Hutchison Paul: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13173] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to take this call and I hope that we will have time to spend on Part 1 because it is very very important. One of the basic aims of the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill was to make the planning of tertiary education institutions more streamlined by cutting down on charters and profiles and replacing them with a 3-year investment plan. 
That sounds great in theory but there are a few ironies about this aim one of them being that the universities were anxious to hold on to their ability to retain a charter. They felt that a long-term plan that was signed off and given the tick of the Minister would be very useful to them in terms of having a link with the Minister. They felt that that association would give them an extra bit of security in terms of their direction. 
I guess the other irony is what has turned out. The very good summary that the department has provided points out that plans are developed by the tertiary education organisations. Although the plans must satisfy the requirements set out in clause 17 of this bill tertiary education organisations are not prohibited from including in their plans information to satisfy their own purpose—for example long-term planning. However the summary then goes on to state that in some instances tertiary education organisations may be required to provide the Tertiary Education Commission with evidence of long-term planning. 
Under clause 17 of the bill new section 159R states that the Tertiary Education Commission can require types classes individuals or tertiary education organisations to provide supplementary information. In actual fact that supplementary information may be short-term planning medium-term planning or long-term planning. So in effect the Tertiary Education Commission may require almost anything in the way of planning. 
I am very sceptical about whether the basic idea of a simple 3-year plan replacing the charters and profile will work out under this Labour Government in actuality. I think there is a very very slim chance. Because as I have said I have heard what is happening right around the country—about the threats by the investment managers to the tertiary education institutions that they will not sign off plans unless the institutions are prepared to reduce the number of equivalent full-time students or whatever. 
Let us look at the polytechs. “The polytech cuts start to bite” is one of the headlines in the  
Education Review  
of 14 September. We have heard for instance that the Southern Institute of Technology has been cruelly cut down on the number of equivalent full-time students for next year—something like 2500. I say “cruelly” because the Southern Institute of Technology is one of the best-performing institutions in this country. Quality relevance and value for money is what it has aimed for yet the centrally controlled Tertiary Education Commission under the Labour Government says that it will penalise the successful institutions and that the institutions cannot provide education in Christchurch because they are actually making it too hard for the incumbent to be able to survive so they have to move away from there. 
This is grossly unfair particularly when it is inconsistent with what the universities are doing. I would defy Dr Cullen or the Tertiary Education Commission to start doing the same sort of thing to the universities. Can members imagine if the Massey University campus up in Auckland was told that it was out of region and to go down to Palmerston North or likewise if the Otago University campus up here in Wellington was told that it was out of region and to go down to Dunedin. 
The commission has started with the weakest institutions. What it should be doing is concentrating on who can provide quality provision at the best price. It is doing the very opposite.