Hughes Gareth: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Hughes Gareth: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17943] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. Tertiary education is vital to our future prosperity and to building a smart economy. I am glad to take a call tonight on the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) which amends the Education Act 1989. 
I will make a quick comment on the debate so far. I think David Shearer deserves an A for his analysis of the situation. Minister Joyce has a number of portfolios and when it comes to it he seems to have his keys on the ministerial printing press. He has $43 million to bail out his mates in MediaWorks he has billions of dollars to throw at reducing competition and increasing the price when it comes to ultra-fast broadband and he has $10.7 billion to spend on motorways when we are borrowing $300 million a week. He needs to pour some of that money into our vital tertiary education sector. Mr Peachey is a well-noted educationalist but if I were to grade his speech I would say: “Needs to do more work; needs to do his homework.” It is a big bill and there are lots of parts he could have spoken on. Maybe he would get an A for his creative writing. I liked the allusion to 9 long years of Labour. There was some good creative writing there. I think if Ms Sepuloni was giving a history speech she would maybe get a C. I do not know whether she was a student under those 9 long years of a Labour Government but I was. I saw increasing fees increasing student loan burdens across the whole country and interest on student loans for 6 years before it was rightfully taken off. So I would maybe give her a C for historical accuracy. 
The Green Party will be opposing this bill tonight on its first reading. We have a mixed view on the bill which is a grab bag of things. There are some good parts some mixed parts and some bad parts. 
First I will talk about the good parts of the bill. The Green Party supports strengthening the regulation of private training establishments. Many private training establishments do fantastic work. However the whole industry can be affected by cowboys in the market. We support establishing new rules for their registration and operation and handing quality assurance back to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority but we have some grave concerns about the authority implementing the new New Zealand qualifications framework and listing approved qualifications and about its enhanced enforcement powers. 
Secondly the bill establishes a new Crown agent Education New Zealand to replace the functions of the three organisations currently managing and promoting international education as a New Zealand export earner. We are talking about New Zealand Trade and Enterprise the Ministry of Education and the Education New Zealand Trust. Streamlining seems to be an ideological mantra often repeated by the National Government without much actual evidence presented. We look forward to seeing the benefits outlined in the select committee of merging the three operations into a single agency operating under a board and being accountable to the Minister. We take this opportunity to stress that when discussing international education a strong focus on student welfare and pastoral care is vital. 
Thirdly we think it is common sense to make it easier for the Ministry of Social Development to administer student allowances by giving it the power to request enrolment information from tertiary providers. The ministry already has these powers in relation to student loans and the fact that it does not have them for student allowances seems to be a historical oversight. The bill also creates a new offence if a tertiary provider knowingly provides false or misleading information to the Ministry of Social Development regarding the administration of loans and allowances. 
Then there is the bad. The other two objectives of the bill are more problematic. Regarding student services fees it is true that they have increased dramatically in recent years but it has not happened for no reason. Institutions use them to fund vital services to get around the fee maxima which applies only to tuition fees. In short facing inadequate funding and further budget cuts from the Minister for Tertiary Education it is not unrealistic that new sources of income would be identified so that we can keep providing a world-class education service. 
In the lead-up to May’s Budget I ask how decisions that are being made currently or are about to be made will impact on our universities and polytechs. If it is to be a zero Budget as has been promoted I ask whether we will see yet another cut to our tertiary education budget. As of last year we already spend $3000 less per student than the OECD average and we are in the bottom quarter for expenditure on tertiary education as a percentage of our gross domestic product. 
On the face of it the Green Party supports moves to keep student fees down and we believe that core education services should be paid for via adequate tuition subsidies and fees not via these alternative sources. The Minister seems intent on addressing the symptom but not the cause which is the fact that he will not fund tertiary education properly. 
We welcome increased student involvement and increased transparency; the irony of course is that no students will get a chance to vote on how the student levy is raised or spent as they currently do through their students association fees. The risk is that the Minister will decide to limit the ability of students associations to make up fee shortfalls through the levy leading to a situation where either student services or core services will be cut. Facing a recessionary environment and a stagnant economy dependent on international commodity prices we need to follow the lead of Australia which is investing an extra $5.7 billion over the next 5 years to achieve its goal of 40 percent of Australians having degrees. We need to invest more in the tertiary education sector not play student services off against core services. 
The bill gives wide-ranging and extensive powers to the Minister to dictate the terms on which institutions can raise and charge service fees including which services the fees are used for and potentially to set dollar amounts. As with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority power is being concentrated more centrally in ministerial hands. It is as if a memo has been circulated around the National Party trying to secure as much power as it can in executive hands over the legislature or the public. 
In a voluntary student membership environment institutions will have to pick up the tab for many services currently provided by students associations and there is the risk that this bill could constrain their ability to do so if the Minister sets strict rules. Whole services could fall through the gaps if the Minister decides to do so. 
I do not think it is good lawmaking to leave this important question up to the inclination of a particular Minister. The Minister needs to identify what categories of services will be allowed now because it seems unlikely that we could vote for them in further readings based on his deplorable track record in the portfolio. If a clearer framework and clarity is the policy objective of the Minister he should include that information in the legislation; he should not leave it up to a future Minister’s whim. Likewise the Minister should spell out exactly how students’ views will be represented effectively in the legislation. With a different Minister change like this could be positive but the fact that it places so much power in the hands of whoever is in power is good reason to oppose the bill. 
Lastly the changes regarding the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the regulation of private training establishments are extensive. The changes implement recommendations by the targeted review of qualifications undertaken from 2009 to 2010 which was focused on the proliferation of low-quality courses. The bill establishes a new New Zealand qualifications framework that lists the approved qualifications. We look forward to finding out more in the select committee as to what is likely to make it on to the list of approved qualifications because in an increasingly complex world we need to provide students with all the opportunities their creativity their entrepreneurial skills and their social potential demand. 
Some elements are concerning—for example the fact that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is given quite Draconian powers under this legislation for enforcement. The authority can enter premises access or copy information and question staff. 
In conclusion the Green Party supports some of this bill but other parts like those provisions relating to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the student levy powers are concerning. We may change our vote down the line but only if the bill actually sees better tertiary education outcomes. Kia ora.