Yates Dianne: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Yates Dianne: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13047] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak at the report back of the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill. It was very interesting to hear some of the comments made tonight that I did not actually hear at the select committee. It was good to hear people offering opinions that I did not actually hear at the select committee hearing. I note that the member from the Maori Party was talking about the Treaty and recognise that the Treaty is referred to in the substantive Act. I also note that new section 159AA(2) substituted in clause 6 states: “The part of the tertiary education strategy that sets out the Government’s long-term strategic direction for tertiary education must address the following: (a) economic goals: (b) social goals: (c) environmental goals: (d) the development aspirations of Maori and other population groups.” 
The other thing mentioned was the whole area around who a stakeholder is. I myself questioned that at the select committee and suggested that we might like to list the stakeholders. The difficulty is that once we start listing who they are then we leave people out. It was decided amongst the committee members after much discussion that it was better for the institutions themselves to decide on the stakeholders rather than to put a list of stakeholders in the bill and then leave some out in practice. So that was something that was discussed at the select committee by its members. 
I also want to refer to some of the opinions expressed by Dr Paul Hutchison in this debate. I ask him: what does he want? Some months ago we had a series of questions in the House from Bill English and a number of other people who were slamming wananga slamming adult education and slamming courses already running. I would have thought that the National Party members would support this bill and give it unqualified support and would be happy to see the measures that are in this bill. I am actually surprised to see that they seem to be lions to the media and lambs in the House and that they are not supporting this bill. 
Then we come to the question of academic freedom. Academic freedom I think has no definition in this bill but it has been spelt out that there should be due recognition of academic freedom. Should I decide to study Portuguese at my local university and it does not offer Portuguese academic freedom does not mean I can go along and demand that the university teach Portuguese. It does not mean I can go along and ask that it teaches Kiswahili because I want to learn Kiswahili. Academic freedom is not about the courses; it is about people expressing their opinions when they are in courses. It is about teachers and students expressing opinions in courses and being able to speak their minds in institutions; it is not about the courses that are offered. There seems to be some misunderstanding about what academic freedom really means but for the sake of those who are rather pedantic I can tell them that it was spelt out that this bill would not interfere with academic freedom as it has been traditionally known. 
I ask Dr Paul Hutchison a spokesperson for National who has been critical of this bill and has not supported it where his policy is. All we can see on the National Party website is old stuff that seems to be yellowing with age—it has probably been there for about 20 years since Lockwood Smith jumped out the window. Where is the alternative policy and where are there any other ideas? There is complete academic freedom in this House to present ideas. Where are National’s alternatives where are its ideas and where is its policy? I ask National to please get in behind the Government and support this bill because it is a very very good bill. 
When I worked at a university years and years ago there was such a thing as a quinquennium; that tells members my age. Universities used to get 5-year grants once upon a time. Then the grants were reduced to 1-year grants and everything was run on a very commercial basis under a National Government. So I am really really pleased—as are the universities themselves—that we are now going to a 3-year grant and that universities can have strategic plans. They can plan ahead. Students can plan their courses ahead and universities can plan their recruitment of staff ahead so that they will have a much better basis for recruiting especially of staff from overseas. There will be a much firmer foundation for universities and other educational institutions to go ahead. 
I say too that I am really pleased with these reforms because we have had a proliferation of educational institutions in this country which has I might say led to a suspicion that there has been a reduction in standards and we have had to work very hard to make sure there is no reduction in standards. There have been 35 teacher training institutions in New Zealand—in a country of 4 million people there have been 35 teacher training institutions. They were set up under National but I know that people involved in standards have been monitoring very carefully to see that all those institutions have maintained standards because some of the institutions have found that it has been very difficult for their graduates to find jobs in the New Zealand system. So I can see that all the reforms in this bill are very very welcome. Reform means there will not be wasteful competition. It means there will not be unnecessary duplication as I have just mentioned and it will reduce the pressure on tertiary education organisations to maximise enrolments—bums on seats. There will also be a reduction in compliance costs. 
We have talked about the whole idea of stakeholders being involved and that is really important. When we talk to people in business we hear them say they are crying out for engineers for qualified people and for qualified apprentices. We know what happened to the apprenticeship training scheme under National and that is why there is a dearth of people today. I admit that it is very very difficult to predict the labour needs of the future. It is very very difficult; it is not an exact science. I see Mr Hayes doing some peculiar dance over on the other side of the Chamber but we are not talking about dance classes; we are talking about people who are being trained for the future and who are being trained for jobs. It is extremely difficult to predict labour needs but we have to to some extent. Institutions have to to some extent. They have to plan ahead and this bill gives greater capacity to consult with stakeholders to understand and anticipate the needs in the industrial in the business and in the working communities of New Zealand and to plan and to provide for that. 
I can say that there are very very welcome changes in this Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill not only for students but also for teachers and for the institutions themselves and it is with great pleasure that I support the further progress of the bill. I thank fellow members of the committee. I thank those of the Opposition. I see Colin King over there. He has had a good deal of experience in adult education and I know that he asked many questions and welcomed the amendments in the bill around adult education and the informal sector. I thank particularly my colleague Marian Hobbs because I think she was perhaps the most active person on the select committee in working through some of the issues with the officials and in working through some of the changes. I think that she did a good deal of homework and a great deal of work on this bill. The work that has been done is a credit to the Minister and to Marian Hobbs.