability for students to actually have 20 hours’ part-time work. Dr Yang said quite rightly that it has been extrapolated out that the export education industry has created 30000 jobs in New Zealand. The Government has handed out 70000 part-time work visas. So if Dr Yang would like to do the maths New Zealand has actually lost by 40000 jobs—40000 jobs have been taken from New Zealand students under the marketing ability of export education.So if we get back to the fact that export education spent $30 million to $31 million of New Zealand taxpayers’ money going overseas to promote export education which let me say is vital to New Zealand—the reputation of that education is vital to New Zealand—what would the House think that the State received back for that $31 million worth of investment? The State actually received a $4 million return from the training institutions not just universities but all private training establishments all training institutions from tier 1 to tier 4—why we have tier 3 and tier 4 training institutions when our reputation is vital overseas I have no idea but perhaps the Government could tell me. The Government received a $4 million return. That is because every training institution that receives a benefit from the $31 million worth of marketing pays $185 per year per institution—$185 per year per institution. That is what the New Zealand taxpayer received back for that investment. Apart from the fact that it is a woefully sorry return for the New Zealand taxpayer on the investment that they make at the same time it is supporting private businesses to gain a benefit from the overall New Zealand taxpayer dollar.Then there comes this issue of care and this is where the New Zealand Qualifications Authority needs to step up and where the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s resourcing under these financial documents needs to be looked at quite strongly. What we have had from the AUSA the Auckland University Students Association is that it has had a 96 percent increase in students coming to it over the last few months for food parcels for legal aid and so on. That is all students—a 96 percent increase in all students coming to them in January and February. What is very interesting is that 55 percent of those people are international students. International students are coming to them for legal advice around sex-for-rent. International students are coming to them for food parcels. International students are coming to them for assistance in the workplace where they are being ripped off. And yet what we have is a lack of resourcing for the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to be proactive or to hold those private training establishments and those universities which hold our reputation in the palm of their hand—we have a lack of resourcing by that department to maintain the level of reputation that we need for what is an incredibly vital service.So when New Zealand First raises these issues consistently around the abuse of international students inside the workplace and the abuse of international students—and particularly female students—with the sex-for-rent scandal why was there no noise from any member of the Government or any Government department when there was an investigation into the sex-for-rent scandal that happened up in Auckland? That is a resourcing issue.The other issue that we have and I think is very interesting—and this is from the 2015 year—is a statement put out by the Hon Hekia Parata and the Hon Steven Joyce. The statement that they have made here is that “In addition New Zealand is one of only nine OECD countries where salaries for experienced tertiary-educated teachers compare favourably with salaries for people with equivalent qualifications in other occupations. The report shows that teacher salaries have risen faster in New Zealand than the OECD average since 2005.” I bring this to your attention because it relates to the financial documents but it is the spin that is put on these financial documents. Dr Yang just spoke about how well the New Zealand education system is doing insisting that it is because the National Government has invested so highly in it. But the National Government has underspent in special-needs education. The National Government has continued to fight for increased funding for all students. The National Government has continued and is continuing to this day to put barriers in the way of extension for gifted and talented students and also for our special-needs students.What is interesting about the statement I just read is that I actually had research done to try to prove the statement that was put out by Hekia Parata and Steven Joyce. The researchers’ comments are: “we cannot replicate the above statement with data. There is no data to support the statements made.” This again is what happens inside these reports and inside the conversations that this Government talks about with regard to education. Statements are made—they go off just like water down the road—but there is no substance to those statements. One can say again and again and again that one cares and wants to get five out of five students over the line. Yet the Government is not funding not spending not making sure that they support the organisations—the Government departments—that should be proactive to keep the reputation of our education system intact. Ensuring they have the right funding should be inside not only these financials but the financials going forward.