Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Education and Science Committee.

In New Zealand we have a university of technology which is not a university of technology, because there is no such thing as a university of technology. At the same time, if we read between the lines of what the chair of the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee told the Education and Science Committee as true, neither is it a university—yet. This is not to malign that institution, which is a fine one and which serves its students and New Zealand well; it is to point out the untidy state of affairs of the structure of our tertiary framework. This bill intends to tidy up the framework of our tertiary education system in order to future-proof it.

The tensions in the framework arose from the decision in the early 1990s to allow institutions other than universities to teach and confer degrees; a decision, I might say, that Clarence Beeby had gently suggested as far back as 1956. Two factors combined to create a rapid rise in degree programmes at non-university institutions. The first factor was the “bums on seats” approach that dominated the 1990s tertiary education policy, and that created incentives for institutions to rapidly develop degree programmes in a variety of areas. The second factor was the exponential growth in the sophistication and complexity of knowledge required for vocational and trade areas.

Polytechnics and institutes of technology have come from a very different history and set of traditions than universities. Indeed, the first mention of trades education is to be found in the laws of Hammurabi of Babylonia, formulated around 1800BC, about 1,500 years before Plato developed his Academy and Aristotle his Lyceum—the forerunners of universities. Those two were very aristocratic institutions.

In New Zealand our first university, the University of Otago, was established in 1869. The first lecture was given by G S Sale, the professor of classics, in which he claimed that education in Greek and Latin was of little value to a person whose life was to be spent in the ordinary trades or callings of a colony, but they were the means to a liberal education that would enlarge one’s powers, cultivate taste, and refine the manner of him who obtained it. Within 5 years Parliament had passed an Act that absorbed the University of Otago as a college of the University of New Zealand.

New Zealand polytechnics and institutes of technology can also trace their ancestry back more than a century. Although they are part of a national system of education today, their roots lie not in some grand national plan, but in a series of local initiatives from the 1880s to provide technical instruction for those who were among the nine out of 10 New Zealanders who went straight from primary school to work. The first such initiative was by the Wellington Education Board. When drawing became a compulsory subject in schools, teachers needed to be taught to draw, so the Wellington School of Design was established in 1886.

The point is this: society was able to function at the time with nine out of 10 young people entering work directly from primary school. It would be an absurdity to suggest that the same could happen today. That is a function of the increased complexity of our society and the greater levels of knowledge required in all fields of learning—in particular, vocational learning.

In certain fields the level of knowledge and skills required can no longer be publicly recognised with just certificate or diploma status. Degree titles are necessary. Ian Dougherty’s work Bricklayers and Mortarboards chronicles how institutions such as Unitec have responded to that demand for developing levels of knowledge. Construction management, quantity surveying, and business studies in 1992, then, later, design, nursing, environmental studies, engineering, and landscape architecture, are just a few of the areas where the level of knowledge justified degree status of the qualification in that domain.

Nowhere is the case more clearly demonstrated than in medical imaging. Up until 1990, the school of radiology at Auckland Hospital taught students how to take X-rays. Diploma status for the qualification was justified. However, medical imaging is one of the most rapidly developing areas of health treatment. Not only do graduates need to know about X-rays; they also need to know about computer tomography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, nuclear medicine, mammography, and interventional radiology procedures. Clearly, degree status in this field to master’s level is not only appropriate but required.

As institutes of technology built larger and larger graduate portfolios, it was inevitable they would want parity of esteem with universities for their qualifications. Therefore, in 1996 both Unitec and the then Auckland Institute of Technology made application for a change of status. This led to a flurry of activity, and the use of international panels to decide just what a university looked like beyond the vague definition in the Act.

One of the criteria that was arrived at was telling. It was that a university could have only a small proportion of sub-degree programmes. That is in tune with the definition of a university in the Act, which established that universities are primarily concerned with more advanced learning. The problem with this is that if an institution wants university status in order to achieve parity of esteem for its degrees, it must first proportionately reduce its sub-degree programmes. This state of affairs creates all the wrong incentives. Not only are sub-degree programmes the strength of our institutes of technology, but, according to the recent Leitch report from Britain, it is through increased participation in level 4 to 7 programmes that we create the greatest productivity gains for our national economy. Those level 4 to 7 programmes are the certificate and diploma trade and vocational programmes that are the very essence of these institutions.

The horse has bolted on graduate programmes in institutions other than universities, given that 16 percent of bachelor degrees are now taught by non-university institutions. The same could be said of postgraduate programmes, but the horse is not so far out the gate.

The submission by the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee on the distinctive contributions of universities states that the Government must act to prevent further proliferation of degrees in non-research institutions. This may resolve the “bums on seats” problems, but the tertiary reforms will do that. What it will not do is accommodate the pressure for recognition of increasingly complex and sophisticated knowledge in trade and vocational fields through graduate and postgraduate qualifications. What it will not do is resolve some of the gatekeeping behaviour of the universities through the 1990s. What it will not do is resolve the issue of duplication of teaching infrastructure, which would result in degrees in these developing areas having to be taught, by law, within universities. What it will not replace is the within-institution scaffolding that is able to take place in, for example, the case of radiography and imaging.

A new class of institution is needed that has the characteristics of both a university and a technical institution with significant sub-degree programmes. Degree programmes would be taught within a research-based environment, but that research could be more applied scholarship and currency based, than that of our current universities. A university of technology would have a different balance from that of a university as defined in the Act.

The argument is advanced that every polytechnic in the country will rush off and want to become a university of technology. The tertiary reforms provide the tools to prevent such a gold rush. The Tertiary Education Commission should not be allowing degree programmes that do not fill a specific need. Institutions would have to advance a clear case for any graduate or postgraduate qualification in an area of endeavour normally covered by certificate or diploma recognition. Genuine evolution of knowledge and skills could be accommodated, while non-genuine claims could be rejected. Therefore, this bill leading to NorthTec or Telford Rural Polytechnic becoming a university of technology could happen only if the Tertiary Education Commission was not doing its job.

I therefore reiterate what I said at the beginning of my speech. This bill is about future-proofing our system for conferring tertiary degrees. I hope that parties in this House will see fit to support the bill through its first reading, so that the issues raised can be fully explored through public submission. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill. National will be supporting this bill going to the Education and Science Committee. We must say that we are looking forward to enjoying the debate within the select committee.

This sector is particularly confusing right now with its eight universities, its 26 polytechs, its 42 industry training organisations, and its 800 private training establishments, and here the member is adding yet another category of university. I note that no one, other than Unitec and the member, has lobbied me to support this bill. Nevertheless, the discussion in the Education and Science Committee, hopefully, will be an elevated and enlightened one, and one where we can make progress on taking away the confusion that Labour has created in the tertiary education system, and bring sense and rationality to it.

I acknowledge Brian Donnelly for picking up this bill. But I also acknowledge John Webster, the Chief Executive Officer of Unitec. He is a man who has shown extraordinary perseverance and dedication in trying to achieve university status for the institution he has worked so hard for, for so long. I was shown around the campus by him a month or so ago, and also taken over to the western side of Auckland where a new campus is expanding. I must say that he has developed a very, very impressive diversity of courses, despite the Labour Government.

There certainly is an irony in Unitec wanting to become a university of technology. It insists that this is a different category from a university, but when we look back to the history of the early 1990s when the Auckland Institute of Technology and Unitec both applied to the Government to become universities, we see that, of course, only the Auckland Institute of Technology was chosen to be one—the Auckland University of Technology. Here we would have an even further confusing situation, where Unitec would be a university of technology, and we already have the Auckland University of Technology, but they are supposed to be different.

Here are some questions that the member has to let us know the answers to. How is this actually going to help students. Is it going to help students? Will it make them better off? Will it, indeed, ensure that the staircasing that he has been talking about will happen?

I note that he says in the general policy statement: “By comparison with research-led universities, their lower proportion of research post-graduate students, and intensity of internationally published research, will be offset by a particularly strong commitment to high level professional and vocational education, establishment of close links with business and industry, engagement in applied research and advanced practice, delivery of appropriate sub-degree programmes, and provision for pathways by which students can progress to higher levels of education and training as and when required to pursue their career goals.”

I understand that Mr Donnelly and Unitec feel there is a great need to have parity of esteem. Yet one really wonders whether just conferring the title of “university of technology” will do this. If we look around the world we can immediately think of highly esteemed universities such as Oxford, Cambridge, and Johns Hopkins, and, on the other hand, there is the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—not a university, but surely of hugely high esteem. It is an institution of only about 10,000 students, yet it does an enormous amount of research. That is another of the ironies relating to this particular bill.

I remember several years ago also debating in this Chamber the question of how many universities we should have in this country, and this bill may lead to many. The view that we in National had was that it really depended entirely on quality; the number did not matter so much. Of course, all the Labour Government wanted to do was to control the number; it was not worried about quality.

It is of interest to me that, in the background of this bill, the Education Act 1989 currently categorises institutions as universities, polytechs, colleges of education, specialist colleges, or wānanga, and there is a degree of flexibility, but not enough. However, since 1992, as we have learnt from Brian Donnelly, polytechs have been allowed to confer degrees up to PhD. I note that Unitec does have that full spectrum of certificates and diplomas all the way to PhDs.

I absolutely agree that technology and technology courses have changed dramatically since the 1990s. The example given of radiologists is absolutely pertinent; that technology has changed enormously during the time that I have been a practising obstetrician and gynaecologist. As the member said, the whole range from simple X-rays to ultrasound to magnetic resonance imaging has happened in the last 15 to 20 years. It is important that nurses and radiographers, etc., are able to staircase from diplomas to degrees, then perhaps to go on to PhDs and do research. However, the big question is whether a university of technology is needed to do this.

I also note that there has been considerable discussion about what constitutes a university. I am sure Dr Cullen will have some erudite and woolly definition of it, but The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines a university as “a high-level educational institution in which students study for degrees and academic research is done.” It does not necessarily mean that it is research-led, which is the situation or the understood preference of the eight universities in New Zealand. The Education Act 1989, which I think Brian Donnelly mentioned, is a little vague on the definition of universities here, but research rather than teaching is the vital focus.

That brings up some curious scenarios of what might happen in the future if, indeed, this bill is allowed to go through. We have a situation in New Zealand where it looks as though three or four or five universities are getting the lion’s share of the Performance-based Research Fund.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.