Mackey Moana: Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mackey Moana: Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11639] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on the first reading of the Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly from New Zealand First. Labour will be supporting this bill going to the Education and Science Committee. Of course it is part of our confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First to further explore a university of technology or non-university class of institution and I know that this is an issue that the member in charge of this bill has been interested in for a very very long time through various bills in the House. I think this bill has come at a good time with the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill currently at the select committee. The Government will be looking very closely at the debate that occurs at the select committee as we decide what to do beyond that. 
The Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill is an interesting bill; it concerns an issue that has been around for a while. It looks to establish universities of technology which are dual-sector institutions sitting between universities and polytechnics. They will provide teaching in applied and vocational education and training across a full range of levels from foundation courses to higher degrees. The bill sets out a series of characteristics defining how such an institution would look but it does not set out the criteria for judging when or how they should be established. Of course if this bill is passed through the House that issue would need to be urgently addressed and policy would need to be developed to cover those questions. As I said this bill has come at a very opportune time with the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill currently at the select committee. 
The tertiary education strategy for 2007-12 includes priority outcomes. Part of that is a focus on the importance of increasing achievement of higher-level vocational skills. Members may be aware of the recent Leitch report from the UK which suggests that intermediate level training—roughly our level 4 to 6 skills—has a significant impact on the productivity of the workforce and I am sure that is something the select committee will be looking at. Increasing the capacity and the capability of the tertiary sector to meet this increased need for higher-level vocational skills has been identified by the Tertiary Education Commission and the groups working on benchmarking as a key area that needs to be developed. 
But of course there are two different approaches that could be taken given where we are with the tertiary reforms and the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill which is at the select committee. One way to go—one end of the spectrum—is to create a distinctive university of technology class as this bill does. However many of the benefits of such a class of tertiary education organisation could be realised in any case without the establishment of such a status and without some of the disadvantages—and there are some—of the university of technology concept. Many of those disadvantages have been looked at in this House over a number of bills. They include transition costs potential lack of focus on core business by institutions striving for a new status and—of course—strong opposition from the university sector although that may not be seen by some as a reason not to do it. 
The alternative approach recognises that we can achieve major strategic change and the appropriate level of differentiation without the system being put in place through the tertiary reforms without introducing a new class of institution and focusing particularly on the polytechnic sector as a way of delivering this. Under this approach the Tertiary Education Commission would give positive encouragement to polytechnics that are developing high-level provision to meet a strategic need. This approach would fit well with the emerging distinctive contributions approach while allowing for new thinking about the issue. 
I think the select committee consideration of the bill is going to be very interesting. Establishing a university of technology category would bring us into line with overseas jurisdictions where such a category is very common. That means that institutions that are interested in becoming universities of technology would find it easier to promote themselves accurately overseas in a way that they perhaps find difficult to do now because the term “university” is protected and they are not allowed to use it. Under this bill the term “university of technology” would be protected and it too would be used as a marketing tool under strict guidance. As I said before we would need to see how that would work in terms of the policy development of those criteria. 
In the 1990s when effectively a market model was put in our tertiary institutions and we moved to the “bums on seats” model many universities did go into areas that polytechnics and institutes of technology traditionally work in. So it is not uncommon to see different sectors moving. Of course that option was not open to institutions that were not universities. I think it is probably fair to say that the market value of the word “university” is still very high. That could be seen as a reason for allowing other institutions to use the term in order to market themselves effectively overseas just as it could be seen as a reason for keeping the term in order to make sure we do not dilute that brand in any way. I am sure that will be a hotly contested issue at the select committee between the various interested groups. 
I finish by looking at the situation in Australia. The Australians too have two kinds of universities. The term “university of technology” is commonly used in Australia. Those institutions are very well known for their professional skills and that has developed quite well. I know there are many institutions that simply want to see a level playing field; they do not feel that there is a fair playing field. We will be looking at that issue at the select committee. As I said before Labour will be supporting this bill at this stage.