GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this
Thank you for the call, Mr Chair—and I am sure that members on the Government benches will be anxious to take a call on this bill, as well, and that will be good. The Education Amendment Bill (No 4) obviously makes a range of amendments to the Education Act. That is the nature of such bills; they do cover a lot of ground.
The particular area of concern I want to raise is about the reforms this bill makes to student services levies. There is absolutely no doubt, when we look at the growth of student services levies in institutions around the country, that this could be a matter of considerable concern. In 2010 student services levies increased by an average of 102 percent in universities, and what I think has been happening there, essentially, is that universities have been looking at the fee maxima policy—which the Labour Government introduced and the National Government has carried on with—and have perhaps been looking at ways they can increase their revenue. There has certainly been some concern from students about the way in which these levies have increased over a period of time. This bill allows the Minister for Tertiary Education to give directions to institutions to hold fees in a specified manner, as provided in new section 227A, inserted by clause 26. For example, directing that a separate account be used exclusively for the purpose of expenditure on student services; that adequate arrangements be established to make decisions as to the types of services that should be made available to students, the level of a student levy, the procurement of student services, and the method of authorising expenditure on student services in joint consultation with students; and that a description of the services funded out of the student levy be included in its annual report.
Now, all of that might sound good in the sense that it can control aspects of the growth of student services levies, but it is important to see this legislation in the context of another piece of legislation that is before the House, and that is Heather Roy’s Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill to make students association membership voluntary. Although a mischief may be being dealt with here in terms of the growth of the student services levies, the end result of Ms Roy’s bill—the shutting down, effectively, of students associations—is that a lot of the services provided to students will now be channelled through the institution—the university, the polytech, the wānanga, or the private training establishment—and the control of what services are delivered will become very much the purview of the institution. This is the criticism we have made on this side of the House of the voluntary students association membership bill—that the control of student affairs is moving from students to institutions. And, as I think I have said in debates before, in the 1990s when I was a student politician we had posters around when we were opposing Michael Laws’ bill.
Hon Tau HenareWe came and lobbied Tau Henare. I should tell the Committee the story of when I lobbied Tau Henare about Michael Laws’ voluntary students association membership bill. I was a student politician and I dressed up in my suit and tie. I thought I should scrub up well to go and see Tau Henare when he was a New Zealand First MP. I got there. He walked in the door—jandals, shorts, T-shirt. That is what Tau Henare was wearing that day when we came to see him. He was casual; very, very casual. In those days Mr Henare opposed voluntary students association membership, but things have changed. He has moved on, and he is now in favour of it.
But, anyway, under this bill what we are going to see is that the control of what student services are allowed really does start to fall to the institutions, and the Minister will now have a role under this bill. In some senses that is good, but the problem we have is that the bill—along with the voluntary students association membership bill, if that passes—will see a transfer of the control of what services are provided to students, to those institutions. So what we are saying here is that it is all very well to limit the growth of the student services levies, but if more responsibilities are falling to the institutions to provide student services, that will put pressure on those institutions to be able to provide those services within the context of this. So capping the student services levies at a time when the institutions will be responsible for more things runs the risk that services for students will decline. We know that student services will decline with the voluntary students association membership bill, and we now have another bill that may have a good intent—to limit the increase in student services levies—but now more things will have to be dealt with by institutions and there will be a cap in place. So it is a kind of catch-22 situation.
It might be a laudable goal to try to cap the growth of student services levies—and I know that students want to see that growth reduce and make sure it is not as big as it has been in recent years—but the truth is that if the voluntary students association membership bill passes, there will be a great reduction in services available to students. Responsibility for services will fall on to the institutions, which will now be in a capped environment for the kinds of services they can provide. Also, they will be making decisions about what services are provided rather than the students for whom they work. So it is a concern to us that the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) brings this in. We do not believe that the balance is right. The easy solution would be that the voluntary students association membership bill does not pass, and then we will be in a situation where the capping of student services levies will achieve its goal without reducing the quality of services available.
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) Link to this
In speaking to Part 1, I need to react to comments made by the member for Wellington Central, who, it seems to me, is digging himself deeper and deeper into a hole in terms of three things. One is his inability to actually address the issues in this bill. I heard that the Labour members who were speaking last night are supporting it. Secondly, he is trying to get this all tied up with the voluntary student union membership bill, where the issues, in my view, are very, very different. And, thirdly, and most significantly—and where the electorate will demand a price at the election, and in Wellington Central itself—is the willingness of that member to use filibuster tactics in this House to frustrate a bill in his name, brought on behalf of the Royal Society, in relation to which he was being asked to discharge his responsibilities as an electorate MP. Instead, he chose to put an ideological agenda ahead of an organisation in his electorate that required his assistance.
As the chairperson of the Education and Science Committee I chaired the hearings on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, and I want to apologise to my friends in the Royal Society. I am sorry that they got caught up in this mess, but I am confident that the electorate of Wellington Central will hold that member to account.
I will get back to Part 1. In relation to tertiary education, this part enables the responsible Minister to issue directions on student services fees—compulsory fees for non - tuition-related services. It seems to me that there is a debate that we are fringing around. It sort of does not really matter on this side of the Committee, because the Government is confident in what it is doing. It becomes a little bit tricky when Labour tries to link this to the survival of compulsory student unionism. I think the Committee has been very tolerant in letting members like Mr Robertson do that, but at the end of the day the basic question is not being asked, which is how many of these services are actually necessary for the great bulk of students.
One of the clear messages that I felt came through during hearings on the voluntary student membership bill was that we had reached a situation where one begins to wonder whether 17, 18, or 19-year-olds who go off to university are capable of standing on their own two feet and making good decisions for themselves. I listened to the sort of stuff that Labour is putting up in this debate and in the voluntary student membership bill debate. One has to ask oneself where is the faith and confidence in the young people of New Zealand who are deemed to be intelligent enough—
Oh my gosh, pot calling kettle black! Oh my gosh! Who’s saying 16 and 17-year-olds don’t know what food to buy?
Perhaps the member who is shouting at me might like to take on the demeanour of an adult rather than of a recalcitrant fourth-form girl. It seems to me that we are in danger here—or at least Labour members are—of trying to convince this House that there are 17, 18, and 19-year-olds who have the qualifications to attend tertiary institutions but who are not capable of making good decisions for themselves. One of the things that comes out of this legislation and the Minister’s authority to be involved in the setting of service levies and that sort of thing—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
Before the next member, Carmel Sepuloni, begins, I say that we are debating the Education Amendment Bill (No 4), not the voluntary student membership bill. People can make comparisons, I guess, but the debate should be on the Education Amendment Bill (No 4).
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) Link to this
At the beginning of my speech I do need to respond to what was said by the previous speaker, Allan Peachey. He is the chair of the Education and Science Committee, so I would expect that he would have a great knowledge of the legislation we are debating and actually address the bill thoroughly. But instead he spent the whole 5 minutes of his speech attacking my learned colleague Grant Robertson about the Royal Society bill when we are here to discuss the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). He accused him of filibustering on the Royal Society bill but took 2 minutes of his time on his speech to do that.
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You brought us back to the bill before that member rose to speak. I would love to hear something about the bill.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
I will just respond to that. It is out of order to refer to a ruling by the Chair. Members need to move on. I think you have made your point. Now can we get on to the Education Amendment Bill (No 4).
The point that was made with regard to capping the student services levy, which is what Part 1 is about, was really in relation to the fact that institutions are struggling at this point in time. Although we support the capping of the student services levy, we know that at some point the institutions will have to find the money somewhere in order to provide the student services that students need to be able to make it through the degrees they are studying towards. That is the point we make here.
Mr Peachey talked about the fact that we need to have faith in 17, 18, and 19-year-olds, in terms of their ability to make decisions for themselves. Before I get more thoroughly into this bill I need to make the point that it is members on the other side of the Chamber who are saying that 16 and 17-year-olds are not capable of making decisions for themselves, hence National is proposing the introduction of a payment card so that they have restrictions around what they can buy with their independent youth benefits. So I think that before that speaker, who happens to be the chair of the Education and Science Committee, gets to his feet again, he needs to reflect on some of the other legislation and policy initiatives that his Government is putting into place, so that he is not standing up and contradicting a whole lot of proposals that his side of the Chamber is making.
Moving back to this bill, as my colleague Grant Robertson said before me, this bill does make a range of amendments. We are looking at the fact that a student services levy within institutions will be capped. We are aware that in terms of the fees students have to pay and the amount it costs them to study at a tertiary level, what is being proposed is good. Again, I just have to say that we are concerned about this measure within the context of what is being done across the tertiary sector. The student services levy, along with the money that is raised through voluntary student membership, is really important, in terms of the student services that are provided. Having worked at the university I know that it is not just about academic study and putting on classes for these students; there is a high level of support that students require, whether it be additional study support in terms of the academic services provided through student learning centres or whether it be pastoral care. We cannot say that a student has qualified for a tertiary qualification and therefore every aspect of their life is intact and they no longer need any support at all, because that is simply not the case. Any good tertiary institution wants to be able to provide that level of service to their students, because at the end of the day it is about supporting them to remain at that institution, and supporting them to achieve the academic qualifications they went there to obtain. Retention and achievement are two of the most important things at a tertiary level, along with recruitment. We do support this part.
We support putting a cap on the student services levies, but, as we said, we have real concerns about what this will mean with regard to student services across the board. We think this bill does make some positive changes—some positive changes. However, we look at the huge levy rises last year and we see that they really were a result of the National Government’s squeeze on tertiary funding. Basically, tertiary institutions had no option but to raise student levies in order to raise the revenue that they needed to provide the services that the students required. That resulted in a squeeze on their funding, and it forced institutions to lay off staff or pass the buck on to students.
I will not take a full second call. I hope that the Government side of the Chamber will consider this bill carefully and look at it in the context of some of the other ill-informed decisions that it is making across our tertiary sector. Thank you.
COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) Link to this
I start off by rebutting the speaker from the other side, Carmel Sepuloni, who was trying to draw a comparison between student unions and those people for whom education has not worked out in life. If members on the other side cannot see the difference between those people who have access and the qualifications to go to university and those for whom education has not worked out, then that probably explains Labour’s failure when it was in Government. It just forked out money into tertiary education without any consideration—any consideration—for the quality that came out the other end.
The Education Amendment Bill (No 4) is long overdue. It is necessary because of the inactivity of the previous Government and some of the conduct that we see in the education sector, especially by private training establishments. One of the very important functions of education in New Zealand, an important sector of it, is international education, which may be known as the export sector. New section 234B, inserted by clause 30, talks about the necessary information that private training establishments must provide for students. This is very important. Private training establishments—PTEs—provide a very important function within the tertiary education sector. However, there have been cases where we have all been embarrassed by the lack of discipline that has been applied to the processes of how student fees have been managed. This part of the bill brings the functions around student fees, how they are carried out and sorted, into sync with those of universities and suchlike. It deals with how the fees of international students in private training establishments are protected.
Their fees have to be put into a trust. What is a trust? It has to be at arm’s length, separate from the private training establishment. As new section 234C(1) says, “ ‘trustee’ means Public trust, a trustee company under the Trustees Companies Act 1967, a chartered accountant in public practice, or a lawyer whose practising certificate allows the holding of trust funds.” It becomes quite clear that a process is being put round the management of student fees. New section 234E(1) makes the comment that funds must be deposited “as soon as practicable”. That was an interesting aspect. The Education and Science Committee asked officials what the definition of “as soon as practicable” would be. Evidently, it is a legal term. We were assured of that. To some of us it appeared to be slightly loose. However, they assured us that within the legal system “as soon as practicable” means reasonableness—I do not know; they can sort that one out. But it is there. We had an interesting little discussion with the officials.
The Minister has a part to play in this process. He has to advertise in the Gazette how refunds of any student fees—in this context, the refund entitlements of international students—for courses have to be handled. This bill tidies up an issue with regard to withdrawal. New section 235A(1) says: “A private training establishment must—(a) allow every international student enrolled for a programme or training scheme that is of 3 months’ duration or more to withdraw from it at any time within the refund period;”. It talks about the refund period: the establishment must “allow every international student enrolled for a programme or training scheme that is of less than 3 months’ duration to withdraw from it within a period (being less than 7 days) specified by the Authority;”.
This bill tidies up a lot of the rogue activities of the private training establishments. It is not onerous; it just writes out the rules. When we look at ourselves within the international educational scene, we have to be able to provide certainty and we have to be able to deliver a high standard of education, and that is what this bill does.
SUE MORONEY (Labour) Link to this
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). I was on the Education and Science Committee, which heard the submissions on this bill.
The debate on Part 1 so far has focused on what I think was a key part of what submitters wanted to talk to us about in the bill—that is, student levies. I guess we could call this bill an omnibus bill; it deals with a range of things. The previous speaker, Colin King, certainly spoke about the private training establishment part of it. But most of the submitters wanted to talk to us about the student levies part of it, which is covered by Part 1.
They said, with regard to the student levies part, that they all supported the changes to the Education Act 1989. Submitters came at the bill from a range of options, actually. Both the institutions themselves, and the students affected by those levies, came to make submissions. Just so that we are clear, I tell the Committee that students make a range of payments in the tertiary environment at the moment. There is the course fee, the student fee. That is obviously a compulsory fee; it is something they have to pay in order to take part in the course. But there is also a compulsory student levy, which is put on by the institutions. The purpose of that levy is not to pay for the costs of providing the education, but to provide for some additional services that the institution wishes to have in order to support students.
What started happening—and this is the background as to why this bill is so necessary—is that in the course of the last year student levies increased hugely, and quite suddenly, right across the country. There was an up to 600 percent increase in one instance. It was at Canterbury University that that increase occurred last year. It is interesting to note that when we first heard of this bill, of course, Canterbury University was in much better shape than it is today—through actions not of its own making, of course. But imagine what the student levy discussion might look like at Canterbury University in the forthcoming financial year, and in the financial years to come. I think those reasons are exactly the reasons why we need to have transparency in the way the student levy is set; we certainly applaud that and want to support it.
However, we need to understand the root cause of what has gone on here. Before earthquakes or any of those natural disasters hit some of these institutions—universities, polytechnics, and private training establishments—why was it that across the board they felt the need to increase student levies to that degree, by 103 percent or 600 percent? That needs investigation.
The institutions submitting told us that, yes, they were looking to have a more user-pays regime for students. Why is that? It is because the Government funding going into their sector has been so squeezed that they have had to look elsewhere to make up the difference—it has been so squeezed. That is why tertiary institutions were bringing in a more user-pays regime, and they were using the compulsory student levy to do that.
I am surprised that the Government is not railing and fighting against the idea that universities can even have a student levy that is compulsory, because it seems to think that that is a rather large evil. In talking about evil, I acknowledge that we cannot consider this bill, with its approach to student levies in Part 1, in isolation from its twin—the twin piece of legislation coming through this House at the same time, which we know as the voluntary student membership bill. They are twins that we have to look at together, in terms of the provision of student services. There is no doubt that the evil twin—the voluntary student membership bill—will gut students associations in such a way that they will not be able to provide the student services they currently provide, or the student advocacy they currently provide for students. That will be a natural outcome of the evil twin.
But this debate is about the good twin. This bill is the good twin. This bill aims to make sure that tertiary institutions cannot continue to increase the student levy without transparency.
I am supporting the good twin—I am supporting the good twin, I say to Mr Henare. But I am not supporting the bad twin, the evil twin—the one that will mean that student services will suffer.
This bill gives the Minister the ability to actually cap the level of the student levy—the compulsory student levy—that tertiary institutions can and do charge, and have been charging at ever-increasing rates. It caps that, which is the right thing to do because in this environment, with the cost of living skyrocketing as it is in New Zealand, the last thing that students need to face is that ever-increasing spiral of increased levies for basic student services.
But here is the rub: if the evil twin bill is passed through this Parliament, then we know that student services will suffer as a result. Who will pick up those services? The Government will not provide more funding for them, unless the Minister wants to get to his feet and give us that commitment today—and I would certainly welcome that. So who will they be left to? They will be left to the tertiary institutions. Institutions will need to pick up the student services that the students associations will no longer be able to fund because of the evil twin bill. That is why we need to talk about the twin bills together, because student services are at risk here. Student services will fall down the middle. The evil twin bill will stop students associations from having the resources to provide services, and this bill—the good twin bill—will stop tertiary institutions from increasing levies to provide better services. The outcome will be that a whole range of student services will not be available for students, to support them through their education.
That is the dilemma for Labour members. We want to support this bill, and we do, because we believe there should be transparency in the compulsory levies put together by tertiary institutions, and we believe that the levies should be capped, because we know that the increase in the user-pays regime that is going on under this Government, which is putting more and more costs on to students, is not the way forward.
This is the first time the Government is acknowledging that, but it is not dealing with the root cause. The root cause is that tertiary institutions are scrambling to look for other sources of revenue. They are going down a user-pays regime because their funding has been so squeezed for providing the basic course materials and the programmes that students pay fees for. Students pay fees for courses and programmes, then they pay the student levy. Certainly that is what Part 1 deals with. All of the submitters said that this was the right way to go, albeit the institutions, when they came to see us, said “Yes, but—”. They said that, yes, students should have transparency over what the levy is put towards and how that is made up, and, yes, there should be the ability for the Minister to cap it. But they said that the Minister needs to be very clear that that will put tertiary institutions in a very difficult funding environment—in a very, very difficult funding situation—in which they will have to make decisions about cutting services. They will have to make decisions about not being able to provide what they have provided in the past.
Well, Mr Henare says that is enough. Mr Henare needs to understand the position that his Government is putting tertiary institutions and students in, by passing this bill in conjunction with the other bill that it seems so intent on forcing through before the election.
As the deputy chair of the Education and Science Committee, I want to respond to what the chairperson of that select committee said earlier, when he roundly criticised what he called a filibuster on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. I remind that member—and I am sure he knows this—that that bill does not change one thing about the way the Royal Society operates today. That point needs to be made. The Royal Society is very happy to have had the amount of debate it has had on its bill.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education) Link to this
I thought I would take the opportunity to take a short call before Mr Robertson does, because otherwise he would not be saved from his rhetoric, and he needs to listen to this next bit because his compatriots are digging themselves a rather large hole. He might actually thank me afterwards for not allowing him to dig the same hole for himself. We will see how he goes on this, but it will save him from some embarrassment.
Firstly, I take this opportunity to thank the Committee—most of the Committee, anyway—for its support of this bill, because I think it is a very important bill. I would like to talk about two aspects of it if I could. One aspect in particular that has had discussion this morning is student services levies. The other aspect I will talk about is export education.
It is important to say, after listening to the flowery rhetoric of some Opposition speakers on this bill, that they should probably go and talk to the members of their “economic team”, because, on the one hand, they are trying to tell us they will be fiscally responsible as a party if they ever get the chance to be in Government again, but, on the other hand, these guys over here just want to spend more and more money without any reference to the facts. So let me acquaint members with a couple of facts.
Here in Wellington I think we all know that every organisation that comes to Wellington comes for a reason, and they are always looking for a slightly better outcome than they have currently, and I do not think tertiary institutions are any different. Every tertiary education Minister since time immemorial has heard tertiary education institutions cry poor as to how they are in life, but when one looks at that, one has to check and ask oneself how they are going and what the reality of the situation is.
The reality of the situation is quite interesting. Three things have happened to the public tertiary institutions in this country in the last couple of years. Firstly, they have the largest number of funded places they have ever, ever had.
No, next year there will be 20,000 more places than when the previous Government left office. That is 20,000 more full-time, funded places than when the previous Government left office, and in a recession. Despite the global financial crisis, this Government’s commitment to tertiary education is such that we have funded 20,000 more full-time places than the previous Government had in 2008. That is point No. 1.
The second point—which is probably upsetting for a number of other Government-funded sectors of the economy—is that despite the global financial crisis the funding for tuition fees has continued to increase. Last year it was up 2.2 percent. This year, for the degrees, it is up 2 percent.
This is about student services levies. So it has gone up 2 percent this year for a degree in higher education, and it went up 2.2 percent last year. It is continuing to increase despite the fact that in most other Government-funded parts of the economy, funding has been held flat because of the global financial crisis.
So what is the outcome? Interestingly, the outcome is that the institutions are the most profitable they have ever, ever been. They are the most profitable institutions we have ever had in this country, and they have the largest balance sheets they have ever had. So on one hand we have the Opposition weirdly siding with the institutions against the students, saying that the institutions should somehow get more money, and saying it is a bit sad that we have had to put this clamp on them for charging student services fees. But on the other hand they are not even bothering to look at the financial state of the institutions; they are just taking them at their word.
This is the problem with the Opposition—it is always about more funding. It is always about more funding, irrespective of the facts. Opposition members just say that the Government should fund things more. Why? Because somebody asked for it. That is what got us the problem in the first place. In the tertiary education sector these student services levies are very, very important. I am sorry; the institutions cannot have it both ways. They walk in the door and say that they only ever use the levies for student services; then they turn round and say to a select committee that they actually need them because somehow the Government is diddling them on the tuition fees. By the way, they are the most profitable they have ever been.
I am siding with the students on this; unambiguously this Government is siding with the students. We are saying the institutions must justify—[Interruption]. It is not just Mr Robertson’s little friends. We are saying that they must justify their student services fees. Effectively, we are saying—and those who support this bill are saying—they must justify anything they charge compulsorily to students. That is what we are saying they must do, and that is what we are doing. That is why this is very good legislation in that respect.
I would also like to, if I could, take the opportunity to discuss briefly the issues around export education, because that is very important, as well. I think we have a very good education system in this country. It is one of those areas we feel passionately about, so we are always challenging ourselves to do better, and I think that is very good. There is always a healthy debate. We actually have a pretty good education system, and a lot of people in the world would love to have an education system like ours.
We have an opportunity, as a country, to help us afford more of the things we want to afford by having a strong and robust export education sector; in other words, by sharing our expertise around the world and bringing students here. It is very good for our economy and our society generally to bring some of the best and brightest from the rest of the world to New Zealand. We want countries that we want to trade with, like China, India, and the Arab States, to bring their students here, and we want to sell our services to the world.
Two things in this bill are very, very important in helping to achieve that. Firstly, we have had a very fragmented organisational structure at the Government end of export education. We have had, effectively, three organisations supporting export education—in fact, three or four—which for a tiny country of just over 4 million people is overly complicating the situation. So we have had a look at that, and we have said that rather than having New Zealand Trade and Enterprise do a chunk, the Education New Zealand Trust do a chunk, and the Ministry of Education do a chunk we will put those limited resources that we have as a country together into one organisation, a new Crown agent called Education New Zealand.
I think that that will be a fantastic platform to take export education forward from here. My colleagues in Cabinet think so as well, and they are, as a result, supporting that with extra funding of $40 million—$10 million a year over the next 4 years—which is a massive increase on what was being spent previously. That is because we see a great opportunity for this country, and for the education sector in this country, to actually grow our revenues from export education.
At the same time we must be careful that the “Wild West” does not develop again. Many of us remember—and some members on the other side of the Chamber have the scars—what happened in the early 2000s when there was insufficient quality control on the export education sector. As a result, one of our major client countries took a pretty dim view of our system for a while.
What we have done about that is to take an approach in Government that is to be very strong on some of the providers that are perhaps not as good as they should be, and we have encouraged the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to take a pretty robust approach in the interests of the protection of New Zealand’s reputation overall and the reputation of those providers that do a good job. We have been encouraged by the industry to do so.
There have, unfortunately, been some limitations in the law—some quite significant limitations. The law was written many years ago, so a number of clauses in the new legislation will help the New Zealand Qualifications Authority do its job, which is a very important job, as I say, on behalf of the country. While we are out there at the front end encouraging export education to grow, we must also have a good quality assurance regulator whose job it is to make sure that the reputation of New Zealand, and the actual education and training of students, are well protected. That is a very important part of this bill, which we should not forget this morning.
I think it is a very good bill. I appreciate the work done by the Education and Science Committee, and I will talk more about that in the third reading debate. I look forward to the bill progressing through the House.
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) Link to this
I need to respond to the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Tertiary Education, in relation to the student levies that are being covered by the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). I note for the record, just in case the Minister has missed it, that Labour is supporting it. Labour supports this bill, and we support greater transparency and control of the levies that are being set and that students will be required to pay.
We support greater transparency and accountability in the setting of student levies. I think it would be important to look at how that might work, and at the apparent inconsistency with the legislation the Government is putting in. I congratulate the Minister—so that the Minister hears that directly—on putting into this provision greater involvement by students in the setting of student levies, which is covered by Part 1. But, sadly, the gains that are possible there will be undermined by the loss of students associations as a result of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, which will cripple students associations and their ability to represent students and lobby institutions over fee increases.
If one is looking at just the practical circumstances here, one has to ask how institutions will consult students and include them in decision-making processes on levies if there is no organisation to represent them. Will they just pick random students who happen to be walking around and say: “You! Come here. We want to talk to you about student levies.”? Or perhaps they will go to the Young Nats club on campuses and say: “Listen, we need to talk to some students about levies. So you, you, and you—you’ll do the job.” Where will the independent voice, the organised voice, and the democratic voice for students be, in order for them to be consulted? I would like the Minister to answer that question. I have congratulated him on ensuring that this provision provides for student consultation, but how on earth will that be done?
The other inconsistency here, of course, is that the demise of students associations will mean that institutions will be expected to provide more services, not fewer. How will they do that? That will put an inconsistency in there, as well, because they will want to ensure that some of those services continue—services that are actually very important to the student experience, to their well-being, and to their involvement in university. If those services are lost through the demise of students associations, will the institutions be picking them up? That will be an extra cost. Therefore, we have a bit of a circular problem here. The answer, of course, to the question of who will pay or how that will happen is that there will be no money to provide for those student support services. They will be lost, and that will diminish the tertiary experience and threaten achievement at universities.
I note that the reasons for bringing in this particular part are good ones. There have been increases in fees in a way there should not have been, which has put pressure on student incomes. Certainly Labour does not support that, and we do support the greater accountability and transparency. The Minister himself has said that “Under the proposed changes … arrangements for decisions to be made jointly or in consultation with students on matters associated with student services”. In relation to that specific point, I would like the Minister to tell us how that will happen when students associations go down the gurgler.
I note that the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations has welcomed these proposals. That is positive; we are all in agreement here. It agrees, in fact—not surprisingly—that students should have oversight of these levies, that that is the best way to ensure that services are responsive to students and that the levies are kept under control. So that is all good—tick, tick, tick.
Students already have a say at some institutions, and I say good on those institutions, where people do better than the legal minimum. The example of Victoria University is cited, where the students association works in partnership with the university to ensure that the levy is controlled and spent on services that students use and value. Well, that is good, and I congratulate Victoria University on that. But the University Students’ Association then pointed out: “While we welcome today’s proposals the unfortunate irony is that the Government is in the process of severely undermining any independent student voice at institutions,”.
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) Link to this
It is a pleasure to take a call on this omnibus Education Amendment Bill (No 4). Although I would be sorely tempted to talk about another piece of legislation, I am happy to talk about this bill. As the Minister for Tertiary Education said earlier, the changes to the student services fee show that the Government is on the side of students. That is clear, as the previous speaker, Carol Beaumont, said, from the comments of the New Zealand University Students’ Association. I quote directly from its submission: “NZUSA is very supportive of the aims of improving transparency, ensuring greater involvement of students in decision making and improving the accountability of tertiary education providers to the student body.”
One of the things that was quite apparent when we heard submissions on this particular part of the bill was the great variance between polytechnics and universities. It appears that polytechs are able to hold their fees for support services at a very low level, or actually not to charge them at all, so one thing that bothered me was the significant variation in fees. But rather than talk about something that has been covered quite well, I will focus more on export education.
This Government is focused on growth, this Government is focused on jobs, and this Government is focused on reducing bureaucracy and red tape. If we look at export education, we see that it is valued at $2.1 billion. But as we all know, and as has become very evident from this bill, export education is an opportunity and a potential that is significantly untapped, so the bill provides for the rationalisation of organisations, and it provides them with a much clearer focus. When I talk to the export education providers in the Taupō electorate, I find that one of the things that has frustrated them is the fact that three different organisations have been trying to promote international education overseas, and they literally trip over one another. So the creation of this new Crown agent—Education New Zealand—will be of significant benefit in making sure that the process of promoting our education overseas is far more streamlined and effective. The functions of the new Crown organisation Education New Zealand include promotional and marketing activities, the management of Government representation for activities in support of international education, and industry and student support.
It is quite telling that we have had very little discussion about new Part 21, which will be inserted in the Education Act 1989 by Part 1, but this part will grow our economy, and get our export education sector up and going again, whereas it has been stagnating since 2005. This Government takes exports seriously, wants to grow the sector, and is willing to invest in it. We want to get rid of the barriers that stand in the way of economic growth, whereas members opposite want to spend more money at every opportunity. They never tell us how they would fund that spending.
New Part 21 is a fantastic part of the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) and it will grow our export education industry, which is currently sitting at $2.1 billion. We look forward to the fact that we can grow that opportunity and grow that potential overseas. It will benefit not only businesses in my electorate but also businesses up and down the country. It is just so fascinating that members opposite are so plugged-in they cannot handle the fact that we want to grow the economy and increase exports. They just do not want to talk about it. I am quite staggered.
I am proud of our Minister. I am proud that the Minister has been listening to the sector and has been paying attention to the businesses that operate in that space. The Minister has removed some of the barriers for those businesses in a vital part of our economy.
We know that this country does well if we bring students here to study. They spend money while they are here. They spend money in Taupō, they spend money in Canterbury, they spend money up and down this country. New Part 21 in Part 1 is fantastic for the changes it makes and for the creation of Education New Zealand. It is fantastic, and that is why I am so proud to support this bill.
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this
I think the contribution from the member who has just taken her seat, Louise Upston, shows why this country is still in recession. While she pats herself on the back for a job well done, New Zealanders are suffering and our economy is flailing. The Government is sitting over there and in a self-congratulatory manner saying “job well done”—as George W Bush said, “mission accomplished”—and I think the member might want to perhaps extend herself beyond her research unit notes, go and talk to some real New Zealanders, and see how they are doing, given that contribution.
I will talk about the issue of student levies; the Minister for Tertiary Education briefly touched on it in his contribution. He said they are on the side of the students. The member who has just taken her seat said: “the Government is on the side of the students.” She said the Government is great for students, and that the New Zealand University Students’ Association thinks it is fantastic. Well, let us look at why we need to put a cap on levies.
Oh, it is a quote. Let us look at why we are putting a cap on levies. We are putting a cap on levies because universities have been shifting money from that fund to pay for core things like staffing, because of the funding squeeze under this National Government. I remember in the first—[ Interruption] The Minister in the chair, the Minister for Tertiary Education, can do little vomit gestures with his finger. He is so mature! That is what the Minister was doing. He is now trying to say he was scratching his lip, but I saw it.
The fact is, I say to the Minister, that in this Government’s first Budget one of the first things it cut was the funding that universities received in order to be able to match international salaries for people whom we bring to New Zealand to add value to our tertiary education system. It was a common practice. That was one of the first things that went. That meant that if universities around New Zealand wanted to maintain their very good standing in the world, and wanted to attract these high achievers in the academic world—researchers—then they needed to find the funding from elsewhere. That funding and a number of other things ended up being squeezed from university budgets. We found that these student levies were being used as a de facto way of covering staffing costs—covering the core things that our universities carry out.
The cap on levies is not going on because this Government loves students. The cap on levies is going on because the Government is desperately trying to put its fingers in all the holes, as the dam is breaking because of a lack of funding in our universities. We have to ask what is going to give. If there is not enough money across the board, and we are now saying that universities have this pot of money, this pot of money, and this pot of money, and they can no longer transfer across, what will have to give? If the Minister restricts these student levies, what is going to give? We know what is going to give, because it is an issue that we have been debating in the House for some time—that is, student services. Those are the kinds of services that students rely on, not just services that make their tertiary education experience better or more valuable, but the food banks that students associations run, the representation that students associations give, and the counselling services that students associations provide. These are the things that are going to give—
—the hardship grants that students can apply for. There was the extracurricular tutoring that went on in universities, not to mention the health centres, and all those other things as well.
This is particularly important, because we are talking about increasing transparency in this part of the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) and about students having more say. Well, that is what the Minister says—that students will have more say in terms of the way this money is spent, what it is spent on, and what the level of the levy will be. Who will the Minister consult when students associations are gone? These are democratically elected associations representing students. They are the first port of call for anyone who wants to consult the student body—
I mean, this is just ridiculousness. Colin King said: “Quasi-unions.” I respect that member, but what a ridiculous statement. Is the reason National does not like students associations that sometimes they are called student unions? That is the kind of thing I expect from Tau Henare and Paul Quinn sitting back there, but not from Colin King. That is a really disappointing statement.
Paul QuinnI could not possibly speak to Paul Quinn’s relevancy, Mr Chair. I was interjected on and I was responding.
Students associations are part of providing the transparency required in this part of the bill. The Minister has talked in this part about students having a greater say in how the levies are set and what the levies are spent on.
COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) Link to this
For the purposes of discussing the Education Amendment Bill (No 4), and with an introductory comment that this Government is focused on access to top-quality tertiary education, I think it is appropriate to focus on new Part 20, “New Zealand Qualifications Authority”. Although members on the other side are whining on about something unrelated to this legislation, this bill is very important because it is the first occasion for many, many years that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has been reviewed. Currently, under this Government, a lot of work is being undertaken, and that is very appropriate because we would expect that a qualifications authority in any sovereign State has a highly robust and reputable structure.
What we inherited from the lazy Labour Government was a New Zealand Qualifications Authority with over 6,000 qualifications, and there was confusion. There were so many so-called local qualifications, which were just a code for printing more money. Effectively, if an institution wanted to deliver a qualification, and it wanted to access funding under the equivalent full-time students model, it would basically take a national qualification, tack on a number of different aspects of it that it would say were locally relevant, register it, and it would be put on to the qualifications framework.
Under new Part 20 this bill takes us through the process of refining the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the functions of the authority. The New Zealand qualifications framework, as I mentioned, is being refined, and, at last, from comments made by the Minister for Tertiary Education, we see that there are some 2,000 fewer qualifications on the qualifications framework at this time, without creating any gaps in the framework.
The approval process of qualifications is also under review. It is an in-depth review, one that is very, very important. It is part of the bill that probably did not attract a lot of submissions, but it is really fundamental to the future qualifications authority and its direction. It is quite an in-depth study of the rules, the fees, how research is undertaken, and the way in which the Minister interacts with the qualifications authority. Generally speaking, the accountability of the chief executive, the delegation of authorities, and the membership of Government superannuation funds are all dealt with.
We have an organisation called the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. Every sovereign State has such an authority, and it often raises the question of why we do not have an Australasian qualifications authority, because that would possibly deepen the value and the respectability of those qualifications that people go for. When a person goes into a trade, they really do expect to be able to have a robust qualification, and there have been occasions like in the situation of Master Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers where that has not always been the case. This bill is very good, and I commend it to the Committee.
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) Link to this
I move, That the Committee report progress and sit again presently.