Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill

, on behalf of the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education): I move, That the Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. It is my intention to move at the appropriate time that the bill be referred to the Education and Science Committee for consideration, and that the committee present a final report on the bill by Thursday, 16 December 2004.

The bill is small, and is designed to clarify and streamline the processes for determining whether a university should be established. At the moment, the Education Act 1989 requires that two substantive tests must both be worked through before the Minister can make any recommendation to the Governor-General about the establishment of a university or other tertiary institution. The first test is a set of relevant academic characteristics set out in the Act. This is a very detailed and resource-intensive stage. The second test was introduced as part of the recent reforms to the tertiary education system that were contained in the Education (Tertiary Reform) Amendment Act 2002. This test requires the Minister to satisfy himself or herself as to whether the establishment of the institution is in the interests of the tertiary education system and of the nation as a whole. The Minister must also consult with tertiary institutions, organisations representing tertiary institutions, and other relevant bodies.

All of these steps must be carried out before the Minister can make a decision, and regardless of whether it is clear that a proposal would fail on one or other count. This means that the Minister must ask the Qualifications Authority to devote resources to considering the academic criteria, even if the Minister had decided that the proposal was not in the interests of the tertiary education system and the nation. This risks diverting unnecessarily the Qualifications Authority away from its core role of ensuring the quality of qualifications and education provision, and I think members know that it has its hands full in that particular area. The Government does not believe that a process should be allowed to operate in a way that potentially wastes scarce resources of both the authority and the institution making the application.

The bill proposes that, for universities, the high-level strategic issues should be addressed first. The bill means that only if the Minister were satisfied on national interest grounds would the Qualifications Authority look at whether a particular institution was up to the mark in terms of the academic criteria for establishment as a university. The bill also makes some amendments that align the process used for allowing the use of certain terms with the establishment provisions for tertiary institutions.

I think it is important that I draw the attention of the House to one further element of the bill. Clause 6 does have an element of retrospectivity, as it provides that any Order in Council to establish a university made after the bill has been introduced is deemed not to have been made unless the Minister states that the criteria and process contained in the bill have been met and followed. This approach is necessary to ensure that the process set out in the bill is used from now on, and for any proposals that are current.

I know that there will be some interest in how the bill affects the request made some time ago by Unitec for university status. When the Government introduced a bill in 2000, my Associate Minister noted that it was hard on Unitec and that the delay caused by the bill was regrettable. The Government’s view was that the priority was to develop a widely shared, clear strategic direction for New Zealand’s tertiary education sector. I can give a number of undertakings in relation to Unitec’s request. First, I can assure the House that Unitec’s request will be dealt with on its merits. Second, I undertake that Ministers and the Tertiary Education Commission, as well as the Qualifications Authority if it is required, will engage with Unitec and other interested parties, such as the Vice-Chancellors Committee, about the best way forward. Clearly, there are alternative routes for dealing with the matter.

To conclude, the bill represents a minor refinement of the architecture of the Government’s reforms of the tertiary education system that are better aligning tertiary education with New Zealand’s wider goals for social and economic development. It is minor. It is a sensible approach to clarifying and improving a resource-intensive process, and I commend the bill to the House.

In speaking to the first reading of this Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill, I say very clearly that National is totally opposed to it. This is disgraceful, manipulative, and vindictive legislation, which is being introduced today to stop Unitec, formerly the Carrington Polytechnic, from becoming a university. It is so vindictive that Part 2 inserts a retrospective measure—as the Minister of Education in a very minor way acknowledged—to try to prevent Unitec from having any chance of success in the courts in any effort to pursue its legitimate aspirations.

What I find unusual about that retrospective measure is that the Parliamentary Library stated of that part of the bill: “This appears to be designed to prevent any successful Court action by Unitec based on the present law forcing the Minister to complete the entire Section 162 process to a favourable conclusion for Unitec before the Bill is passed.” That is the Parliamentary Library of New Zealand stating that—not some politically biased party—in its analysis of this legislation. The library is actually saying that the legislation is vindictive, but it does not use that word. It just points out that the legislation is designed to stop Unitec from being able to use the court system to pursue its legitimate interests.

I have to say that I have not often seen such mean legislation introduced into this Parliament, although I will admit that Labour has done it before—back in 2000, I think. Again, the Parliamentary Library was pretty blunt about it. The Labour Government introduced an education bill limiting the number of universities, to try to stop Unitec from becoming a university. Way back then, the Parliamentary Library stated: “Unitec’s application got as far as the formation of a Qualifications Authority - appointed international assessment panel in May 2000.” So a panel had been appointed to assess the application. But, of course, what happened? Labour introduced that bill to stop it from going any further, and the institution is still waiting to be assessed.

It is obnoxious for this Parliament to be used by this Labour Government in this demeaning way, to pursue its manipulative, mean, and nasty aspirations. This Parliament should be above that mean and nasty stuff.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is the member angry again?

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: The Minister asks whether I am angry again. Let us appeal to the reason of the Minister. What is the mischief, what is the problem, with Unitec—

Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s a bit of a long bow.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: The Minister said it himself; I asked whether we could appeal to the reason of the Minister, and he said that that was drawing a long bow. What is the mischief? If we look at the balance of graduates emerging from New Zealand’s universities, we see that we produce more accountants—or used to, a couple of years ago—than Australia or any other country in the world. We produce more law graduates than any other country in the world, apart from the United States of America.

Hon Trevor Mallard: You mean proportionately.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Yes, proportionately. I accept the Minister’s correction. Per head of population, New Zealand produces more accountants and lawyers than any other country in the world. But what New Zealand needs desperately is for our universities to produce more graduates in applied science. The Minister has come to realise, I thought, that biotechnology and the wider areas of technology are huge areas for New Zealand’s future. Applied science is where New Zealand’s future lies, and here we have a Government constraining our universities to the old-style universities, most of which produce lots of law, accountancy, and arts graduates. We have very few universities producing applied science graduates. So I appeal to the reason of the Government: we actually need a university like Unitec that is focused on the applied sciences, that is focused on applied study at a university level.

I suppose one could argue that this bill gives the Government’s Tertiary Education Commission something to do. Maybe that is what the Government is after here. The Minister has to seek the commission’s advice on whether this fits in with “the interests of the tertiary education system and the nation as a whole”. Maybe this is something the Tertiary Education Commission could do with its $40 million bureaucracy.

Dr Paul Hutchison: $44 million.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Its $44 million bureaucracy, one of my colleagues reminds me. This would give the commission a job to do—something, I guess, to justify its $44 million.

But it is serious. I have been around education a while. I was in universities for 13 years, personally, both as a student and as a university teacher. I have been in universities a bit longer than most members of this Chamber. I was Minister of Education for many years, and during the time that National was in power and I was Minister our tertiary sector in this country flourished. We went from the bottom of the OECD, in terms of participation, to the top. I have some experience in this field. I want to put this to the Labour Government: if Governments think that through legislative decree they can create great learning institutions, they are wrong. Great universities and our great learning institutions evolve over time, and our law should allow that process to happen. We should not seek to prevent it from happening.

We can take, for example, the former university of Steve Maharey, the Associate Minister responsible for this bill—Massey University. It also happens to be my former university. Massey University started out as a college, Massey College. It was initially involved in teaching about farming, and has evolved to become one of the great universities of applied science in the world. It has grown hugely, if one takes its entire breadth and coverage. It is not strong across all areas at the moment, but the area of applied science certainly is. It is one of the great applied science universities of the world. As a graduate—and I was a reasonable graduate—of Massey University I had entrée into any of the great universities of the world. As a Commonwealth scholar coming out of Massey University, I had entrée into any of the great universities of the world—and that place started as just a farming college.

I will refer members to another important institution in Australasia. The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology is a university. It started out as the Working Men’s College in 1887 and it was amalgamated with the Philip Institute of Technology in 1992. What started as two very modest institutes of technology—one was a working men’s college—has evolved to the point that the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology is now a major university in Australasia. Beyond that, the institute has major teaching linkages to South-east Asia. It has a major international operation covering the whole of Australasia and into South-east Asia. If Australia had had New Zealand’s legislation, that might not have happened. That institution has evolved over time and grown to be a hugely valuable tertiary institution for Australia and for our part of the world.

The tragedy of this mean, manipulative, short-sighted legislation from the Labour Government is that it kills that evolution. It provides that Government dictate shall determine what organisations will be universities, and it protects some universities that probably should die because they are not good enough. It is possible that, over time, universities decline in status. Everyone knows which faculties in which universities are worth studying in. Not all are, and people know that, but Governments should not try to dictate this matter by law. Unitec has evolved to the stage where it now offers very fine courses in the applied sciences and technology. It ought to be able to evolve those further as a university, just like the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and the Auckland University of Technology have done. New Zealand needs more than just graduates in law, accountancy, and the arts. It is a tragedy for New Zealand’s future if this legislation goes any further.

That was an interesting speech from a member of the Opposition who does know a bit about universities in New Zealand. But I clearly heard in the Minister of Education’s first reading speech that this bill does not have a mechanism to close down universities or foreclose on opportunities for new universities. I heard that there is a need for a national strategy for the tertiary sector—a proper, strategic approach within the national interest—and an efficient decision-making process. Those priorities need to be set. This bill is a minor refinement of our current tertiary reforms. I support this bill.

In Whangarei we have a couple of secondary schools that I will call School A and School B. A decade ago each set out a vision for its building programme. One of those secondary schools has met its vision absolutely stunningly, which is just fantastic. The other one has struggled to achieve its vision, for no reason associated with the school or the school management. It has not got bad buildings, but it has not been able fully to achieve its vision. The reason it has not done so is that it has been caught up with policy shifts. That is what happens with education—there are policy shifts. Whereas School A had roll growth at the same time that the Government poured money into schools to accommodate roll growth, School B did not. Therefore, when it came to bulk funding, School A was able to make maximum use of it, but School B was still trying to catch up.

Basically, this bill creates very much the same situation of a policy shift. We have two very similar institutions, one that has been accorded university status, and one that has been trapped by a policy shift that is the creation of a Labour Government. Believe it or not, a Labour Government said we should limit the number of universities we have, and create a degree of elitism within them. That in itself is not bad; I am not saying it is bad, but I am just trying to explain the circumstances.

The source of this bill goes back to the decisions made—I think the Hon Lockwood Smith was involved in them—about a decade ago, or more, that enabled tertiary institutions other than universities to teach and award degrees. That was the source of it. That was very much a positive move, but, unfortunately, the ramifications of that particular decision were not thought through at the time. Of course, the knowledge and skills required across a whole array of endeavours within our society have increased so much that the highest qualifications no longer justify certificate or diploma status; they actually justify degree status. In the same way, a college of agriculture increased the knowledge that was required in that particular area to the point that it needed to award bachelor degrees, masters degrees, and doctors degrees. Tertiary institutions grew significantly, and the number of degrees awarded within them also grew significantly.

It was natural that some of those institutions would wish that the status of their degrees had “university” attached to them. That was particularly true of institutions that were trying to move into the international market. They wanted to be able to attract people, and to do so the degrees that they offered had to have the word “university” on them. In practice, two very similar institutions pursued the course of changing their status from technical institution or polytechnic to university. One of those was the Auckland Institute of Technology in Wellesley Street. It used to be the old Seddon High School, which my father went to. The other was Unitec at Point Chevalier, in the grounds of the old Carrington Hospital. The Auckland Institute of Technology headed the pack, but not without some considerable effort. Some fairly arbitrary criteria were established around what a university was; they related to the proportion of sub-degree courses, bachelor degree courses, and so on. The Auckland Institute of Technology was awarded university status in 1999 by Max Bradford.

New Zealand First would argue that that was going down the wrong line. We do not believe that it was the right way to go. It created some unfortunate incentives. For example, to be a university an institution had to have fewer than a certain proportion of sub-degree courses. There was a very easy way to get that status—just cut sub-degree courses. In doing so, those institutions had incentives to become something that they were not, and something that they were not necessarily good at. They really needed to stick to what was their common ground and what they were good at, and, in fact, that was, in many cases, scaffolding students into that part of the education market that is hard to penetrate—into a tertiary education programme through sub-degree courses, degree courses, etc. By establishing those arbitrary criteria about what a university was and was not, all the incentives were wrong. So we believe that that was the wrong move.

A Labour Government was elected that said it wanted to prevent the proliferation of universities, and to create stronger universities, rather than have a whole lot. Unitec was caught up by that, even though its process was already well down the track. The Government responded with the Education (Limiting Number of Universities) Amendment Bill. Also, at the same time, the Tertiary Education Advisory Commission review was going on; it was just commencing its work. The outcome has certainly been that Unitec can justifiably claim it has been treated wrongly. However, two wrongs do not make a right, as far as New Zealand First is concerned. We believe that it is eminently sensible to have a public-good test at the beginning of the process of any application, whether for a university, a polytechnic, or a wānanga. It seems stupid to have an expensive process of proving that an institution has certain characteristics—a process that would be carried through at quite a considerable cost—when, at the end of it, the institution still has to go through a public-interest test, which could wipe out the whole thing. It seems sensible to have that at the beginning of the process. In general, that means this legislation makes sense, but if we start applying it to the Unitec situation—its application was submitted in 1996, and it has gone a long way down the process—then we see that the situation does seem very unfair. There is no doubt this bill is aimed at Unitec.

There is another worrying part of this bill—and Dr Lockwood Smith referred to it. The explanatory note states: “The Bill would have retrospective effect in relation to any Order in Council establishing a university that may be made after this Bill is introduced into the House of Representatives. Such orders would cease to have effect and expire unless the Minister can confirm that establishment would be in the interests of the tertiary education system and the nation as a whole and that the procedures set out in the Bill had been followed.” I want people to listen carefully to that statement, because it states that even if Unitec has advanced its claim all the way to the point that an Order in Council is made, it will be rendered null and void—even though Unitec has proved its case. To have proved its case, a public process has to have been applied; Unitec has to have already proved that the country and the tertiary education system need another university. Despite Unitec having gone through that, under this bill, which is retrospective, it would have to go back to the beginning. That is, obviously, a dilemma that will have to be resolved at the select committee.

New Zealand First wants to make another point. We believe that both National and Labour have failed in terms of the dilemma that has been created in the system by degrees being allowed to be taught by a range of different institutions. National would have been happy to have 100 universities. We have just listened to Lockwood Smith. National would have been happy for Telford Rural Polytechnic to be a university. Any organisation could have been a university. Te Wānanga o Aotearoa could have been a university if it had wanted—that would have been fine. That, obviously, is nuts. Labour, however, would probably reduce the number of universities to four, if it had its way.

New Zealand First believes that we need a new class of tertiary institution. We need a class called “university of technology”, whose members would be different from a university in their parameters and criteria, and would carry out the very actions that the Auckland University of Technology and Unitec do. They would be able to give their degrees the status of being university degrees. In fact, the Auckland University of Technology, which is what it calls itself, is not a university of technology, because there is no such thing in New Zealand; it is a university.

Hon Maurice Williamson: What does it matter if it’s a university?

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: It is because of the status that goes with degrees in terms of penetration of the foreign market, and all those sorts of things. That is fairly obvious. Therefore, let us have a class of institution that we can be honest about, and that is different, and in which pure research does not have to go along with teaching, but currency in scholarship does. Another problem with the definition of a university is that it just does not fit comfortably with the institutions we are talking about—with either of them. If we look at them, we see that they are idiosyncratic in terms of the other tertiary institutions that we call universities.

New Zealand First will vote for this bill to go to the select committee. We will explore these issues. We give no guarantee of support beyond that point, but we certainly will use the opportunity to advance what we think is the sensible solution to the dilemma that the system faces that neither National nor Labour has been able to resolve—that is, the development of a new class of tertiary institution called a “university of technology”.

I begin my contribution by thanking the Hon Brian Donnelly for his contribution. I think it was informative and thoughtful, as is his habit. It was a useful exposition of the context of the current bill, and there it included an interesting idea about universities of technology that is worth exploring further. I thank him for that.

I make the point that the Greens support taking a strategic approach to tertiary education. We supported the tertiary reforms for that reason, and we supported the development of the Tertiary Education Commission. It seems to us that the legislation is back to front now, and that this bill is an attempt to create a more sensible approach towards how we go about establishing new universities. It seems to us that institutions that intend to become universities now go through the hoops. They go through the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and all the different hoops that are put in front of them, and then they face a political or a national-interest test.

Stephen Franks: A political test. You got it right the first time.

NANDOR TANCZOS: Well, it is a political test. The question of what is in the national interest is always a political decision, so it is a political test. [Interruption] I suggest to Mr Franks that his idea of what is in the national interest is not always the same as that of National, Labour, or the Greens. It is affected by his political position. That is obvious. I am surprised that the member needs that to be pointed out to him.

We think it is sensible to make the strategic decision at the beginning of the process, and to begin with an evaluation of whether a new university is in the national interest. I think it really comes down to a philosophical position as to whether one supports a strategic approach to tertiary education or one does not support that, and the Greens clearly do support it. It seems to me that some parties support a rudderless approach both to tertiary education and to the nation in general—a rudderless approach that says that we need to have no direction and no management. That kind of approach does not work for any business, and I am not sure how members think it will work for a country.

The Greens do have concerns with regard to this bill, however—in particular, concerns around retrospectivity. Of course, that part of the bill is designed to address Unitec; that is obvious and has been said before. We think that there are questions of natural justice that need to be addressed. Unitec has put a monumental effort and resources into proving its case to become a university. It has been stymied by a change in policy, as Mr Donnelly said. We think that Unitec is in a unique position. We are not aware of any other institution that is in a position now to become a university. The position of Unitec is unique, so the retrospectivity in this bill is clearly an attempt to simply address its particular case. We think that Unitec can advance good arguments about why it should get university status, and of course, there are arguments against that, as well. We look forward to addressing that question in the select committee, and to nutting out the details of the pros and cons of that matter. We will be interested to see what comes out of that.

The Greens will support the referral of this bill to a select committee because we support taking a strategic approach to tertiary education. But we have an open mind on retrospectivity and Unitec’s case, and we make no further commitment beyond that stage.

I rise to speak to the first reading of the “Education (Unitec Prevention) Amendment Bill”, also mistitled the Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill. As has been said by previous speakers, this bill is not about establishing universities as much as it is against the establishment of Unitec as a university. This bill is reprehensible in terms of the way that Unitec has been treated. Whatever the rights and wrongs of Unitec’s application to become a university, the fact that Unitec has been strung along for 5 years at huge expense, and been mucked around by this Government, is absolutely reprehensible. I think the more airing that the issue gets, and the more that this Government’s attitude towards Unitec on this matter is aired, the better it will be.

The purpose of this bill, clearly, is to prevent Unitec from registering as a university. It also alters the application process for a tertiary education institution that seeks to be registered as a university. At present institutions submit their proposals to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, which then considers whether the institution should become a university. The bill provides that the Minister must make a decision on the strategic implications of establishing the new university, for both the nation and the tertiary education system, before a detailed assessment of the criteria can be carried out by the authority. There is a retrospective aspect to this bill, in that any current applications will fall under the bill’s jurisdiction. Unitec is the one such application.

The Government is obstructing Unitec’s efforts to become a university. This is the third time in 4 years that the Government has drafted legislation to block Unitec. The story began in 1996, when both the Auckland Institute of Technology and Unitec lodged applications to become universities. In November 1999, the Minister disestablished the Auckland Institute of Technology and established the Auckland University of Technology. In 2000 both the change of Government and the threat of legal action by the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee halted Unitec’s final tick-off. Unitec argues with some force that the way it has been treated is unconstitutional and is a breach of the well-established principle that the executive should not suspend the law, or the application of the law, without the authority of the legislature. It relies on section 1 of the Bill of Rights 1688 and also on Fitzgerald v Muldoon, a case reported in New Zealand Law Reports 1976, Volume 2, at page 615.

The fact that Unitec has been singled out like that is simply not a very good look for any Government. But it reflects the sort of ideology of this Government, which comes through in terms of its education policy and has been well seen throughout the approach that it takes. Indeed, it has been reported to me that Howard Fancy made a comment publicly not long ago that when this Government came into power the ministry had one policy objective, and the Government had a multitude of policy objectives. That just shows the amount of political interference and involvement that there has been in the development of education policy. It shows that blind ideology dominates over common sense, over rational planning, and over the best interests of New Zealand.

Unitec argues that excluding it from university status serves no useful purpose. It has argued that in the competitive market model there has been such an overlap between universities of society, which traditionally study the humanities and pure science, and the newer universities of the economy, often known as institutes or universities of technology, that the two are virtually indistinguishable. Dr John Webster, Unitec’s chief executive officer, said that the Minister had obviously decided that Unitec now meets the criteria for university status so comfortably that if a fair assessment was conducted, the Minister would find it hard to turn down the application. It is very hard to argue against that conclusion.

Both the Association of University Staff and the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee have endorsed the bill. They support restrictions on the number of universities, arguing that New Zealand needs to have a greater level of investment in the existing universities rather than more universities.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Of course!

MURRAY SMITH: Of course one would expect them to argue that. There is something of a degree of self-interest involved, no doubt, in their comments. The Association of University Staff and the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee are concerned that any increase would upset the Performance-based Research Fund result and could threaten the international reputation of the New Zealand university sector. The association would also like to see the bill go further, by restricting the term “university” from usage by private establishments.

However, this bill does give an opportunity for a lot of examination of the whole area of university structure. United Future members have a number of questions that they want to see addressed during the select committee process, and we will support the bill’s referral to the select committee in order to hear submissions and start addressing those issues. Our support for the bill is not beyond the first reading, because of the real concerns that we have about it. Some of the questions we want to see addressed are questions like whether there are too many universities, whether we have too many of the same model of university at present, and whether there are other models. I have heard New Zealand First suggest that maybe we ought to expand the meaning of “university” and bring in some other models, and I think that is a worthy issue to pursue. Then there is the question of whether New Zealand is big enough to sustain more universities of the same scale as the current institutions. In 2002 Auckland University received $197 million, Otago University received $129 million, and even the Auckland University of Technology—the best comparison with Unitec—received $75 million. Universities are expensive. Another question to consider is whether the hundred million dollars that would likely have to be spent on Unitec is the best way to spend our education dollar. Should early childhood education take priority over another university? In 2003 Unitec received $55.8 million from the Government. If it became a university, that amount could easily double.

This bill is evidence of strategic planning by the Government for the university sector. However, New Zealand needs to have a better focus for the overall tertiary sector. If the Government is to continue investing in universities, New Zealand needs to have an improved designation for universities. Their purpose, both individually and as part of the greater university sector, needs to be examined and better described. Research functions alone cannot be the only criteria to evaluate universities on. What about teaching standards? Primarily, universities carry that dual function, yet there is a dearth of research and evaluation in terms of teaching standards, and that really is what we should be looking at very closely.

To support this bill is to consent to the transfer of a large amount of power, even if that power is not used frequently, to the Minister of Education. Can the current Minister or any future Minister be trusted to act, in the words of the bill, in the interests of the tertiary education system or the nation, over and above his or her political ideology? I think not. At present the Tertiary Education Commission is unable to take a leading role in the direction of the universities. It remains a fledgling bureaucracy, which hampers the strategic planning of the tertiary sector. That is another issue that we ought to examine. For other tertiary education institutions seeking reclassification as universities this bill would indeed save them substantial amounts of time and money, and that approach is welcome. I understand that a proposal can cost in the vicinity of $500,000 on the part of the institution and that that would be matched by an equally large amount from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority in order to assess it against the criteria. To request a reclassification straight from the Minister would be somewhat less expensive than that.

In terms of the restructuring of institutions and the approach that is taken in the bill, there is some commendation for sorting out the overall policy objectives before institutions are put to the extent of using valuable resources, which could well be wasted at the end of the day. That does have some merit, but I go back to the point that those sorts of issues should have been addressed 5 years ago, at the time that Unitec was looking to become a university, and not now, 5 years later, when Unitec has been strung along and has now been put into the position of having to look at court action—and then the Government is looking at frustrating that, as it has looked at frustrating other court action. United Future will support this bill’s first reading. We look forward to the continuing debate on it.

I am always tempted to diverge from letting this House and the country know what the ACT party position is on a bill like this, by the bits from preceding speeches that distract me. It is amusing, I have to say, to hear a reasonably coherent account from United Future’s Murray Smith of the reasons that this bill should not proceed, and to then hear him say that nevertheless, United Future will vote for it. That sort of thing is always amusing.

There are three very strong reasons why this bill should not get any further than this stage today. The first one should be absolutely instinctive for every member of this House. It should stick in the craw of every legislator when a piece of considered legislation, the law of the land, is simply suspended by Government bullying. That is what this House is subjecting itself to. That is what we are going along with. We have seen an institution follow the procedures laid down in the Education Act, and now three times, as it has gone to use the rights that this House has said it should have, it has been stopped in its tracks by a lot of craven people, by the Government bringing in a bill and saying: “If you go ahead, we will whack you.”

The Government is not even giving us parliamentarians the excuse, for allowing this to go ahead, of having taken the earlier bills through. That at least would have allowed us to persuade ourselves that it was a legitimate use of parliamentary procedure. We might have thought that if it had taken the earlier two efforts any further than the introduction stage, there might have been some dignity in our allowing this one to proceed. But what has actually happened is that the Government is so cynical that it introduces legislation and then does nothing with it.

I could stand here and read out the speech I made in May 2000, when it used precisely the same kind of tactic to prevent people in this country from using Parliament’s law—just doing what was laid down in the Education Act, coming up to the standard required for a university, asking for assessment, going through the process, and getting registration.

It is interesting to me that the effete Minister Maharey did not come here to defend his own piece. He sent Parliament’s bully. The bully on the right hand of the Prime Minister came to the House to push this little piece of bullying in. It would not be the man who has had the life of blameless excellence bringing his delicate fingers here; he would rather have the speeches in the words of Mr Mallard! It may be that it is just these scruffy tradespeople from the polytechnics—these upstarts do not appeal to our exalted former university lecturer. He does not want to get his hands dirty, coming here to explain why it is that Unitec cannot join the Auckland University of Technology, Auckland University, and Massey University in competing in the enormous Auckland market—a market, of course, that is not restricted to New Zealand. I have not heard a single thing here that explains why Green members, who are so keen on biodiversity, think that diversity, when it gets to human affairs, is a real problem and that the only way one can run a sensible country is to get a wise helmsman on the rudder.

I suspect that Nandor Tanczos does not have a very good memory, but he probably would not realise that the “rudder” metaphor comes from the “Great Helmsman”—Mao Tse-Tung, of course. He had his hand on the rudder and was steering China down his unwise path, until it finally let 100 flowers bloom and realised that businesses, companies, people, and everything benefits from biodiversity.

We now have a piece of dishonest legislation that talks about the public interest, but carefully does not define it. I decided that I would wait until I had heard the speeches made by those parties that plan to support Labour’s dirty little trick, until I could see what they thought the public interest might be. I cannot see any public interest whatsoever in telling institutions in this country that they should not aspire to satisfy the following tests: “They are primarily concerned with the more advanced learning, the principal aim being to develop intellectual independence:”. “Oh, no!”—says Labour—“We can’t have any more who are aiming at that!” “Their research and teaching are closely interdependent and most of their teaching is done by people who are active in advancing knowledge:”. Labour says: “Oh, no, no, we just want people who can read from books.” “They meet international standards of research and teaching:”. Labour thinks it would not be in New Zealand’s interests to have any more institutions doing that, would it! “They are a repository of knowledge and expertise:”. Once again, we have all the expertise we need in the hands of the existing teaching unions and the university staff unions! We would not want to see any competition there!

Lastly, “They accept a role as critic and conscience of society;”. We can all see why Labour does not want any more of those around, why it is necessary to pull up the shutters. We can understand why the Government’s handmaidens, the Greens, would not want that, either—because one would not want any of these claims about GE or genetic modification to be subject to too close a scrutiny by people with some international standards of expertise and knowledge!

It is a simple old-fashioned piece of Tammany Hall - type politics. Education unions say: “You scratch our back. You give us money for training programmes, and we’ll make sure there’s some money for your election. We’ll make sure there are some donations for the Labour Party. You look after us, and we’ll look after you.” “Looking after” in this context means making sure there is no genuine competition. “Looking after” involves making sure that the excellence of the brand will not be allowed to speak for itself.

That is what should be happening in the tertiary sector. The Government should not protect the tenure of people who cannot hack it. If the Minister were really interested in the public interest, in high standards, and in upholding standards that make a university degree different from a polytechnic or other qualification, he would say: “My effort should be making sure that I de-accredit the ones that are hopeless.” Nothing would send a better or quicker message than his putting his effort not into blocking someone who meets the standard and can join the club, but into saying who should be expelled from this club to encourage all the others and to make the brand really mean something.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Waikato Law School.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Waikato Law School is a very apt nomination from the National Party. We have seen the poor quality of University of Waikato law graduates. We see it almost every day in this House when the former dean of the law school answers questions to mislead us as to law.

We have an international market. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has established itself around the world. The University of Chicago now has campus connections in Australia. The University of Phoenix had 40,000 people on Internet qualifications when I last looked at I, and was referred to in The Economist as one of the better qualifications around. Auckland University has a linkage with 21 other universities for international education. But this bill’s kind of primitive brand protection, of anti-competition, will not shelter the low-quality institutions. This has nothing to do with the strategic assessment of New Zealand’s needs. This has everything to do with suppressing competition from what the Government regards as upstarts who have not been prepared to accept bullying and who have not been prepared to just lie down when the Government says to them: “Ignore the law; just do as we say.” It is a disgrace that Parliament is even allowing it to be debated past this stage. I can see Green members and New Zealand First members have already persuaded themselves that they will support this bill. We know that United Future will support it because it is the lapdog, but the absolute patent—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind the member that that is a derogatory term to use. Under Speakers’ Rulings calling a member or a party that name is not allowed. That has already been ruled on.

STEPHEN FRANKS: United Future has made a practice of speaking and barking loudly, and then voting with its master. We know that it will decide shortly before the election—possibly 3 months out, if it can risk leaving it so late—that it will find an issue that it can strongly disagree with the Government on and try to re-establish a separate brand. But there will be people who will remember this. People will remember the number of times that United Future has spoken of independence and voted in a way that shows what it really is—on a leash. This bill should be voted down as soon as we go to vote on it. This bill is not in the interests of the tertiary sector.

It has been interesting listening to the contributions this afternoon and I remind Opposition members that Unitec first applied for redesignation in 1996. I am sure that some of those members over there will remember that in 1996 National was in Government. So if it felt so passionate and strongly about the issue at that time, it could have been expedited, and I think perhaps it is a little bit of a case of crying when one is safe.

The Vice-Chancellors Committee obviously commented on this and we accept that it has a view on this issue. It does represent the country’s universities and its view is that the distinctive characteristics of universities needed to be maintained to protect established standards and New Zealand’s reputation as a provider of university education of international standing. The committee went on to state that this country needs a greater level of investment in existing universities, and not more universities. I acknowledged at the beginning that that was the view of the Vice-Chancellors Committee. However, I do have to concur that ongoing investment in existing universities is a good thing. As a clarification, I also point out that under the process proposed in the bill the Minister could decide whether another university would or would not be in the interests of the nation, and the tertiary education system as a whole. That is one of the key parts of the legislation, in that we do have to look at the national interest, rather than just sectional interests.

I was particularly “amused” with the comments of Mr Franks from the ACT party, when he referred to competition. I remind those Opposition parties that since we have been in Government we have spent a great deal of time cleaning up the mess left by National when market forces, rather than educational service delivery, and quality of education, were the prevailing focus in education, and that mess will take a long time to repair. We are grateful for the sterling work that is being carried out by many educators at many levels in New Zealand.

Those competitive market forces did not deliver in every instance the quality of education that we need in this growing nation of ours. This Government is focused on quality, rather than market forces, and it is quite scary to hear the mantra being repeated by ACT and National about what they would like to reintroduce into education if, heaven forbid, they ever got the chance.

I would encourage them to visit our educational institutions right from early childhood, rather than being closeted in some self-constructed ivory tower where they have clearly lost touch with what is really happening out there. We in this Labour Government visit schools as often as we possibly can. In fact, I suggest that most of us would be in a school at least once a week. We see and hear the comments that are made by parents about what market forces did to their school, and the vast majority of them do not want to return to that at all. This bill is focused on quality, rather than quantity, and that is what is incredibly important for the future of this country.

The first thing I would like to say about this bill is that I am very saddened that all the west Auckland members in the House, like Chris Carter, John Tamihere, David Cunliffe, Lynne Pillay, and Helen Clark, even, have chosen to sit there like stuffed dummies and say not a word.

Jill Pettis: They’re not here. They’re in their offices.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Did members hear what the senior Labour whip said about her own members? She said that they were not here and that they were in their offices. She is not allowed to say that.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I think Madam Speaker should have taken her up on that, but I shall take her up on it. Those members are all lions back in the west of Auckland, saying to Unitec: “Look, we think you’ve got a good case, and certainly we’ll give it some consideration.”, but where are they today? Guess who spoke on the bill? The member for Rotorua, who has a very strong knowledge of west Auckland, and the member for Whanganui, who is now dealing with having Michael Laws as mayor! I have to say that that is a big enough issue that she should concentrate on rather than worrying about this one.

I want to deal with this subject in two distinct categories. I shall deal with the specific Unitec example, but first I shall deal with the bigger picture of whether there needs to be any limit—whatever it is—on the number of universities. I advocate that that is just a nonsense. If we go back a few years, there were only two or three, then there was four, then five, then six. We are up to eight now, and I do not think anybody would suggest that eight is a magical, mythical number. But guess what! Five of those are represented in Auckland, at different locations. Massey University has a facility on the North Shore. I know that the University of Otago is in Queen Street, where it has a campus and a lecturing facility. We have Auckland University and Auckland University of Technology. And that is how it should be. The actual number of physical locations and the name tag on the front of them is pretty irrelevant.

Let me explain this to the Government: if the Auckland University of Technology were to merge with Unitec tomorrow, then the day after that merger there would still be a campus at Carrington, where Unitec is, there would still be the same number of lecturers there, and there would still be the same number of students attending classes there, but it would qualify for university status. There would still be the same courses, the same programmes, and the same funding. The Government would not be up for more or less funding. In fact, the world would not change at all. So what the Government is saying is that if the institutions do some sort of dirty little deal whereby they merge, that will be OK, and the new institution will be a university, but it will not let there be any more.

Well, let us go through the argument. Maybe there needs to be critical mass—maybe the institution needs to be very big. There will be some members in this House who think that a university needs to be very big to be successful. Let me take Auckland University, which I think has about 30,000 equivalent full-time students. I think Massey University has a similar number. People will say that unless a university has 30,000 equivalent full-time students, unless it is a really big institution, it cannot be successful. Well, I ask those members to go to the north-east of the United States to have a look at some of the Ivy League universities. A number of some of the most successful and prestigious universities in the world have only 3,000 enrolments. They are quite small.

Jill Pettis: But it costs them.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Jill Pettis is going on about the cost. We should close down Princeton and Harvard because they are hopeless, according to Jill Pettis. She knows best. All those world-class Ivy League north-east United States universities are hopeless. Jill Pettis from Whanganui has ruled that they are hopeless. They are too small, and they cost too much. That is what she has just said, and I am pleased she said it, because I am happy to double-dare her on any one of those stunning universities. I have been to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology at Cambridge, on the river at Boston, where I worked on a transportation theory paper. It is a stunning university. It is the most stunning place I have been to. I had a look at Oxford University, and I felt it was mouldy and old compared with the focus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

So here is my next challenge to Government members. What if the Massachusetts Institute of Technology offered to come down to New Zealand and partner Unitec, out in west Auckland? What if it offered to put some of its most stunning programmes into action there, under its guise? Would it be allowed to? No, no, because in Steve Maharey’s head a light bulb has gone on that says: “Eight is the number; eight is it.” There are not eight members of a soccer team or a rugby team, but Steve Maharey says the number of universities shall be eight, for some reason. There are eight furlongs in a mile. Maybe that is where it came from. I am trying to work out where the number eight came from.

But it would make no difference to this country if we had 35 universities, as long as the quality of the education that they provided was fine, as long as the standard that they provided was fine. I know of a proposal at one stage—it did not go through, but it may still—whereby some foreign universities were talking about setting up a university of information technology on the banks of Lake Taupō. They were looking at a site on which to create a very small, high-tech, information technology - centric university. But Steve Maharey said: “No, you can’t do that. New Zealand can have only eight universities.”

The reason we have heard from those two very interested members, the member for Whanganui and the member for Rotorua, who have probably never even visited Unitec in their lives, and the reason they do not want to let new universities go ahead, is that the Vice-Chancellors Committee said: “We don’t think it’s right, and we don’t want any.” Well, let me deal with the Vice-Chancellors Committee. When John Hinchcliff, now a Labour councillor for Auckland, was the chief executive of the Auckland Institute of Technology, he came along and pleaded with us to make the institute a university. I was the Associate Minister for Tertiary Education at the time. I have a lot of respect for John Hinchcliff. He put up a terribly good case. As soon as he became a vice-chancellor and was off to the Vice-Chancellors Committee, he said: “Oh no, I don’t think there should be any more of this sort of nonsense. We don’t need any more universities.” How bad is that? His attitude was: “Once I am in the club and you have closed the door, I don’t want any more in there, competing with me—no matter what quality of education they provide, and no matter what standard their service is.”

Stephen Franks: Pull up the drawbridge.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: That is right; “Pull up the drawbridge, drain out the moat, and get the crocodiles to circle, because now that I am in the castle I don’t want anybody else let in.”

I want to go on record as saying that I think it is a disgrace that Steve Maharey has had this idea. It goes right back to the individual person. No policy of any Government should go back to that. Steve Maharey hates the idea of more universities. He has said so. He brought in a bill to limit the number of universities. The first bill that he brought in would have limited the number of universities to eight. We managed to persuade him not to proceed with that stupid bill. Now he realises that he had better be a bit more opaque about it, so, rather than having a bill that limits the number of universities to eight, he has introduced this Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill, which puts an enormously convoluted process in place but still gives the Minister the killer punch. If a new university does get through, he can stop it; in that way, he will still be able to keep the number of universities at eight.

Let us go back to this process. Let us go back to what are successful universities overseas. Let us go back to those nations whose universities are well respected. I think the United States is very well respected for its tertiary sector, especially at the upper end. There are some stunning, quality universities. Some of them are really small. A university that I saw, up in the north-west of Maine, had only 1,000 students. It was turning out biotech graduates beyond one’s wildest dreams. That sort of thing can work well around the rest of the world, competing for the quality brains, for the quality students, and for endowment funds, and making things happen, but back here in little old New Zealand we have adopted the Mao Tse-Tung approach. We will decide, here in this room, what is good for people. We will forget the public test, forget whether it is right or wrong, and forget even whether the local Labour members in west Auckland tell the Unitec chairman and Dr John Webster, the chief executive, that they think their case probably has got a lot of merit, and they really want their votes and their students’ votes, but they could not convince the Minister to agree to do it.

That is not good enough. I want one of the west Auckland members—Chris Carter or John Tamihere—to stand up and tell us what he says back in his electorate. David Cunliffe can tell us. He should tell us now what he thinks. He should stand, take a call, and tell us what he thinks. Let us hear from Lynne Pillay. Sometimes we cannot tell whether Lynne Pillay is standing up. No, she is not going to. Not one of the west Auckland members sitting in the House today is prepared to get up and defend this appalling legislation. The Labour senior whip, Jill Pettis, is on the phone. She is trying to get a few of those members to come to the House. “Get down here!”, she is saying.

We are totally opposed to this bill, and we will vote against it.

I speak as the member for Christchurch Central. Christchurch is a city of one-third of a million people and two universities, and when one hears that one thinks that maybe this sector is crying out for a proper strategy. This bill is a flaming beacon of strategy in the area of tertiary education. This bill clarifies the law. The Minister must first make a decision on the strategic implications to the nation and to the tertiary education system of the setting up of a university. It allows the Minister to decide to reject a case, if he or she is not satisfied on national-interest grounds, and it ensures that any current proposals to become a university are considered under the processes clearly laid out in the bill. Who could possibly argue with that kind of logic? I commend this bill to the House.

This education bill is ironically called the Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill, and the explanatory note states that the bill “proposes to clarify the current process for determining the establishment of universities.” I was absolutely in agreement with my colleague Dr Lockwood Smith, who noted from the Bills Digest, which is a very thorough, objective, impartial view of the situation, the final comment regarding the retrospective application of this bill—and it says it all. Under the heading “Comment” it is stated: “This appears to be designed to prevent any successful Court action by Unitec based on the present law forcing the Minister to complete the entire Section 162 process to a favourable conclusion for Unitec before the Bill is passed.” That is what the bill is about. It is fairly and squarely about a blockage by this Minister, Mr Maharey. It is nothing to do with clarification of the process.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Not at all.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: What is it about?

Hon Maurice Williamson: It means the Parliamentary Library will probably get closed down now.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: That would be a very, very serious possibility under this Minister. [Interruption] It could be closed down for putting out that dreadful, neutral, impartial, objective, highly thoughtful, well-researched paper.

What I would like to point out to the House is that what came out on 17 September from the Hon Steve Maharey—the man who has led a life of blameless excellence—was a statement headed “Law establishing universities clarified”. Every time I think of that Minister I think of his background as a sociologist, and of the words of Professor Roberts of Victoria University, who used to say that for every new sociologist that gets a PhD and comes to town, it brings a hundred thousand new problems. Well, here we have a university lecturer, one Steve Maharey, who did not quite get the PhD, but, unfortunately for New Zealand, has become the tertiary education Minister. He has brought not just a hundred thousand new problems but many, many more than that. He stated in his press release: “The bill allows the Minister to decide to reject a case if not satisfied on national-interest grounds.” The Minister knows best—that is what it is. This is the “Minister knows best” bill, and that absolutely defies the whole idea of academic freedom, choice, and quality. Central to this sector is the philosophy of any good education system that there should be choice, quality and freedom, but here we have the Hon Steve Maharey saying that the law that establishes universities is being clarified, and that it will allow the Minister to decide to reject a case if he is not satisfied with it. The Minister knows best.

I note that there is almost an alignment with that position from those such as the Association of University Staff. That has nothing to do with vested interests, of course! The association said: “Any move to increase the number of universities would extend the current two-tier structure in research capability revealed by the Performance-based Research Fund results, and has the potential to threaten the international reputation of the New Zealand university sector.”

I go back to the basis on which the Education Act 1989 was established, and the criteria that were set out by the Act in terms of the qualities that a university would ideally have. I think Stephen Franks went over them. They are primarily concerned with more advanced learning, the principal aim of which is to develop intellectual independence. He was absolutely right to say it is nothing about size and nothing about the number of universities. It is all about quality, and it is all about quality outputs. Around the world there are examples of universities of extraordinary quality that are small, and there are examples of just about every configuration that one can imagine. It is hugely worrying when we have a tertiary education Minister just saying the Government will stop that by blocking it come hell or high water by means of legislation, because he thinks he knows best about it.

The criteria for universities go on, and I think Stephen Franks pointed out that one of them was the point that a university should accept the role of critic and conscience of society. I well remember the late Dr Eric Geiringer, who used to say just how important it is to have researchers in universities—indeed, acting as a beacon, a lighthouse—who are questioning, innovating, and doing all the things that are vital with regard to looking at everything a Government and a Minister such as Steve Maharey do, and bringing them to task in terms of what education should really be about. As I have said, that should be under conditions of choice and of quality.

There are four key areas in relation to this bill that one should stress. The first is its retrospective effect. Is there a compelling reason to bring in the retrospective clause? On any criteria, there is no compelling reason whatsoever for that. If one goes back into the history of this bill and looks at the blockages and the go-slows that this Government has imposed year after year, one realises that the Government is absolutely defying Unitec and not allowing it to have its application heard fairly. In fact, the retrospective provision should not interfere with accrued rights or legitimate expectations to be treated fairly and consistently. The bill does not contain a savings clause for existing applications for university status, as is the usual practice. The Unitec application is the only application affected by the bill. There is no compelling case whatsoever for retrospectivity.

The second key point is that, surely, each application should be treated on its merits. That is absolutely fundamental, and when determining the application of Unitec, the Government should allow that process to happen. But it has put up every possible hurdle and obstacle in the road for Unitec. The Government failed in its legislation a couple of years ago, and it has now descended to the dizzying depths of bringing in this bill. The third key point is whether statutory obligations should be carried out. Undoubtedly, Unitec’s application was illegally suspended in May 2000. Even when it was discharged in May 2003, the Minister failed to carry out his statutory obligations. The fourth and final key point is whether the bill will streamline the process. In actual fact, the bill does the direct opposite of that. How can those who are to be consulted comment on the national interest when they do not even know whether the institution concerned has the characteristics of a university? No, the so-called decision will just be made. How can the Minister take a decision on the national interest without that information?

This bill is yet another of the excesses of the Labour Government in determining to control whatever it possibly can, and it is a huge worry when it tries to do that to our university institutions.

I am very pleased to contribute briefly to this very good Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill. I really feel sorry for the public out there who are listening to the tedious waffle from Opposition members. I congratulate the very good Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) on this bill. We all know that there is a question about how many universities a small country of 4 million-odd people should have, and I am very pleased that this bill will, in effect, clarify and streamline the processes for establishing universities, so that the strategic national-interest issues are addressed in that process. That is a common-sense, rational approach that every New Zealander can understand. I cannot understand why Opposition members do not understand that. I support this very good bill.

I move that the—

Opposition Member: Holidays Amendment Bill!

Hon PAUL SWAIN: No, no. It is not the Holidays Amendment Bill. That has to be read a third time. I move, that the Holidays Bill be now read a third time. [Interruption] No, no. Which committee? I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Education and Science Committee—

I move, That the Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill be referred to the Education and Science Committee.

The question is that the motion be agreed to. All those in favour please say “Aye,” to the contrary “No”. [Interruption] I have not heard anybody call—

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. When you called, no one voted for that motion. I voted against it on behalf of members over here on the Opposition benches. Government members did not vote. When you called “those in favour”, there was no response from Government members. I voted against the motion, so the motion is lost.

I would like it to be noted that I did in fact shout out “Yes”, but in the ensuing hilarity obviously no one noticed that. So there was at least one vote in favour of the motion.

I am ruling on the point of order. It is my call to make, and I am now asking “to the contrary”. I have not yet heard that response.

Opposition Members: No!

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Ayes have it.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have just witnessed in this House Minister Swain come in and first of all say that he was going to support the first reading of the Holidays Amendment Bill. Then it went to the third reading of that bill, and then I am not sure whether it actually did get back to the first reading—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will be seated. We have dealt with that, and we have moved on.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Would you be able to clarify exactly what we are doing, Madam Speaker?

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. The member moved the motion correctly. There will now be silence during the voting.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not certain, at all, of what is being voted on at the moment. Would you put the motion again, please?

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member had listened, he would have heard that the Minister moved the first reading of the Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill correctly.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I respect your ruling. This is a new point of order. Having put the motion, I distinctly heard you call for those who were in favour. No one from the Government’s side—

No. The member will be seated.

BRIAN CONNELL: This is an important issue.

The member will be seated.

BRIAN CONNELL: I have not finished my point of order.

The member will be seated now.

BRIAN CONNELL: I reserve the right to put my point of order.

I will rule on the point of order.

BRIAN CONNELL: I have not made it yet.

If the member is not seated, he will leave the Chamber. I have ruled very clearly on that matter.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. On extremely rare occasions the odd little minor mistake is made. I would like to be able to move that the Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill be referred to the Education and Science Committee for consideration and that the committee report the bill by Thursday, 16 December 2004.

The member needs leave to do that. Is leave granted for that? Leave is not granted.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have already started the vote. The Clerk has asked which parties are voting. I have cast 27 votes opposed. We have had some points of order already. I do not know how far we have gone with the vote and I do not think—

No vote has been called yet. The Clerk is conducting a vote.

LINDSAY TISCH: I have actually cast 27 votes opposed.

No vote is called until the Clerk calls it.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think the House is now in considerable difficulty. You have said that the Minister has moved a motion and voting has commenced. Yet, oddly enough, halfway through that procedure the Minister sought leave to move a motion that was apparently a different one. Leave was then denied. I cannot see how we can vote on something when the Minister, right in the middle of it, seeks to move something different. That seems to be an inappropriate process that we are going through.

There is no difficulty at all. The vote has commenced on the motion originally and correctly moved. The Clerk will conduct the vote.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to know, very clearly now, what we are voting on.

I will read it for you. The Minister, Paul Swain, moved that the Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill be considered by the Education and Science Committee. That is the extent of the motion that members are voting on.