Turei Metiria: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Turei Metiria: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9075] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens will support the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill going to the Education and Science Committee because we have long been saying that the funding system for tertiary education needs to be reformed. Demand-led funding leads to what we consider to be quite perverse outcomes and significant negative consequences for staff and students. 
We were pleased to see that the proposed system is both outcome and evidentiary-based. We were also pleased to hear the recent announcement of extra funding for wananga polytechs and some of the other institutions because they will need support to deal with some of these changes. A “bums on seats” model—the equivalent full-time student funding which is what the current system is—follows in our view an uncontrolled market-led approach to the provision of courses. It was interesting to hear the issues raised by some people who were concerned about the Government controlling what is taught in universities and equally concerned—in fact it is probably more of a concern—about industry making demands as to the provision of courses. I think that is what is happening in the current situation and I am not sure that that is going to change under this legislation. 
Currently there is a massive increase in marketing by universities because of the fierce corporate-type competition for individual bums on seats. Millions of dollars go into useless marketing and those millions of dollars are coming from students the Government and taxpayers. 
We have seen the situation where institutions offer courses that are most popular to students and this can lead—and has led—to the elimination of well-established disciplines in some universities. Courses in humanities women’s studies religious studies and Islamic studies have been cut because comparatively the student numbers are low in those courses. Many universities require each department to operate as a stand-alone business unit and place unrealistic funding targets on those departments. The failure to meet those targets leads to the reduction in size of that department or the elimination of courses. It is not that these departments run at a loss; they are paying their own way but they are just not meeting the profit targets set by the university. It is those kinds of corporate requirements—business-type requirements—on a public tertiary education system that seriously erodes it. The current kind of funding model reduces the range of options for students because of that industry-led approach. It also plays far too heavily towards the job market rather than developing and maintaining a system that promotes education for public and societal benefit. 
There remains of course a very large elephant in the room: student fees should be addressed as part of these reforms. The fee maxima system does not manage to control fees as it was promised to do. That is because the institutions have been seriously underfunded for a very long time—well before the time of this Labour Government but this has continued through its term—and the universities have been managing the shortfall through students and the student loan scheme. Of course that underfunding has driven student debt to a level now well over $9 billion. So a new funding mechanism and a new management mechanism for the sector is very welcome as long as it comes with better funding as well. 
That said we do have some concerns about the bill. Again we are not so concerned that the tertiary provision is being controlled by Government but rather that the industry-led approach is being retained in this bill. The reforms are heavily dependent on the tertiary education strategy. We have criticised this strategy in the past for being too heavily focused on meeting the needs of business developing commercial opportunities and achieving economic growth. Those things are all fine and laudable in their place but they should not be predominant. 
We remain concerned that there is no priority goal that would enhance the strength of civil society enhance the strength of our democracy or foster environmental sustainability. This is coming at a time when the Prime Minister is publicly promoting her goal of New Zealand being carbon neutral and sustainable so it is disappointing that the strategy is so weak on the contribution that tertiary education would make in achieving those goals. We believe that every aspect of Government policy must embrace sustainability but it is perhaps most important that our education sector provides students with the knowledge and the skills that they need to combat the serious environmental challenges we face now and will continue to face well into the future. We need an education system that does not just meet the needs of business but provides for all New Zealanders to have access to public education that benefits the whole community. The needs of business are important and they do matter. Having a highly skilled workforce is also very important in filling the gaps where they exist. I agree with Michael Cullen that that is an important goal too but these goals must not come at the expense of a broad and well-funded public tertiary education system. 
The strategy is very thin on valuing the role that arts and humanities play in New Zealand. We are concerned that these reforms may further undermine some of those already much-depleted departments—some of which I have already described. A system that is based so closely on this strategy requires that the strategy be of the highest quality. It requires a strategy that prioritises the cultural social and environmental goals of the community—and prioritises them at least as highly as the economic ones. Economics and economic growth and all of those things are tools for the well-being of the community as a whole not end goals in themselves. But that is not yet the case in this strategy and until that changes we will continue to have the same sorts of problems in our tertiary education sector that we are seeing now despite the reforms. 
Secondly the new role of the Tertiary Education Commission involves it using tertiary education organisations to piece together a jigsaw for fulfilling the strategy. This is a much more important and demanding role for the Tertiary Education Commission and we have concerns that it will neither be properly resourced nor properly prepared to manage those new demands. We would expect that the adjustment process—presuming that the legislation is passed in some form—will cause real problems as the adjustments are made. We want to investigate through the select committee process how that adjustment period will be managed in order to reduce the strain on an already highly strained tertiary education sector. 
Finally the tertiary education organisations that have ballooned under the demanding system are likely to be told to limit places and courses that are deemed by the Tertiary Education Commission to be of lower value in achieving the goals of the strategy. Although in some limited cases this might be a good thing it will also mean that some students will be denied entry into courses they choose. They will be denied not because their grades are too low for them to manage the content but simply because there will be no places available for them. Some of those students may enrol in a different course of study but some may decide not to pursue tertiary education at all. So there needs to be a system that will manage the discrepancy caused by the change in the system and will reduce the risk of the exclusion of students—that needs to be managed very carefully. 
Overall we are very pleased that the bill has finally come before the House. We are very interested in exploring it more because reform is absolutely necessary. But again our concern is not that the Government will control the content of courses but that the continued pursuit of economic growth will above all else continue to cause the sector enormous damage. We would like to see some of that reformed too. Thank you.