Pansyspeak - Finding a way forward
new-zealand-national-party
Fri May 04 2007 12:00:00 GMT+1200 (New Zealand Standard Time)
Pansyspeak - Finding a way forward
Friday, 4 May 2007, 4:15 pm
Column: New Zealand National Party
Pansy Wong
Finding a way forward
National Party Leader John Key had a few strong reasons in mind when he agreed to amending the anti-smacking bill.
The amendment gives police the discretion "not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution."
His other reason for backing the amendment is to support parents who have a tough enough job as it is bringing up children without the threat of charges if they use light smacking as a last resort to discipline their child. His decision also sent out a strong message that the current child abuse we see is not acceptable.
John has also made it clear that if the law is not working in the way it should when he becomes Prime Minister, he will change it.
Looking at the situation realistically, without this amendment the bill would have been passed by 63 votes, parents would have faced uncertainty about what they can or can't do, and our police would have been placed in a very difficult situation.
In agreeing to the amendment, John is continuing to assess each issue on its merit and find a solution. He first did this following his speech where he highlighted New Zealand's underclass and we can expect to see more of his strong decision-making style in the months to come.
TEC needs a reality check
Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
Earlier this week, on May 1, I received a letter from the Chief Executive of the Tertiary Education Commission, Janice Shiner, in which she informed me that she would be meeting with the CEOs of the New Zealand Qualification Authority and Studylink on Wednesday May 2 to discuss allegations against St George Institute of Learning, and other similar tertiary organisations, that they had allegedly offered cash kickbacks to students in the form of scholarships.
These kickbacks were used to entice senior students to enrol and draw down student loans. The fact that these students are unlikely to enter the workforce means these loans have little chance of being repaid.
In her letter to me, Janice Shiner claimed that apart from the evidence I had supplied to her, other information had come to light and based on thisTEC was once again undertaking an investigation.
This correspondence was progress compared to her statements on TV One's Close Up on the 19th of April, when she said the problem had been resolved.
I frankly remain unconvinced that the TEC has either the resolve or the expertise to investigate these serious allegations, which have been made against 13 different education providers.
After all, they previously investigated these providers between March and August last year and concluded that no further action was required. The CEO's August 2006 report stated that scholarships were no longer offered once TEC had paid an initial visit to these providers. Well, that goes to show we can't trust them to do their job!
Contrary to the CEO's statement, the evidence is that scholarships were continued to be paid before, during and after TEC's 'investigation'. These education providers were obviously having a good laugh at TEC's toothless efforts of an inquiry while carrying on as usual.
It's no wonder they didn't take the TEC seriously - the 'investigation' comprised of writing two letters to each provider, a one-day visit, and accepting a signed declaration that they were not offering scholarships.
TEC say a policy change has put a stop to this, but they obviously haven't followed up. Late last year I informed them that at least one of the providers that had been investigated were offering courses of 2 years and 18 months in duration, which were designed to start before the end of 2006 and hence beat their policy change. Students could still draw down student loans and receive cash kickbacks. Needless to say, the TEC did nothing, and to this day I have not had a response.
At every turn, TEC has stonewalled my inquiries and request. It took intervention by the Ombudsman's Office before they released information requested under the Official Information Act - four months after my initial request. The way they treat MPs is totally at odds to the casual approach they gave to the 13 education providers they investigated. I am an MP trying to do my job of holding the Government, and government departments, to account, yet they let others off very easily indeed.
All eyes are on the TEC now to see if they've got the backbone to get down to the bottom of this scam. We will be watching and waiting.
ENDS
Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
a.supporter:hover {background:#EC4438!important;} @media screen and (max-width: 480px) { #byline-block div.byline-block {padding-right:16px;}}
Using Scoop for work?
Scoop is free for personal use, but you’ll need a licence for work use. This is part of our Ethical Paywall and how we fund Scoop. Join today with plans starting from less than $3 per week, plus gain access to exclusive Pro features.
Join Pro Individual Find out more
Find more from New Zealand National Party on InfoPages.