Hughes Gareth: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Gareth: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20582. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is great to be discussing education issues in this Chamber but I have been struck by the lacklustre debate we have been hearing. There is no passion from any of the members. It seems as if they are not interested in the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). Education is vital to our future as a country as a people and as an economy. My vision is for an education system that sets up our young Kiwis be they in primary school at university or at a polytechnic so that we can deliver a smart economy. I was just looking out of my office window today at all those logs on the Wellington waterfront. Why are we still exporting raw logs in 2011? Why are we not using our smarts to turn them into high-value wood products? Why are we not leveraging that clean green brand and building a smart economy? Although it is good to be discussing education in this Chamber this bill is about tinkering. This bill is not visionary and it will not bring about the big changes we need to really deliver a smart economy and smart people. But here we are; we have this bill to debate today. 
I first acknowledge the submitters to the Education and Science Committee. There were not a huge number of them but I acknowledge them. I acknowledge the officials the chairman of the committee and other members who heard the submissions on the select committee. I also acknowledge them. 
This bill does a number of things—for example it strengthens the regulation of private training establishments. It gives the Minister of Education more power to issue directives to tertiary providers about how they charge the student services levy. It establishes the new Crown agent Education New Zealand to replace three former agencies and lastly it makes it easier for the Ministry of Social Development to administer student allowances by giving the ministry the power to request enrolment information. Much of that is not controversial at all. The Green Party could support these mostly common-sense or beneficial clauses and parts to the bill. 
But the fact is that the Green Party will not be supporting this legislation because of what we see in clauses 25 to 29 which are the student service levy clauses. I will outline why the Green Party is opposed to these clauses why we would have liked these clauses to be removed and why there are good reasons they should have been removed. Then we could have had the whole Parliament voting for what would have been a pretty good common-sense and non-controversial bill. 
The reasons why the Green Party is opposed to these clauses is that no evidence was presented that there is a significant problem of rising fees or that this situation will continue into the future but we acknowledge there have been recent rises that have been significant. But of course both parties are avoiding the real issue. Why are we seeing student service fees rising so high? The reason is that Governments whether red or blue have both failed to properly fund tertiary education and have put in place policies like the fee maxima that have been good on one side but that have meant that institutions have had to go out and get revenue sources in other ways like having student fees. 
The bill gives Steven Joyce Minister for Tertiary Education far too much power to issue directives on what institutions can do. The Green Party supports greater autonomy for our tertiary institutions. Through this legislation we will see a worse outcome for our students. Clauses 25 to 29 give the Minister power to direct via regulation the categories of student services that the institution may make available. The council of the institution must ensure that any fees fixed under the schedule relate only to the types of student services that fall within those categories. In a nutshell the Minister will be deciding what categories of services independent institutions can charge their students for and fund. 
The Green Party is concerned about rising fees. We do not think that rises of up to 600 percent at Canterbury University are on. Some rises have been significant. But we heard from the officials on the regulatory impact statement. They said quite clearly that there is no indication that recent rises will be the norm. I looked at the Auckland University submission which states: “The Bill as presented seeks to address a number of ‘problems’ that do not exist and even if they were to exist would be capable of efficient and inexpensive resolution without the need for the approaches suggested in this Bill.” If we look at the submission from Victoria University we see that it says this bill is about “second guessing” the university’s roles and responsibilities to its students and it questions the independent ministerial powers. There is no evidence that we need legislation to deal with the problem. 
The fact is that the bill avoids the real issue: why institutions feel they have to keep raising student fees. It is the lack of funding by this Government and the last Government it is the fee maxima policies and it is the fact that the budget for tertiary education has not grown by a cent under the National Government yet we know that inflation is rising by 20 percent—the highest increase in 21 years. We are seeing a country that spends $3000 less than the OECD average on our students yet Australia which we are apparently trying to catch in terms of economy and performance has poured $5.7 billion extra into its tertiary sector. We have put no extra money into ours which has required institutions to raise their fees. There is no need for this law as it fails to address the real problem and the legislation gives the Minister for Tertiary Education Steven Joyce far too much power. 
I believe that clauses 25-29 are in contradiction of Part 14 of the Education Act which gives institutions institutional independence. National when in Opposition railed on about the nanny State and the perils of regulation and red tape coming from the last Government but here it is now in Government and deciding to put regulatory powers on the shoulders of one man for him to decide who should levy fees on students what fees should be levied and how they should be levied. At the same time that we are debating another bill that we cannot name in this Chamber—ostensibly in the name of student choice and student freedom—here is the National Government supported by Labour telling students how their student fees will be raised and what fees can and cannot be used for. If that is not nanny State then I do not know what is—the Government telling institutions what they can spend their own money on. 
In the environment of the legislation that cannot be named in this Chamber we are seeing that students associations are going to collapse and we are seeing the need for agreements to be signed between institutions and students associations as is the case now at Auckland University. That puts a serious constraint on their funding ability and the fact is that the vast majority of these services are critical to a good university environment critical to good pastoral care of our students and ultimately critical to good educational and economic outcomes. 
The Greens support greater openness and transparency and greater student involvement in setting student levies but again that is being left up to regulations and there is no detail in this bill. We think that that should have been enshrined in this legislation to make sure the principles of openness and transparency will be delivered by the Minister. Again so many parts of this bill have been left up to regulation. We are writing the Minister a blank cheque to decide what he sees fit to do with students’ money. 
What we have is a problem that both the regulatory impact statement and most institutions in their submissions say does not exist. The bill goes against the institutional independence that we hold dear in our institutions. It will see worse outcomes for students. It avoids the real issue and I say once again that it puts too much power on the shoulders of one man the Minister for Tertiary Education. At a time when we desperately need education in order to provide a boost to our economy and our society we are seeing the underfunding of tertiary education fewer places being provided more expensive services and reduced access for students aged over 55. The Government has made shocking retrospective punitive decisions that will rule out literally thousands of students because it has made changes that will apply from 2 years ago and has raised entry requirements. In a sense we are seeing a whole bunch of barriers to better tertiary education outcomes. We are seeing tertiary education in New Zealand becoming less accessible less affordable and in some cases downright impossible as the Government closes the door. That is why the Green Party opposes this bill. We would have preferred to see clauses 25-29 removed; then we could have seen all of Parliament voting for the bill. As it stands this bill is not needed is avoidable and ignores the real issues facing our sector. Kia ora.