Turner Judy: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Turner Judy: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13684] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the third reading of the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill. When this bill was reported back the first thing I did was to go to the commentary provided by the Education and Science Committee to read the minority view of the National Party because I remembered very clearly particularly in the last Parliament that that party especially during question time railed against the Minister for Tertiary Education. That party highlighted courses like the twilight golf course and sing-along courses and it was particularly scathing about and mocking of Te Wananga o Aotearoa and some of the other tertiary providers that were really making a genuine effort and doing some very creative things to attract back into tertiary education adults who had given up on their education and their futures. But the National Party did raise the issue of quality and it became blatantly apparent—whether the courses that National chose to highlight were flawed has never been determined—that we were lacking quality assurance in the tertiary sector and that the “bums on seats” policy had created some perverse outcomes. 
This bill is an attempt to rectify that situation. So I was really keen to see why the National Party having done all that would be so concerned about the intentions of this bill and the provisions within it that that would cause it to oppose something that those in the sector—from the reading that I have done in educational publications—have been warmly supportive of. I have come to the conclusion that the National Party’s minority view reflects some of the concerns that submitters had but that it does not reflect the work that the committee then did to rectify those concerns. They were not big concerns; they were small concerns. 
The first concern was around the issue of commercially sensitive information. Under this bill of course the Tertiary Education Commission and education providers will work more collaboratively together and that is a great thing. They are also required to have long-term 3-year plans which I know the sector is thrilled about. It was sick of existing year by year and it likes the opportunity now to develop 3-year plans. Those plans are allowed to be amended and adjusted as the situation demands. The bill also requires the commission to work in a mutually collaborative way with education providers right from the word go as they develop their courses and the potential of their facilities. But there was some concern that during that process commercially sensitive information would be required to be disclosed. The committee was right to look into that but it discovered however that currently tertiary education institutions and the commission are obliged under the Official Information Act of 1982 to respond to any queries. So the need to disclose information is already built into the system and is an issue that providers have been addressing for some time. 
The second concern was around procedural fairness. There was concern that there was a lack of procedural safeguards to protect providers from a misuse of power by the commission in regard to its new statutory powers. There was also concern that there was no right of appeal for providers should they not agree with a ruling of the commission. I suspect we need to keep an eye on that matter. But it was made clear that providers are allowed to take a complaint to the Ombudsman or to seek a judicial review if the process that is being undertaken is unsatisfactory. 
The third concern—and I think that this was the most important concern raised by submitters—was that this legislation would restrict academic freedoms and institutional autonomy. I think there was a submission from some fairly significant academics who talked about the fact that institutions particularly universities have always been allowed to have an autonomous status in developing the content of courses and pursuing academic freedoms. There were some real concerns about that. However the committee then recommended an amendment to clause 3 to make it explicit that the new functions conferred on the responsible Minister and the commission are to be exercised in accordance with the principal Act. And the principal Act makes provision for the preservation of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Problem solved. So therein lies the problem. Those were the main concerns raised; those are the only things outlined in the National Party minority view. 
I was reminiscing about the fact that some years ago I had read an interesting article—I am pretty sure it was about Singapore; I stand to be corrected if I have the wrong country—about a country that had taken some really strong steps to align both secondary and tertiary education more closely to economic development and the goals of economic development within that country. 
Ron Mark 
: It was Singapore. 
JUDY TURNER 
: Mr Mark has assured me that I have the right country. And there were some fantastic outcomes from that. The alignment of those two sectors meant that young people with a tertiary education were pretty much assured that they would come out into real jobs that would really advance the direction that Singapore was focused on. That is what I believe this bill is trying to do here; it is trying to make sure that any lack of quality that may have been present under the “bums on seats” policy is addressed and that the commission starts to be much more consultative and much more collaborative with those who work in the sector. 
I have had a lot of contact with private providers of tertiary education and one of their great frustrations has been that they were constantly second-guessing the commission and hoping that when they put in their charters for reapproval and applied for funding for the next year somehow that would match up with standards that they were never very clear about. This bill—and this is why we welcome it—does away with all that uncertainty and makes provision for everybody involved in the tertiary education sector to talk together to have long-term plans that are collaborative and to be able to adjust those plans whenever that is needed and the circumstances demand it. For that reason United Future is very happy to support the third reading of the bill.