Education Amendment Bill (No 4)

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this

Following on from the comments made by the chair of the Education and Science Committee, I want to say that the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) is good legislation. It does a number of important things. But to coin a phrase, no man is an island, and this bill cannot stand alone without being looked at in the context of other relevant legislation, and I will refer to that in a moment. Perhaps I will start with an area where the House agrees, and that is the importance of a number of the changes here, particularly those in relation to, for instance, private training establishment regulation.

It is fair to say that private training establishments play a very important role in filling the gaps in the education system that the public institutions are not able to fill. Many of them do a very good job of that and provide educational opportunities for people who, perhaps, would not get them in other ways. They also provide a part of the arrangements that allow for international students to come to New Zealand, and therefore they play an important role. But the truth is that there have been examples in recent times where private training establishments have not lived up to the marketing they have given overseas. In some extreme cases people have, essentially, allowed degrees to be bought for very little actual work or study. That is not good for the reputation of New Zealand internationally. So I think it is important that there have been some moves in this bill to tighten up the way in which private training establishments are accredited and able to offer programmes and courses.

Can I perhaps offer at this point my belief that there are one or two other areas in terms of the overall registration of private training establishments that could still be looked at to further enhance the improvements in this bill. One of those is what might appear to be quite a simple point but is actually quite important, and that is the names that private training establishments use when they market offshore. In fact, one of the cases that caused a problem in recent times around private training establishments was an institution called the New Zealand Academy of Studies, which was caught selling a business diploma for $12,000. There was a related school called the City Language Academy, which was eventually deregistered for false advertising. When an institution is overseas and markets itself as the New Zealand Academy of Studies, it gives the impression that it is a national, nationwide institution. I do believe that the time has come for us to look more carefully at whether we allow institutions to market themselves as the “New Zealand Academy” or the “New Zealand Institute” of something. It does give an impression, which in most cases will be false, about whether it is a nationwide institution. So I would urge the Government to think about that. I know that my colleague Raymond Huo has looked at this in terms of a member’s bill, and I think it is something that should be considered, because it is an important part of the way we market tertiary institutions or private training establishments.

The other issue in terms of private training establishments that is not covered by the improvements in this bill is around whether there needs to be some self-policing, and whether we can get private training establishments to work together in the same ways that universities do through the organisation Universities New Zealand, and in the same ways that polytechnics do through a couple of organisations they have that bring together the institutes of technology and the polytechnics. I think that would help. It would raise the bar in terms of the quality of private training, and I think that is an important factor. So although I welcome the changes in respect of private training establishments in this bill, I think more can be done to ensure they do provide quality.

I want to briefly refer to the creation of Education New Zealand, the combined agency that will work on marketing and promotion of New Zealand education overseas. I welcome this change. I think it is timely to bring this exercise together. As somebody who worked in this field and travelled to Asia to help promote the institution I was working for, I can say that when we work together we do it better. We are a small country. One particular visit I was on was to Viet Nam, and we went to a meeting with a number of tertiary providers. The Vietnamese Government officials asked us whether we would be able to take 50,000 students over the next couple of years to do English language training. That was a challenging task for the institutions that were there. We could not do that, but by working together the institutions were able to take a large number of people. The bill will allow institutions to work more efficiently with the Government. It will allow Ministry of Education officials to focus on what they need to focus on and to stay focused—just as Mr Quinn is. The officials will be able to make sure they have an excellent programme for promoting New Zealand education. I welcome the changes to Education New Zealand in the bill and congratulate the new chair, Mr Charles Finny, who I am sure, with his experience as a diplomat, will be able to lead that organisation. I hope that it will see the continuation of the importance of international education and export education as part of the New Zealand economy.

I now want to return to the question that dominated the Committee stage of the debate, which is around the changes to the management of compulsory student services fees. I will clarify for those new to the debate that compulsory student services fees are the kinds of fees that get charged for things in tertiary institutions like the student health and counselling services, the careers advice services, or creche facilities that might be provided by the institutions. These fees are charged by the institution. They are compulsory and they are part of enrolling. The problem emerged in recent years that there was a massive increase—an over 100 percent increase in some cases—of fees by tertiary institutions. One of the institutions that was singled out in the debate earlier is Canterbury University, which increased the fee enormously in 2009 and 2010. I will quote Rod Carr, the vice-chancellor of Canterbury University, when he was explaining the increase to students. Rod Carr said that students were getting a “crap deal” from the Government, which was refusing to fund higher education at the levels it should. He said: “The underlying problem is we have not been successful in advocating for more money for higher education … The Government made it very clear the real resources allocated to the universities will reduce over the next three to five years.”

That is a significant problem and one that we have to acknowledge. This Government has failed to invest in tertiary education to the extent needed at this time. In a recessionary environment, more people are looking for tertiary education opportunities, and the funding has simply not been forthcoming from this Government. In fact, Minister Joyce said his goal was to dampen demand in tertiary education, which I think is the opposite of what should be happening if we are an aspirational country. If we are ambitious for New Zealand, then we need to be encouraging people into tertiary education. Unfortunately, some tertiary institutions, without the level of Government funding they wanted, have put up student services levies in reaction to that. That is wrong. That is not what they should be doing. Student services levies should be for student services. That is why I welcome this change in the bill, which will make it more transparent. There will be more accountability on institutions to provide student services with the money they generate from student services levies, and it will be possible to cap those levies if the Minister is not satisfied. The Minister will have a very hands-on role here in being able to direct institutions to the categories of student services they provide and even to the types of student services they provide. That is a good thing.

As I said, this bill is not an island; it exists alongside the voluntary students association membership bill—I say with respect to Allan Peachey—which is related for two reasons. The first of those reasons is that students associations provide important services on campus, which they now will not be able to provide if the voluntary students association membership bill passes. That is the experience from Australia: 75 percent of the services that were provided went west when the voluntary student membership bill went through over there. That will mean that those services will be transferred to the institutions to provide, and if they are working in a capped environment, then that will put a great deal of pressure on them. The other factor is that students associations will not be there to be able to be part of this decision-making process. There will be no one for the Minister to actually consult with, in terms of representatives. So the two bills are linked.

I urge the Government to rethink its support for the voluntary student membership bill, because the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) in and of itself is a good thing. It will increase accountability and transparency around student services levies, but the quality of services that students will be able to get is compromised by the voluntary student membership bill, which, in turn, compromises the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). But we do support the bill. It does a number of useful things in the tertiary education sector, and I commend it to the House.

HILARY CALVERT (ACT) Link to this

I rise to commend the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) to the House.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this

There are three main aims in the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). It sets out, first, to amend the Education Act 1989 in order to strengthen the regulation of the tertiary education system by improving and modernising the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s legal arrangements; second, to facilitate the expansion of international education and safeguard the quality and reputation of the New Zealand education system; and, third, to increase transparency and accountability in the tertiary education system.

They are all good concepts: improvements, modernisation, quality, transparency, and accountability. There is nothing wrong with that, but there are some other concepts that we might add to the mix: cultural competency, inclusion, diversity, consistency, and equity. From the consultation we have had with Māori education providers, we have heard that the international student changes will have minimal effect on Māori students but could affect the future direction of organisations such as Te Wānanga o Aotearoa in this area. We are also informed by Te Mana Ākonga, the national Māori students association, that it opposes this bill, and it is happy for its comments to be made public. I guess this brings us to the point that the Māori Party places a great priority on ensuring that every aspect of legislation is placed under scrutiny as to its consistency with Māori world views and its impact on tangata whenua. We know that unless we provide that specific lens when looking at legislation, that voice will be absent from the debate. No other party here in Parliament is present to speak on the issues from a Māori perspective in the debate on this bill or, in fact, on any of the bills that are being put through under urgency.

Te Mana Ākonga told us that Māori need to be represented at council level to ensure that Māori views are heard where decisions are made. This has not occurred in this bill. Te Mana Ākonga also told us that Māori students need to be included in any group that determines key performance indicators for tertiary institutions. Again, this bill does not provide for that. Of course, a key concern for Te Mana Ākonga, as it is for the Māori Party, is the consequences if the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is passed into law, because if that bill succeeds, as it appears it will, it will provoke increased demand for strong Māori student representation and advocacy if associations are compromised in their ability to represent and serve students. Māori student representation must be given a seat at decision-making boards throughout the institutions to ensure consistent feedback and representation throughout. Te Mana Ākonga supports the need for the student body and their representatives to engage with tertiary institutions on matters regarding student services levies.

In other consultation we have had with Māori students, we heard that they have the same fear that if students associations become voluntary, the assumption is that many of the services that were previously provided by students associations would be passed on to the institutions. If this was to occur, this bill gives the Minister for Tertiary Education the final say on services, so really those services could disappear altogether.

The Education and Science Committee specifically addressed compulsory student fees, and it provided a clarification on the powers the Minister would have to determine student services fees. It also clarified that the Minister would have the power to require institutions to establish decision-making arrangements jointly or in consultation with the students enrolled at the institution. Essentially, this spells out that if the Minister so chooses, students must be involved in a determination of student services. I guess our concern remains that the incentive must start with the Minister. The “what ifs” continue to plague us. Representatives in wānanga whom we talked to shared this concern. They were nervous that their future leadership could be constrained in their ability to provide some resources for students, because the Minister might not allow it.

They were particularly concerned about the student services fees section. In their view, we need to watch out because, with a conservative Government, Māori student services could disappear. There needs to be some recognition for services to Māori, and this bill does not enable that. The prevailing concern was that it depends largely on how the Minister for Tertiary Education uses his or her powers. If the Minister decides to cut all underperforming services in a focus on education quality, one has to wonder what compromises will be made and how these cuts would affect students. The Minister would have the power to effectively dictate the services a tertiary institution could offer, which could potentially jeopardise student services.

The other key concern raised during our consultation was quality assurance and qualifications, particularly in relation to the implications for wānanga. As a result of this bill, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority will now be solely in charge of quality assurance, which means it is taking that function from universities. The wānanga are already a key part of qualifications assurance and qualifications, but their desire is that they have delegated powers for quality assurance. The changes threaten rangatiratanga by taking away the autonomy of institutions and centralising it in Government. From the point of view of wānanga, they are disappointed that wānanga will never, it seems, be able to do their own quality assurance in the future. So we continue to raise the question from wānanga as to whether the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has the capability to carry out quality assessment for a kaupapa Māori approach as well as it needs to. Universities have always been allowed to self-assess, and the wānanga are hoping that they would also have that opportunity one day.

There are other good points in the bill. The Māori Party supports the Government’s intent to reduce the exploitation of students by some institutions. The changes around the administration of student allowances seem reasonable in terms of enabling data to be accessible for better administration. But our other concerns, particularly in the context created by the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, mean we are honour-bound on behalf of Māori students, Māori providers, and wānanga to oppose this bill at its third reading.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) Link to this

I am pleased to stand in support of the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) in its final reading, and I am pleased that members of the Opposition also support this legislation. Lifting skills is a key part of the Government’s plan for economic growth in New Zealand. Part of that plan is making tertiary education more accountable and having a higher level of performance for its students, which is, of course, good for the students involved and good for tertiary education providers, but, more important, good for taxpayers and good for the country.

If we look at the focus on quality we see that one of the other areas where the House has had quite a lengthy discussion is that of supporting students. I refer in particular to giving students improved transparency in terms of how student support services fees are set in order to enable there to be less of a disparity around the range of those fees, both in terms of the financial level and in terms of the services that are provided within that. So the legislation provides students with a decent voice. I have spoken quite a lot about the other changes, so I will not spend any more time on them.

I will give a final plug for the changes in international education, including the creation of the Crown agent Education New Zealand, which will basically unleash this country’s ability to export education across the globe. Also, there were changes in the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and its legal arrangements, which were more of a technical nature.

I am very pleased to support the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). It is another fine bill brought before this House by a fine Minister who is committed to lifting performance in tertiary education. We have 16,500 more tertiary places than we have had since 2008, and I think that is a fine achievement; another one we can tick off for this fine Government.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this

I am happy to take a quick call on the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). It may or may not be quick, depending on how I go.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) Link to this

It is, indeed, a pleasure to take a brief call on the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). May I congratulate the superb chairmanship of Allan Peachey and the cooperation from all those parties on the Education and Science Committee. I would also like to acknowledge the officials. This is a bill whose time has arrived. On that basis, I commend it to the House with great conviction.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this

It is nice to see the Government members working so hard to pass legislation that they are so passionate about! Labour will be supporting the Education Amendment Bill (No 4), and we are supportive of most of the provisions within it. Where we become critical is in the broad area of tertiary education and the kind of blinkered view that Government members and Ministers are taking when it comes to this legislation and the impact of other changes they are making in the tertiary education sector. There are clauses in the legislation we will pass this afternoon that may in effect become redundant or out of date within weeks of the legislation being passed.

Certainly, as my colleagues have said, we support the establishment of the export education outfit. We think it is a good idea to get standards in that area. Too many organisations have been going overseas and calling themselves the “New Zealand institute” of such and such, which carries with it a certain expectation of quality, which, unfortunately, has not been there in many cases. We believe that regulation in this area will be for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

The only part of this bill, really, that has been contentious is the setting of student levies. This really does need to be looked at in the broader sense of the funding for the tertiary education sector and the current environment it finds itself in. Although the capping of levies that can be charged to students is a good thing—we absolutely agree, with that and we have seen across the country that student levies have shot up—and we want to be able to reduce the cost of tertiary education to our students as much as we can, the fact is that we cannot look at that in isolation. We need to look at the reasons why those student levies have increased as dramatically as they have.

What we know is that because of funding cuts in the tertiary sector, tertiary institutions have been cross-subsidising. They have been using the student levy to pay for things such as staffing. Staffing is a core function of any university or polytechnic or any other tertiary institution around the country, and they have been paying for staffing out of the student levy. Because they have had their core funding from the Government so constrained—and we heard from the comments of the vice-chancellor of Canterbury University that they have basically been told that funding will go backwards over the next 3 to 5 years under this Government—they have had to look elsewhere in order to fund things that have traditionally come from Government funding. One of those things has been something as core as staffing.

I remember the first Budget introduced by this National-led Government. One of the first things it did was cut the assistance fund, which enabled tertiary institutes to bring experienced academics out to New Zealand to work in our universities, to add to their research programme, and to add to the quality of teaching. That is something that goes on in every country around the world. Tertiary institutions are constantly involved in a transfer of knowledge and a transfer of the individuals who carry that knowledge. But the reality is that in order to be able to match the salaries that these individuals are able to attract from other countries, there needs to be a little bit of assistance. There was a fund there that enabled tertiary institutions to do that, and that funding has gone.

Well, tertiary institutions will not want to see their standing in the world go backwards because of this. They naturally look to other areas to supplement their funding for such things as bringing overseas experts into this country to add value to the tertiary education sector in this country. One of the areas that has been looked at is the area of the student levy. Well, that is not what the student levy was proposed for, and in that respect we support the Minister’s ability to say very clearly what the student levy is for, and that students deserve to know what their levy will pay for. They deserve to know how it will be set and they deserve to have input into that process. But that cannot be divorced from the core issue, which is a constraining of funding in the tertiary education sector.

That is why the tertiary institutions have done it. They have not done it because they want to rip students off, and they have not done it because they are wasting money. They are doing it because their funding from the Government is going backwards. Government members have not referred to this in any way when they have been speaking. They have looked at this bill in isolation from the reality for our tertiary education sector, particularly for universities. On this side of the House we support the provisions in this bill. But one cannot look at it in isolation; this legislation does not exist in a vacuum.

The idea that National is aspirational for New Zealand is a joke, quite frankly, if one of the most important sectors in this country will end up going backwards in international rankings because of funding cuts.

JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) Link to this

My call will be brief; it really has already been said. The Education Amendment Bill (No 4) is about National’s key message. We believe in getting the most out of every dollar that the taxpayers of New Zealand spend on tertiary education. We also want to know that students are getting value for money. We want better performance from students and the tertiary education organisations, and we want a simpler funding system. We are committed to supporting students and moving towards a more accountable, higher-performing tertiary education sector.

Many members opposite have commended this bill and have said that it is a good bill, and I also believe that that heads us in exactly the right direction. Thank you.