Turner Judy: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Turner Judy: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9079] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand to speak on the first reading of the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill 2007. Let me say straight up that United Future will be supporting this bill going to a select committee because we certainly like the intentions of the reform. These intentions are to reform the planning the funding and the monitoring of tertiary education and services. The claim by the Government is that this bill will streamline the system—and we all acknowledge that it sure needs that—and that in so doing it will reduce compliance costs for those who are providing tertiary education. 
 My experience to date—in the last 12 months in particular—has been as a result of the contact I have had with private providers within the tertiary system who have had some real difficulties in gaining certainty around the continuation of the courses they offer and the funding from the Government. 
There seems to be three areas in which planning and responsibility will be identified. The first is the Government’s own responsibility. Its responsibility will be to set up a long-term strategy for the delivery of tertiary education services and it will obviously determine the level of Government investment into this area. As well as determining how much money it will be throwing at tertiary education the Government will also be determining the allocation throughout the sector including its role in deciding how priorities are set balancing priorities such as teaching research and the organisational development of providers. 
Then we have the Tertiary Education Commission. It will be issuing providers with a set of guidelines that outline the Government’s strategy. It will be approving plans for funding and will be monitoring performance. 
The providers themselves of course are the third tier and they are required to prepare plans. The difference is that they will now be preparing those plans in consultation with the Tertiary Education Commission. I think this has huge potential for good. Instead of turning up with a plan they hope will get a tick from the commission providers will be working with staff from the commission from day one and will be demonstrating how their priorities can integrate with Government priorities. It is in everybody’s interests for that to happen. The plans will clarify what funding is required and how outcomes will be demonstrated to the commission and to the Government which is a good thing. The collaborative way in which plans will be developed will reduce the risks for providers so that they no longer have to try to second-guess what the Government is looking for. 
We are also pleased to see a move towards 3-year planning cycles which should give a lot more certainty to providers. However the Tertiary Education Commission is not obliged to approve the full 3-year plan and United Future will be keen to hear what submitters say in response to that. Will that provision undermine the new promise of certainty? The ministry has stated that this new 3-year cycle will create greater flexibility so that organisations will be able to amend review and replace their plans during a cycle without risking funding projections because of course those amendments and changes will be made in consultation with the commission. So it has some potential for flexibility. 
The bill also aims to simplify accountability arrangements that improve transparency. We have heard a number of horror stories over the last few years that signal we need to make some changes in this regard. Providers now have a single relationship with the commission. This certainly sounds like an improvement. I have had contact with providers who were selling their tertiary business but the sale was held up because they were waiting for the Minister to rubber-stamp the charter which had remained unchanged for years and was still in its original form. They could not sell the business and they could not get approval from the commission for the new owners until the charter was re-rubber-stamped. Delays often made for real difficulties so I am sure providers will appreciate having one relationship particularly as this relationship is to be collaborative. 
United Future however would like to signal one caution over this single point of contact with the Tertiary Education Commission. It includes no independent arbitration provisions. So when disagreements arise the Tertiary Education Commission will be the final arbiter. This is particularly concerning when considering the fact that the commission can suspend or revoke funding. Although the Government says this will be a last resort provision we would like some reassurance. It concerns us that the Tertiary Education Commission becomes a powerful agent to determine the future of a provider that may have been considered a valued contributor up to that point where a disagreement arose. So although we are happy to see this legislation move to a select committee we like other parties want to hear some feedback from submitters around that particular issue. We wonder and question whether there may be a need for an independent body to arbitrate between the commission and the provider when a disagreement arises so that there is a fair and equitable outcome. Providers will have negotiated at least a 3-year plan and to have the funding rug pulled out from underneath them because of a disagreement over some matter seems to be unfair and of great concern. 
As with the New Zealand First speaker Brian Donnelly United Future agrees that not everyone who wants to be a provider can just put up his or her hand and expect to get Government funding. The Government needs to be wise in the way it allocates money. It needs to make sure that all of the tertiary education sector lines up with things such as the workforce needs within the labour market and certainly that it is future-proofing certain professions. We have some real concerns around the direction that some of the medical sciences have been moving in regard to future planning. We seem to be exporting a lot of our talent. We are very interested to see the kinds of things that come back from submitters during the select committee process However we are very pleased at this stage to support the bill at its first reading.