Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10685] 
9.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: Why has he introduced an Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill when in 2002 the Hon Steve Maharey on the passage of the previous reforms said: “These reforms represent the culmination of the government’s promise to overhaul our tertiary education and training systems.” and what has changed? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 The tertiary reforms are built on those of 2002. The main changes recognise the importance of the funding model to drive greater quality and relevance and the simplification of planning procedures and documents. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does he agree with the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee that the Education Amendment (Tertiary Reforms) Bill as drafted “will result in an unwarranted loss of academic freedom and autonomy.”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. Universities have for at least 40 years in my personal experience been complaining that academic freedom is under threat and that they are losing autonomy. When they first started doing that 100 percent of their funding came from the Government. They were directly controlled they could not build a single building without permission from central government and without direct funding therefrom and they required a great degree of approval for courses from a university grants committee the academic subcommittee thereof. None of those things apply today and academic freedom will continue to be of concern for universities. A Government headed by an ex-academic seconded by an ex-academic and with another four persons who are ex-academics has an understanding of academic freedom. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What other reports has the Minister seen on the wisdom of making changes to the legislative framework around training? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen a speech calling for the kind of investment in industry training that has been taking place under this Government. I welcome the fact that Mr Key supports the Government in this respect as in so many others and now regrets the repeal of the Apprenticeship Act pursued by the previous National Government and the destruction of trade training that occurred in the 1990s. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: What would be the harm in maintaining ministerial-approved charters for public tertiary institutions given that they have already been developed and that these institutions are all requesting that charters be retained as long-term vision statements and as a compact between themselves and the State? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Well I have to note the irony that having complained about central government control institutions are now saying they need ministerial approval for a long-term vision statement. If institutions want a long-term vision statement they are certainly welcome to have one but they do not require my little tick and a grade of 8.5 out of 10 in order to do so. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Is the Minister not demonstrating enormous arrogance given that the Vice-Chancellors Committee views his bill as a direct attack on academic freedom and university autonomy and that the bill would introduce “sweeping and unfettered bureaucratic control over university activities …”; if so what steps is he taking to allay their concerns? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In return for the Government funding universities receive there will be a requirement for an agreed 3-year plan of their basic objectives and broad priorities over that period of time. That is scarcely a massive interference in the autonomy of institutions. If the member ever seriously thought he would be the Minister for Tertiary Education then he would welcome such mechanisms being put in place given the wastage that has occurred on low-priority courses over the last 15 years. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why is the Minister removing the centrepiece of Steve Maharey’s reforms—the charters—and replacing them with plans given that Mr Maharey stated: “Charters will bring tertiary education strategy alive.” or is he trying to kill off the tertiary sector just at the time Steve Maharey is about to enter it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have great difficulty understanding what the member is talking about. All we are talking about is that universities will be required to have a clear strategic direction and a sense of priorities consistent with their placement in the education system in order for them to receive funding from the Government. In other words the Government has some right to expect that what is done bears some broad relevance to New Zealand’s social and economic development. That is not an interference with academic freedom. If the member had ever been involved in a subjective subject such as history he would know that academic freedom is not about the freedom to teach whatever one likes for whatever cost; it is the freedom to express views about the areas that one is responsible for and to do so broadly within the community without facing the danger of being penalised as a consequence of doing that. Unfortunately in my experience too many academics these days do not express such views publicly enough. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What is the Minister’s response to the view of the New Zealand Vice–Chancellors Committee that “none of the world’s leading universities are subject to the degree of control proposed in this Bill.” and that “In no other Western democracy has a state sought this degree of control over a university’s teaching and research.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is an extraordinarily bold assertion given the nature of many of the European tertiary education systems where there is a very large level of central government involvement in the management of those systems. It is also true that no other system I am aware of has a pure “bums on seats” funding model where we do not care about what anybody does or about the quality of what they are doing as long as they enrol in something or other 101 and we pay $6473 in order to support those students. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: So people are all as stupid as that are they? What an arrogant view of your fellow— 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is the basis of the current funding model which Dr Lockwood Smith—not the most modest member of Parliament—helped put in place. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table two articles. The first is a submission from the University of Auckland where this bill is described as establishing “sweeping and unfettered bureaucratic control …”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: And the second— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind members that points of order are heard in silence. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table the second document from the New Zealand Vice–Chancellors Committee where it is stated that in no other Western democracy has the State sought this degree of control over universities. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.