Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:20833] 
Education Amendment Bill (No 4) 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Education Act 1989 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 Labour has supported this bill as it has proceeded through both the first two readings and as it went through the Education and Science Committee. We had a number of very good submissions to the select committee on this bill. Many of them sought some tightening-up of some of the provisions in Part 1. I particularly refer to the Education New Zealand Trust whose submission was presented to us by David Caygill who came to speak on it. But in general with some of the amendments that were made through the select committee process we will be supporting this legislation. 
As I say there are a number of issues under Part 1. A great deal of the bill in effect brings in much of the educational legislation that needs to be tidied up and in a sense put right. It brings it all together. But I think it is worthwhile to touch on the Education New Zealand Trust in terms of Part 1. What was curious for many of us was that the Education New Zealand Trust is a body that represents in many ways the international education providers. We are talking about a sizable industry of more than $2 billion here—$2.1 billion. It has grown very very rapidly. It has a number of components and aspects to it. The feeling from the Government was that rather than the Education New Zealand Trust being more of a representative body it needed to be changed into a Crown entity. In effect what the Government is doing in this particular case—which is somewhat curious given the trend of the Government to try to downsize—is creating a Government agency or entity. Education New Zealand as it will now be called will be a Crown entity; it will add to the Government bureaucracy. 
The question that came about in the select committee was whether this was a positive move or whether it was too heavy-handed on the part of Steven Joyce the Minister for Tertiary Education. As Mr Caygill pointed out there was no stated need to make this change. Although the trust did not oppose the change as such it said: “Education New Zealand Trust is reluctantly supportive of Part 21 of the Bill.” It also went on to say in its submission: “At no time has the Trust been made aware by the government of any deficiency in its performance or area for improvement that would explain this proposal.” To the Education New Zealand Trust it was somewhat of a mystery why this change is taking place. It is as I say quite a major change. It establishes a Crown entity to manage and oversee an area of work where there does not seem to be any problem. The old adage “Why fix it when it is not broken?” seems to apply in this particular case. 
The trust went on to say in its submission that it agreed with the desirability of ensuring coordination between various activities such as the work of the Ministry of Education of Trade and Enterprise and of many of the other providers. But again there is nothing really in this Crown entity that gives us any confidence to believe that it will be able to do the job very much better than the trust itself. The long-term risk that the trust sees in this proposal is that the new agency “being subject to government direction may fail to maintain the necessary confidence and support from the industry.” I think that is a very valid concern. At the moment in some ways the industry has a stake in the trust performing its duties in the way that the industry believes that it should do. In fact the industry may actually lose that trust and that direct ability to influence the new Crown entity as it comes into being. 
The other issue that was brought up—and it was not really adequately answered by the Crown—was the question of the enforcement aspects of this Crown entity. Will it be able to enforce better standards on the part of the many providers of international education in New Zealand? The answer is actually no. We would like to think that it would do so but it is likely that it probably could not. Although we are broadly supportive of the shift from the trust to the Crown entity—well let us put it this way; we are not opposing it—we are not convinced that the Government has put up a very good case for this entity to come into being. 
One positive thing about the move is the fact that the new Crown entity will effectively pick up in total the staff of the trust. Those staff will be effectively transferred to the new Crown entity. That will at least provide a smooth transition and a continuation of the services that the trust currently provides and that hopefully the entity will be able to take over. 
New Zealand is quite unusual in the world because at the moment we do not have a body controlling—“controlling” is probably the wrong word; coordinating and governing—international education in New Zealand as part of its Government. We are quite unusual because we do not have that but I am not sure whether making this move will necessarily enhance the standing of Education New Zealand or enhance the international education market in New Zealand. It may do so particularly with regard to perhaps the Asian area which for some years now has been the growth area for international education in New Zealand. It may give some of those Governments a little more confidence that the new Crown entity is under the Government but in terms of the entity’s basic responsibilities and actions I am not sure whether that will be the case. 
In conclusion I say I wanted to make those remarks in the debate on Part 1 about an area that I think is of the greatest concern. It is not something that we have gone out to oppose. I do not think that the case has been made adequately for the transition to a Crown entity; I think that the analysis was inadequate. That is not a sufficient reason for us to oppose this particular part in the legislation and we will support it. However I do think that we will keep a very close eye on monitoring the actions of the new Crown entity particularly with regard to the way that it goes out seeks obtains and secures the confidence of the industry—the plethora of different providers that have attracted the large number of students who come into New Zealand as part of this very valuable industry. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I am following on from David Shearer who obviously had an amazing contribution to make having been part of the Education and Science Committee. Like David I have a few concerns about this move. Education is obviously a very important export earner for New Zealand. It brings in a lot of dollars and I think it is one of those things that flies under the radar a little bit in the sense that not many people are aware of the good work that is done by our education sector in promoting New Zealand in a number of ways. For example I have heard many stories—well not many; a few stories—OK one story about people who were educated in New Zealand. They came over here got a good education— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Debate interrupted.