Rich Katherine: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Rich Katherine: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9070] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 It was very interesting listening to that member Marian Hobbs who has just sat down. I do not think she could have put any more education jargon into one speech. I say for those listeners at home that the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill is about reforming our system of tertiary education—about planning funding and monitoring the provision of tertiary education. Much of what is in this bill is very worthy—in fact a lot of it sounds a little bit like motherhood and apple pie—but the jury is well and truly out as to whether this bill will make one iota of difference to the provision of tertiary education in this country. 
The previous speaker said that this bill would lead to lower compliance costs. I debate that issue very strongly. If we look at the status of the Tertiary Education Commission in this country we see—as my learned colleague said—that it was an organisation that started off having about 30 staff. It then grew like Topsy into an organisation that has in advance of 300 staff. One of the things I have noted as I have travelled up and down the country is that when I ask universities and other tertiary education providers what the commission actually does in terms of providing value to the sector I never get a straight answer. Nobody can actually say what the organisation does and importantly what value it adds to the tertiary education equation. 
Another thing that concerns me is Marian Hobbs saying that this bill will reduce bureaucracy. How can that be when universities in particular will now have to go through an additional process of planning—doing all their internal planning then sending it to the Tertiary Education Commission for it to then decide who does what? 
Although the Government pretends that this reform is some magical announcement there is also the issue that we are now 8 years into a Labour-led Government and these are exactly the things Labour talked about when it first took over in 1999. These were Labour’s objectives for the tertiary sector yet the pace of change has been painfully slow. We have seen a large collection of glossy documents. We have seen the establishment of the Tertiary Education Commission and that in itself has not been without difficulty. The organisation set up offices up and down the country—including in my home town of Dunedin—only to retrench a few years later and close down all those offices. When the commission came before the Education and Science Committee only a few weeks ago we asked it why it had set up a whole bunch of offices and expanded bureaucracy only to turn round and do something different. On our side we were absolutely gobsmacked when the commission said it was just that it was not “fit for our purpose”. On our side we found that extraordinary; here we had a new organisation admitting that it had been set up incorrectly and was not suitable for doing the job expected of it. We question the role of the Tertiary Education Commission and wonder what value it is actually providing to the provision of tertiary education. 
Another area that is worthy of note is the history of tertiary education provision. The previous member said that these reforms will stop the likes of twilight golf courses and other flimsy courses that we have seen over the last few years. Well the Tertiary Education Commission does not agree. When the select committee asked it whether there were still courses being provided in this country that were of questionable academic merit it said it could not guarantee that there were not. When we asked whether there would be further courses of questionable academic merit provided it said it could not guarantee that there would not be either. Certainly in terms of this bill it is hard to see how these changes will stop the incidents that created such huge public debate such as the homeopathy for pets course the book voucher bribes to increase the number of students the radio singalong courses—people just enrolled and then supposedly listened to the radio—twilight golf and the mismatch between training and actual jobs in the marketplace. We need to think about the question that if the tertiary sector is doing so well why is the Teachers Council working with our teachers colleges as we speak to put in place academic standards for our teacher graduates—standards that require teachers to be able to read and write and know what they are teaching? It does not seem to be a sector that is doing as well as it should be. 
We have heard a lot of jargon spoken about the tertiary sector this evening. The idea that what we are talking about here will lower compliance costs is very much open to debate. The Minister of Tertiary Education said that this bill will lead to streamlined efficiencies and a focus on quality. Well if our tertiary providers are not focusing on quality right now then I think that is a sad reflection on the present provision of tertiary education. The Minister said that New Zealanders will be reassured by this bill. I think New Zealanders are getting sick and tired of this  
Groundhog Day 
 scenario where they are continually being involved in a debate about tertiary education yet absolutely nothing happens. This Government has had 8 years to make a difference to tertiary education and we have seen very little change. 
References have been made tonight to the involvement of the previous Minister of Tertiary Education Steve Maharey. He was the person who oversaw the proliferation of a lot of community courses that made no difference to New Zealanders’ learning added nothing to the economy and continued to grow like Topsy and cost taxpayers a lot of money. He is probably the only Minister in Parliament who says it is a compliment to have Dr Cullen take over his portfolio. No one in this House would agree that when Dr Cullen takes over a Minister’s portfolio it is a reflection that that Minister has done a great job in the area. 
We have seen a huge amount of discussion and hot air about tertiary education but very little has happened. It is 8 years down the track and we are still looking at reform. When will it finish? When will Labour say that it has finished its plans and put in place what it said in 1999 it would? What we are discussing here—the likes of enabling the Tertiary Education Commission to more effectively guide the contribution of tertiary education organisations—sounds good in theory but the impact for a lot of universities and polytechs is a huge amount more compliance and many more costs associated with bureaucracy. 
I would like to digress slightly for a moment. If this organisation is doing so well why did it decide to continue to fund Case Boreham Associates an organisation that is involved in the training of teacher-aides? Members will have heard some of the allegations that have been made about this organisation. It is an organisation that supposedly trains teacher-aides—but that is very much open to debate—and the allegations relating to the company are along the lines that money has been diverted into property deals and a whole wide range of other things. The Tertiary Education Commission supposedly ensures that there is quality within tertiary education provision and that when we hand money to it as taxpayers we get what we pay for and we get a quality outcome. I am wondering why we continue to allow the commission to grow when there is no demonstrable value added to the equation. 
The final point I will make is there is a concern about academic freedom. If academics happen to work in a certain area that the Government does not like or is not supportive of it will be very easy to shut them down simply through the Tertiary Education Commission not funding that particular area of study. I would like to see protections in this bill so that the Government actually demonstrates that it is concerned about academic freedom. We have seen what the Government has done in the early childhood and compulsory sectors; this measure smacks of the Government trying to gain more control of the tertiary sector and to get it to do exactly what the Government wants it to do as opposed to the Government trying to improve the quality of provision and make sure our graduates get what they pay for and invest in—what we all invest in as taxpayers as well. 
It will be interesting to see this bill come through the select committee process. I look forward to submissions and to hearing from tertiary providers about what they really think. In particular I will be asking them whether this bill adds value to what they do what changes will be made and whether they will be burdened by additional compliance costs as a result of this legislation. I hope the next Government speaker will explain why some 8 years later we are still talking about the same things that Labour said it would do when it first came into office.