Donnelly Brian: Motions — Southern Institute of Technology—Ombudsman's Recommendations 
Donnelly Brian: Motions — Southern Institute of Technology—Ombudsman's Recommendations 
[Volume:619;Page:15088] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First sees this issue as being something much larger than just this particular case. I think we need to look at some of the details of the case so that listeners really understand what we are dealing with here. 
A group of students enrolled at the Southern Institute of Technology in what they thought was a 2-year diploma programme. They were told that the first year would lead them to a certificate then the second year would lead them to a diploma. It was very very clear. That is not disputed. The promotional material that was presented to them stated: “The National Certificate is a programme designed as the first year of a 2-year Diploma in Social Services.” Following the completion of the first year the Southern Institute of Technology decided that it did not have the capacity to deliver the diploma programme. In fact it found out that it would require 2 more years and that it did not have the personnel the staffing or anything else. Therefore it said to those students: “Sorry you are going to be left with a certificate and we are not going to compensate you.” 
Something that needs to be remembered here is that one of the offers that was made was that the students could enrol for free in some other course or programme. The institute was prepared to make the financial contribution that the Ombudsman has now asked it to make but it had to be in the form of some other programme and that is really what we are dealing with. 
Mr Peck has very eloquently pointed out some of the constitutional issues here but to New Zealand First it is also—and probably primarily—an issue of justice and access to justice. As we went through the commodification and commercialisation of the tertiary sector in the 1990s—in fact it started in the 1980s—it was always assumed that consumer guarantee laws would protect students when there was misrepresentation poor delivery of programmes etc. What has been found since then is that the consumer guarantee legislation is not cogent enough or potent enough to be able to provide such protections. For example the Southern Institute of Technology argues that because somewhere else in its book there is a waiver on its programmes it is not obliged to offer up what it has now provided. That is like getting some gadget in a box and one side of the box says what the gadget is supposed to do but the other side says that if the gadget does not work: “Sorry. We take no responsibility for it.” That is what the Southern Institute of Technology is asking those students to comply with. There was a very interesting answer to a question in the House today given by the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) Steve Maharey. Obviously there has been recognition that the current consumer guarantees law is not strong enough to be able to protect students in what Mr Peck has rightly said is a David and Goliath struggle with institutions that are resistant. 
Therefore the sector itself has got together and said it will allow the Office of the Ombudsman to be utilised. That was the agreement. Yet when the office was used in this particular case this institution said that no it was not going to take on board the recommendations that the Ombudsman had made. That is very very much a matter of justice because what access to justice do these students have if not through such mechanisms? The Southern Institute of Technology is actually challenging a mechanism that has been put in place to provide fair treatment of students who as it stands are in a very weak position. New Zealand First believes that if the Southern Institute of Technology continues to stand out in this particular case it will be necessary to take up the issue that the Prime Minister has talked about and to make laws that ensure that when there are decisions like this there is no way out for the institution. 
I tell the institution that we are talking here about $21000. We are talking here about the same costs that the institution was prepared to offer to those students when it found out that there had been a mistake and it could not deliver. Yet now for some reason the Southern Institute of Technology is prepared to challenge Parliament’s officer—the Ombudsman—who has looked at the case looked at it fairly and come up with a conclusion. 
So New Zealand First does support this particular motion. We believe that it is a motion that goes to the heart of as Mr Peck said constitutional issues but it also goes to the heart of what we consider to be justice in a democratic society. People should not be precluded from access to justice because they do not have the big guns the big pockets or the big purses. That is exactly what has happened in this particular case. We would like to take the opportunity to commend the students because they themselves through their resilience their courage and their commitment have created a test case—that is this most unusual situation in this House of Parliament tonight as we debate this motion. 
 We are throwing down the gauntlet to the Southern Institute of Technology and saying that if it continues with its stance then it is challenging Parliament. I hope Parliament will vote in a way that states very clearly to the Southern Institute of Technology that that is what will happen if it continues with its stance. To the students and their parents we say “Good on you!”. We recognise them and pay credit to them for their courage and commitment to certain principles. In this particular case we in New Zealand First believe that as a consequence of the trauma they have gone though—because obviously they have gone through enormous trauma and as Mr Peck has said some of them were not able to cope with the hardship they incurred—one way or the other some fair procedures and mechanisms will be put in place for students who are provided with misinformation about their courses or are provided with substandard courses. 
New Zealand First will support this motion and we congratulate Mr Peck on bringing it to the House. We remember that the institute is in his own electorate yet he saw fit to take the case because he saw that it is more than just an electorate issue—it is in fact a national issue an ethical issue and an issue about the way we operate our society. We encourage other parties to vote in favour of the motion.