Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Madam Chairperson Tolley. Thank you very much. I rise to speak on Part 2 of the Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and I recognise the bill because I happened to be on the hard-working select committee that discussed these items. So I thank the Hon Nikki Kaye for her acknowledgment of the select committee and the fact that the work done by it predominantly about this bill in the last Parliament was very worthy work.Can I address the two Supplementary Order Papers Supplementary Order Paper 15 in the name—actually I'm not sure who this is in the name of. Oh I know it's in the name of the Minister. First of all what it does is in clause 36 after section 253C(3)(d) insert (e) in … case of a wānanga consult with … persons or bodies who are knowledgable in … (Māori tradition) … and tikanga Māori … with a kaupapa Māori pedagogy as the Minister considers appropriate."This I believe is an eloquent solution to what was submitted to us that wānanga—and I believe my colleague Tamati Coffey articulated it very clearly—that are also trying to attract international students that are also trying to spread the pedagogy that is based in tikanga Māori to the world have a problem with the understanding of what is Te Reo Māori. Nobody should be surprised by that because Te Reo Māori lives here which is why it's so precious. It's the only place that it actually lives—not to be confused with Cook Islands Maori.So I think what the Minister has done—if the public go and have a look at who the Minister must consult with when an application is made to use the protected term "university"—provides wānanga with an opportunity to present themselves to the Minister of Education and for him or her to also consider both sides of what is the educational story around that narrative before making a decision whether a wānanga can actually use the protected term. And it's appropriate because wānanga are producing a high level of education for many of our students in a different model. It's something unique to New Zealand and it needs to be recognised I believe inside New Zealand law. So certainly New Zealand First will be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 15.If I can go to Supplementary Order Paper 17 which I believe if I listened to the colleague that just resumed her seat Nikki Kaye is in the name of the Hon Paul Goldsmith. Now this is merely an attempt—if I read it correctly and perhaps the Minister could clarify for me—for the National Opposition to reintroduce a requirement for funding for private institutions profit-making institutions to be enshrined in law to be paid for by the public purse so that no future Government could possibly have the opportunity to fund the public sector—as in Public Service sector—at any different rate.The argument that was made—Hon Louise Upston: What about choice?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The argument that was made Ms Upston was that if this is enshrined in law there is also no opportunity for any future Government to actually fund a private training provider at a higher level. That was the conversation and that was the context with which I put it to the then National Government members on that select committee. There may very well be in the future of this nation a requirement for any Government to fund at a higher level—let's say rural provision regardless of who is providing that rural provision.We've heard the word "ideology" bandied about here today—we've heard the word "ideology". The fact that both of these pieces of ideology that have come into this House have been part of a negotiating deal with a political party—and that's how they ended up a supply and confidence agreement and that's how they ended up in legislation—appears to have been overlooked.That is not how this current coalition Government has made policy. The current coalition Government changed no policy at all when they actually entered into negotiations afterwards so it's very interesting to hear that supposedly from the Hon Nikki Kaye the problem with the Government—and we will be opposing Supplementary Order Paper 17—is all about ideology. Actually it's about common sense. It's about the fact that the rural provision of education that is required may mean that any future Government needs to address shortfalls whether that is a public or whether that is a private institution. There's nothing ideological about it; it's practicalities.What drove this Supplementary Order Paper what drove this piece inside the original Part 2 of the legislation was actually a desire to make sure that no future Government—and I think that possibly the current Opposition had a little bit of an instinct that the future Government might have a Labour Party in it; they wanted to try and tie it up before that happened.Just with regard to the community tertiary education provider I'm very pleased to see this amendment also inside Part 2 of the legislation. There was a suggestion put forward at the select committee by the original architects of the bill—which was the National Government at that time—that the reason why private training enterprises (PTEs) should not be called that is because some of them were not-for-profit. Interestingly enough the argument was made by the many submitters on this bill that nobody used the phrase "PTE" or "private training establishment except officials". So front-facing out to the public any private training provider can call themselves anything they like—nothing required them to call themselves private training providers.But for some reason they did not wish to be known as that when they were dealing with ministries or when they were dealing with funding models. And again the argument was that there were a few of them or a few people in that playing field that were not-for-profit. Now I think that we have to have a look at that "not-for-profit" when CEOs are paid $200000 or whatever a year. I think there's some interesting statements being paid by not-for-profits and by trusts in this field or in the field of education where they are paying far too much money for chief executives (CEs). They set up a not-for-profit they set up a trust and then they become the CE and they find themselves with a $200000 salary. But what we have done here and what the Minister of Education has very cleverly I think done here is identify community tertiary education providers—so the real providers that are not-for-profit those that truly serve the communities that are needy that nobody can make any money from—Alastair Scott: So profitable organisations don't serve?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: —that nobody can make any money from Mr Alastair Scott. I'm sure that is not a part of the organisations that you decide to talk to but these are for those organisations that nobody makes any money from. They deliver a public service and that's who we're trying to make sure can be identified through this term which is the amendment of section 159 in clause 9.Again New Zealand First will be definitely supporting the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper 15. We will not be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 17 from Mr Goldsmith and we are pleased to see the amendment to include a descriptor that is the community tertiary education provider."