Hutchison Paul: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13033] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the so-called Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill. This really would be an important bill but sadly because of its huge myriad of defects we are not going to support it. Tertiary education is pivotal to New Zealand’s future economic growth and productivity which is something that has been sadly lacking under the last 7 years of the Labour Government. I must say that the select committee process did work well and it was just as well that it did because the initial draft of this bill demonstrated just how out of touch this tired old Labour Government had become. The vice-chancellors of New Zealand said in their submission that “none of the world’s leading universities are subject to the degree of control proposed in this bill.” [ 
Interruption 
] Would the member like me to say it again? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Does this include “Vice-Chancellor” Steve Maharey? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: No no—he was not there at the time. He was opposing it. 
The vice-chancellors went on: “In no other Western democracy has a state sought the degree of control over a university’s teaching and research.” When I asked Dr Cullen in this House about this loss of academic freedom and autonomy he said: “No I’ve been an academic for 40 years.” and he indicated that the vice-chancellors were being overdramatic and that in fact he and his academic colleagues on the Labour front bench knew better. I bet that the vice-chancellors of New Zealand have been getting at Dr Cullen in the last few months and not only the vice-chancellors but also the New Zealand Law Society the National Council of Women of New Zealand and the Auckland City Council to name just a few of the submitters who were deeply concerned by Labour’s trampling—trampling—over academic freedom and autonomy. 
New Zealanders should know that their left-leaning finance Minister and their Government have been pushed into amending clause 3 the purpose clause to “make it explicit that the new functions conferred on the responsible Minister and the Tertiary Education Commission are to be exercised in accordance with the principal Act which makes provision for the preservation of academic freedom and institutional autonomy.” But it is very poignant and telling on this Government that we have Michael Cullen Steve Maharey—who is gone now of course—and Helen Clark all on the Labour front bench and all so self-righteous that they lack the insight to think they would get away with trampling over academic freedom. So this amendment to clause 3 is an absolute victory for freedom. It is an absolute victory for the select committee process it is an absolute victory for National and it is a damning indictment on this left-leaning Labour Government. 
It is important to understand the circumstances that led to this so-called Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill because this bill is the result of years of poor management and wastage under this Labour Government. As the OECD report of this year said there have been reforms on average every 2 years under Labour. National has calculated that the bureaucratic costs of these reforms that Labour has undertaken over the last 4 years is about $490 million and that does not include all the other things that have occurred—the soft courses like homeopathy for pets etc.—which probably come to $1 billion. That is money that could have gone directly into tertiary education. 
But members should listen to what Steve Maharey said back in 2002. He said: “These reforms”—this was back in 2002 when he thought he had sorted it all out—“represent the culmination of the government’s promise to overhaul our tertiary education and training systems.” But by 2005 the vice-chancellor of Victoria University had written to Minister Maharey to proclaim: “The system is haemorrhaging dollars right before your very eyes.” So Steve Maharey’s reforms were so bad that Dr Cullen was called in to bring this latest round of reforms. This is why we have yet another round of tertiary education reforms before us. 
But Labour’s mismanagement does not stop there. The Prime Minister as we know has just rearranged the deck chairs. She has replaced Dr Cullen with someone else to solve her Government’s tertiary education woes. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Who? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well it just happens to be none other than the man who could not figure out why $5 billion extra a year would not bring about any more operations—none other than the Hon Pete Hodgson. This is the man who has been brought in to solve the country’s tertiary education reforms. Dr Cullen says that the new era will be characterised by high trust and low compliance by relevance by quality and by value for money. But our analysis is that the very opposite is happening. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Just stop telling jokes! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Ha ha! To add to the complexity of the Tertiary Education Commission—which now has 340 personnel; when Maurice Williamson was there it had only 17 but now it has 340—Dr Cullen brought in 13 stakeholder managers and 13 investment managers. The reports that we are getting back from right around the country is that these people are getting in the way and we have heard reports of those managers threatening institutions that if they do not “play ball” the managers will not sign off the investment plans. 
In the first draft of this bill Dr Cullen did not even require the Tertiary Education Commission to act reasonably. I repeat: he did not even require the commission to act reasonably. The irony is that now the word “reasonable” has been placed back into the bill under pressure from Her Majesty’s most loyal Opposition but even before the bill has become an Act the managers are acting unreasonably. So much for “high trust”! This is the track record of the Labour Government in tertiary education. 
One of the other great ironies of this bill is that in the name of simplification profiles and charters were to be replaced by a single 3-year plan. Dr Cullen himself said in this House that “institutions are now saying they need ministerial approval for a long-term vision statement. If institutions want a long-term vision statement they are welcome to have one but they do not require my little tick …”. But now under huge pressure Dr Cullen has reneged. Instead of simplification we are going to have not only an investment plan but a requirement for a short-term a medium-term and a long-term plan. Each organisation will be required to have those plans. 
So there is no question that the tertiary education system needs stabilising and simplifying. Labour has provided the opposite. As well its recent history of personnel changes is appalling and unprecedented. What are they? Mr Maharey is off to Massey University the chairman of the Tertiary Education Commission—none other than Russell Marshall—has gone and just the other day was replaced by David Shand and the chief executive of the Tertiary Education Commission Janice Shiner is off next year. So there will not be anyone left with the institutional knowledge to actually be held to account. Dr Cullen has gone and who has he left? It is none other than Pete Hodgson. He too will be gone in 11 months. Thank goodness there will be a National Government to take over and sort out the mess that this Labour Government is leaving.