Donnelly Brian: General Debate 
Donnelly Brian: General Debate 
[Volume:630;Page:2070] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 Members will know that I do not normally participate in the general debate. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Winston speaks in them all the time. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: I am talking about me. Quite frankly most of the contributions to it demean the dignity of the House particularly those of the two old parties who simply spend all their time hurling abuse at each other. But from time to time the general debate offers the opportunity to raise matters of genuine concern. I also say at this point of time that my contribution would be somewhat easier to make if I did not hear “Advance Australia Fair” being played every time I turn on the TV these days and a whole lot easier if a 17-year-old Australian had not stepped up to the circle and denied Beatrice Faumuinaa medal last night. I will put those feelings aside because Dover Samuels may wear an Akubra but I am going in to bat for the Aussies in this speech. 
The issue is the deplorable manner in which a New Zealand tertiary institution has treated students in Australia and the Australian Council for Private Education and Training. For the benefit of the listeners I will explain the issue. In 2001 The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand bought the Australian company Stotts Correspondence College and its subsidiary Stotts Correspondence College New Zealand. The Australian operation was losing money at the time and has continued to do so ever since. The New Zealand operation continues to make a profit. Indeed the Australian operation has lost $2.5 million in the last 5 years. Therefore it is completely understandable that it was placed into what the Aussies call voluntary administration in December last year owing $3 million which included $2.2 million to its New Zealand Government - owned parent The Open Polytechnic. A meeting of creditors was called and the company was put into liquidation. So far so good. It might have been an unwise commercial decision but those are made every day. 
But when an education institution such as that goes belly up the problem is that there are students enrolled in courses and there is a moral obligation and a cost associated with ensuring that those students are enrolled in programmes with other providers. To the deep discredit of The Open Polytechnic it simply washed its hands of that particular problem. It just walked away. And that is not good enough. Our national reputation is at stake in this particular case because however much we throw off at the Aussies however much we may cringe at their level of sporting success and however fierce our sporting competition with them may be they are our closest mates. We have very positive and constructive relationships in education with our Australian counterparts over a wide sphere. We have the trans-Tasman mutual recognition of qualifications. Our Ministers attend their ministerial forum of education Ministers. We have even flogged the Queensland approach to curriculum delivery in the revamp of our national curriculum. 
This issue has to be seen in the same way as if an Australian institution had set up in New Zealand and then cut and run leaving 600 to 800 students hanging out to dry. It is not an issue that is immaterial in trans-Tasman relations as Michael Cullen said. The replacement courses found for the students were all organised by the Australian Council for Private Education and Training. The Open Polytechnic dumped the students cut its losses and ran and the Australian Council for Private Education and Training picked up the pieces—and at a cost. The Australian Council for Private Education and Training does not want The Open Polytechnic to cover the tuition costs—that is not at issue. It does not even want The Open Polytechnic to cover the full cost of relocation. It is asking The Open Polytechnic to front up with half the cost of relocation which is a total of A$25000. 
I say to Paul Grimwood Chief Executive Officer of The Open Polytechnic and to The Open Polytechnic council: “Do the right thing.” This situation is damaging the reputation of all of our providers in Australia and elsewhere and it is damaging to our image as a nation. It makes us look small-minded petty mean and penny-pinching worried only about the bottom line but not about the students for whom we have accepted educational responsibility. There may not be a legal responsibility but there sure as heck is a moral and an ethical one. The problem is that the image that one of our institutions portrays across the ditch is reflected upon all our institutions and indeed on New Zealand as a nation. So I say again to Paul Grimwood and to The Open Polytechnic council that they should go and seek the A$25000 so that the matter can be put to rest and New Zealand’s educational reputation can be re-established.