Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Mr Chairperson, for the opportunity to speak on the very important title and purpose clauses. As National has said many times, this bill was supposed to be about reforming the tertiary education system in New Zealand. It was supposed to be about introducing quality, relevance, and value for money. But the very opposite is happening, as we see the burgeoning bureaucracy and complexity that have thrived before our eyes, through the evolution of this bill.

I think the title should be something like “The Labour Government (Let’s Reform the Tertiary System Again) Bill”, because the last reforms were so bad. We have been through the evolution of that. We know that 2-yearly, over the last 7 years, there has been a reform in the system whereby a billion dollars, which should have gone into tertiary education, was misspent and wasted. Perhaps the title should be “The Labour Government (Let’s Add More Bureaucracy to the Tertiary System) Bill”, because the Government likes complexity.

But the really important and poignant title would be “The Labour Government (Let’s Trample Over Academic Freedom and Autonomy) Bill”. It was indeed poignant earlier when we heard Maryan Street say the word “commissariat”. It just slipped off her tongue. That reminds us of the central control that is taking place in institutions right around New Zealand. As just one example, I note that the Southern Institute of Technology has had 2,500 equivalent full-time students ripped from it because it was performing so well. This is not quality and value for money; this is punishing quality, and, instead, controlling it—just like a commissariat does.

It is important to go back to the Education Act 1989. Part 14 of that Act talks about the establishment and disestablishment of tertiary education. Section 160, “Object”, states: “The object of the provisions of this Act relating to institutions is to give them as much independence and freedom to make academic, operational, and management decisions as is consistent with the nature of the services they provide, the efficient use of national resources, the national interest, and the demands of accountability.” So it was quite extraordinary when the Vice-Chancellors Committee came to the table at the Education and Science Committee and told the committee that this was one of the most damaging situations they have ever seen. They said: “It should be noted that none of the world’s leading universities are subject to the degree of control proposed in this Bill”, and that “in no other western democracy has a state sought this degree of control over a university’s teaching and research, or claimed either ownership of, or an ownership interest in, universities.” They also said: “Nowhere else in the world is bureaucratic control of universities seen as the route to educational excellence.”

That has to be a damning indictment on this Labour Government. But the victory is that the select committee process did indeed see the Labour Government—in fact, Dr Cullen—dragged, screaming, and agreeing to a qualification being put into the purpose clause to say that academic freedom and autonomy would be retained. Thank goodness for the select committee process and thank goodness for the National Party!

As I said before, this was a demonstration of just how arrogant and tired this Labour Government has become over the last 9 years, and how lacking of insight it has become. It is quite ironic that in the context of the Electoral Finance Amendment Bill, the Government is squashing democracy, and, at the same time, through the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill, it is trying to quash academic freedom.

I think a better name for the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill would be the “Education (Tertiary Reforms) Here We Go Again Amendment Bill”, because, frankly, this Government continues to reform and reform but does not get anywhere. A lot of tertiary providers are suffering from reform fatigue, because here we are again talking about stuff that Labour has been talking about for the last 8 years but getting nowhere. After the expenditure of $419 million, here we are again. Talk about value for money! And that is one of the objectives of the bill.

My question to the Minister of Education would be how it is value for money that here we are debating this bill, 8 years after Labour started talking about reforming the tertiary sector, and having spent that amount. That money did not go on students; it basically went on the production of a whole set of glossy documents and “thinkpieces”, culminating in this bill here today.

This bill is supposed to increase transparency. It is supposed to ensure that there is better spending in the tertiary sector. Well, I have not seen any evidence that this bill will contribute to that. In effect, it will contribute to a greater amount of bureaucracy that tertiary providers have to face, and a greater number of plans, strategic plans, documents, workshops, hui, and sitting around on yoga mats with crossed legs and talking about stakeholder engagement. That will make no difference to students. Ultimately, I think, tertiary reform has to make a difference to students. I would like to hear from the Minister why this bill will make a difference for students.

💬 Lesley Soper: How many tertiary students have you spoken to recently?

There is Lesley Soper again, the most useless member of the New Zealand Educational Institute. During the Invercargill reforms she said nothing and did nothing. The schools in Invercargill just about kicked her out of there.

💬 Lesley Soper: How many tertiary students have you spoken to recently?

She is still going on.

💬 Hon Member: The Labour Party is trying to get rid of her.

That is right. Labour people do not want her in Dunedin. They are bending over backwards to make sure they do not have her in Dunedin—that is for sure.

I turn back to the bill. This bill was designed to move away from a “bums on seats” mentality in universities to one that was less demand-led. But this Government has put more bums on the seats of courses such as radio singalongs, homeopathy for pets, knitted jackets for small pets, and pendulum swinging for beginners. The expenditure on those kinds of areas has increased over a period of time.

💬 Simon Power: The member can’t be serious.

Well, I might have made up the knitted jackets for small pets course. I will admit that, but the others are true.

This bill will not lead to a greater amount of relevance and transparency.

💬 Lesley Soper: What was the unemployment rate under National? What happened to the apprenticeship system under National?

There is Lesley Soper again. Her dress sense is inspired by a Prince video. That is right; she could have had a part in the “Raspberry Beret” video.

But I will go back to the bill. If this bill is so popular, why did the Vice-Chancellors Committee come out and make such damning comments about it? Why did it say that the bill would bring in unprecedented control of the tertiary sector, put academic freedom at risk, and put more control in the hands of the Minister than we have seen?

💬 Lesley Soper: Read clause 3.

She is still going. I think we on this side of the Committee have really hit a nerve with our debate. By sitting in that seat, she obviously has aspirations to be the chief whip. But even Dunedin will not have her, and Invercargill is not very keen, either.

I would like to pay tribute to the chairman of the Education and Science Committee, Brian Donnelly, because I think he did a good job in terms of trying to address some of the industry’s concerns. But a lot of people within the tertiary education sector are still deeply concerned about the impact on academic freedom, and deeply concerned that this bill will bring in more red tape and bureaucracy—not less. The concentration on planning to the nth degree does not make a single bit of difference to students, and, ultimately, that has to be the focus of all tertiary reform. The Minister may wish to move away from a demand-led approach, but demand still plays a part. Certainly, we have shortages in the area of the early childhood sector, as I have outlined. I hope that the Tertiary Education Commission is able to deal with that, as well.

💬 Lesley Soper: Don’t take any trouble to read it.

She does not give up.

💬 Simon Power: Take a call!

The member should take a call. She manages not to give any speeches in the Chamber. The only thing I have ever heard her say is “I move that the question be now put.” That is obviously the sign of a frustrated speaker. [Interruption] And there is Sue Moroney, the only person in the Committee who can knock the last two letters off her name and get “moron”. Thank you.

I am pleased that the National Party in Opposition has got to the end of a Thursday, and clearly the National members’ levity has overcome them, because they seem to be unable to comprehend the seriousness of the purpose of the legislation in front of us. It is absolutely critical that this country has a high-performing tertiary education sector, and that is not only to do with the universities but to do with polytechnics and the industry training organisations that serve the training purposes for those people in trades and occupations that this country needs. This country needs well-equipped and competent people for those occupations.

This Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill implements the Government’s reforms of the system and, contrary to the lunatic assertions that we have heard in some of the speeches just given by members of the Opposition, the reforms of the tertiary education sector have been long in coming. These reforms are being set in place because they are sensible and they give the tertiary education organisations some security and forward planning capability, and because the kinds of synergies that exist between the plans outlined in this bill and the requirements of students, which are at the heart of this bill, are aligned. The fact that there is a 3-year plan should not come as any surprise to members opposite—although clearly it does—because most of our tertiary qualifications take 3 years to complete. I have had the privilege of being a member of staff in an academic capacity for 9 years at Auckland University, and I know how long it takes to prepare degree courses, diploma courses, and postgraduate courses, and I know the kinds of things that are involved in developing contemporary qualifications that young people require these days in order for this society and for our country to be able to meet contemporary and future challenges. That is what this bill is about, and no amount of levity or inanity from the Opposition can detract from the serious purpose of this bill.

This is a good bill. It prepares our tertiary education sector to engage with the community and to assess the needs of its community on a regular and planned basis. It allows our tertiary education sector to be responsive to need, but it also gives the sector security of funding on an ongoing, 3-year basis. That is the kind of mechanism that this bill delivers. It is a technical bill in that sense, but let us not for a moment lose sight of its overriding purpose. Its purpose is serious. The mechanism needed to deliver quality, planned tertiary education, and, therefore, to contribute to the skills and the economic transformation of this country, is the underpinning of this technical bill. The sooner the members opposite take it seriously, the better.

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill with amendment, progress on the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill, and no progress on the Building Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.