Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair Williams. I have a number of questions for the Minister in respect of this amendment bill and they are really around the integrity of the system. I must say given the export earner that education is in New Zealand I entirely understand the importance of maintaining the integrity of the system. Firstly there are some concerns that they don't go far enough and then there are some concerns that other things could have been done that perhaps go a little further.Clause 9 of the bill defines educational outcome" and I'm just wondering if the Minister might give a view on exactly how far that goes because that feeds into an offence provision about falsifying educational outcomes including all components of student achievement. If we do look at the offence itself I guess I do have some concerns that it might catch some people who are fairly low down the academic chain. We have junior tutors marking papers and so on who may indeed come under some pressure—may perhaps misstep—but I'm wondering whether a falsification by some junior tutor who may themselves be a student really needs to invoke the full force of this legislation or does that definition perhaps really mean something else and it means perhaps a full-time academic embarking on that conduct or something like that? So that's my first question and that comes out of clause 9 which feeds into clause 38.Clause 38 increases the fine for falsification to $50000 and I do note that that is a significant fine. I understand entirely the need for disincentive—and this is kind of a double banger because in one sense I'm asking: is that too excessive? Is it comparable to other offences? Is there a wider justification for the magnitude of that fine? I'm suspecting the Minister will come back and say "Indeed it is." and give good reason for that. If that's the case the question for the Minister is: should that then be rolled out across the Act more widely because a number of the other sections of the Act—the first offence section is section 292 Minister and then the other parts of the section section 292A to C also have offences. But as I read it—and I may have this wrong—those offences remain at $10000. So the question is: shouldn't we be amending these all at once and having a much more even approach?My final point—and I don't intend to take too long here—is around clause 37 the use of protected terms. There is of course a list of protected terms which I entirely endorse including "wānanga" and then the question I have is whether we should be having a catch-all provision in there. There is some concern that many private providers dress themselves up with coats of arms and the words "College" the "New Zealand" this the "Institute" of that and they're presenting themselves as if they have the imprimatur of the State and that is dangerous. A private provider is one thing: it is subject to a qualifications regime but it is no more than a private provider whereas a university goes through a much more rigorous process and anything that is in fact an arm of the New Zealand Government and the New Zealand education system is something quite different. My question to the Minister is whether consideration had been given to broadening that out to say that any educational institution who engages in misleading conduct as to the nature of their institution or its origins and relationships is indeed committing an offence.So there really are four points there and I would very much like to know the Minister's thinking in respect of each of them. Thank you very much."