Peters Jim: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Peters Jim: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14585] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak just briefly because the Hon Brian Donnelly at a greater age than when young men partake in sport decided to take part in a sporting activity at the weekend—and is suffering somewhat at this time. With sympathy I speak on his behalf because this call has been put upon me at short notice. 
Last night I was fortunate to attend the awarding of an honorary doctorate of laws to John Hood at Auckland University. In the course of that evening there was great mention speaker by speaker of what an international reputation means for a university and for a higher learning institution—such as Auckland University in its achievements during John Hood’s 5½ years. That is the first matter I wish to bring before the House. There is an international reputation at stake here not only for our public universities and tertiary institutions but also in this case for private providers. The second issue is that the bill is the result of a need that has developed in other places and concerns the apparent ability of private providers in this country to meet that need in their response—learning institution by learning institution. 
In the brief time that Mr Donnelly was away I sat in on the Education and Science Committee and left with the following impressions. First no sound Minister would wish prudent thoughtful private training establishment providers to be in any way responsible for those imprudent shonky providers such as the three and now four that have collapsed in the last year or so—not one. 
The other aspect that was so clearly demonstrated at the select committee was the apparent inability of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to make any appropriate or proper response to the situation developing at that time particularly in the authority’s very haphazard approach to the auditing of the relevant private providers’ accounts. It was very very sloppy to use a common expression. There was no concern to pin down the actions that were to be taken and the consequent result exactly as the previous speaker Ms Wong has said was that months later nothing had been done to remedy the defect known about in January of the year of the collapse—nothing. 
Therefore this bill has two issues that New Zealand First is concerned about. First no reason at all can be advanced for why the prudent provider should be saddled with the debt of those who are not up to the game as it were of maintaining a high standard of teaching. That teaching by the way is mainly of the English language. 
The second issue is that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority as the responsible agency with regard to the registration accreditation and monitoring of the industry was very woeful indeed. That was the experience of those on the committee and the answers that came from the authority to the committee in response to its questions showed an inability to reply or a recollection that was faulty. 
On behalf of the Hon Brian Donnelly therefore I say that New Zealand First does not give its support to this bill. We do give support to an international industry in education and learning that is industrious and that provides a proper experience for students. In this country’s recent history there have been many learning institutions that have been able to do just that. Contrary to what the Minister said earlier this is nothing to do with where students come from. It is to do with the reputation—for which his ministry has been responsible—for maintaining international standards of learning. Those standards are not just for public institutions. They must be maintained also for those providers that exercise their wish to educate in a private role. 
New Zealand First does not support this bill. Again the real point of the matter is that the ministry and the Minister need to think again and think urgently because since this bill came to the House the problem has escalated. There is yet another agency about to go under and the same scenario will be repeated there of a lack of attention to the detail of the provider in its monitoring by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. We do not recommend the passing of this bill.