Maharey Steve: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Maharey Steve: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14364] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 I want just to reflect for a moment. I am not sure whether the debate has finished because I see that Mr English is still a little edgy in his chair. We may hear some more from him so I may have to come back to answer his questions. I want to reflect just a little on what I often call the “Maharey-Williamson changes” and the reason I call them that is I think the one person in the National Party who has the wisdom to understand what is happening in tertiary education is Maurice Williamson. 
The reason he understands it is he knows that the market model requires a body to run it. Members will remember the changes that took place in Maurice Williamson’s head when he went to Scandinavia and it was explained to him that if we wanted a strategic approach to our investment at a tertiary level we had to have a body that would make the investment—that there had to be a more organised approach to it; it could not be run just by student demand. He understood that but he could not get it across to the members currently on the National front bench. They slagged him off basically by disagreeing with his model and he ended up at No. 29. But I am very pleased to see that he is working his way back through the ranks slowly but surely on the basis of his understanding because then at least he will probably reintroduce to his caucus the notion that this approach requires a body like the Tertiary Education Commission. There may be an argument over how it works how many staff it has how much money it spends etc. but if we are going to have a strategic model then somebody has to do it. That is what we are building here. 
I thought it was ironic to use the word used by my junior whip colleague that on a day when we were talking in the House at question time about the Innovation and Development Fund which is money that goes directly into the sector—$1.8 million to go off and do specific innovations that will help connections between universities and business; money for biotechnology skills; and so on—when we were talking about a range of money that it would not have been possible to provide to the tertiary sector under the National Government and that was received as manna from heaven by the university vice-chancellors who could not get any of this money under a National Government Bill English should rise and say we do not want this kind of approach. I could go through all the achievements of the Tertiary Education Commission over the last little while but let me just take one—the Performance-based Research Fund. We asked the commission to put that policy in place. We thought that the money for research should be taken out of the equivalent full-time student funding because it was being spread too thinly we did not know whether any accountability was taking place we did not know who was spending it there were people who were not research active but were still getting money and astoundingly there were many people—in fact a worrying number of people—at the post-graduate level teaching post-graduate courses who did not do any research yet we were paying them for it. 
So we have said: “Don’t do that.” and I think on reflection that the Performance-based Research Fund policy development is probably one of the best pieces of policy ever seen in this country frankly. It was done by the sector. It worked in a very very cooperative way. It now has a stand-up model which most people around the world are looking at and saying is better than the British one better than the Florida one better than the Canadian one. I think we have a model that will have to be tweaked and developed but if Mr English wants one piece of evidence that the Tertiary Education Commission can do and has done something to transform—the word used by a number of my old colleagues and probably some of his too—the tertiary sector it is that policy. It has transformed the sector because if we talk to any of— 
Hon Bill English 
: It has not transformed it. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Mr English as usual misses the point because he is a rather stupid man when it comes to tertiary education. So let me just say that academics like Paul Callaghan the members of the Royal Society in this country and the Royal Society in the UK would say that if there is one thing that has transformed the universities of this country and anybody who is involved in academic research it is the Performance-based Research Fund. I know that Mr English is now going to say he would repeal the research fund. I know that because he is sitting over there saying it is no good. So the National Party is committed to repealing the fund. We are not. It has transformed the way that academics do research in this country. It is the way that we will change their behaviour. The only person over there once again who is silent is Mr Williamson because he understands exactly that it has transformed that culture. It has been a fantastic success. Unfortunately for Mr English who does not do any kinds of brave changes—I cannot remember a single thing he achieved when he was a Minister and when he was leader he did not achieve anything which is why he is not leader any more—we have changed that culture through these kinds of developments. I know that when we are on the election platform next year and I am saying we will have a Performance-based Research Fund and the National Party is saying it would not I know who the academics are going to vote for. They are going to vote for us. 
Mr English’s contribution really on the whole is ironic and one that does not acknowledge that major changes like the Performance-based Research Fund have been very significant. The single biggest change I can think of in academic life in my lifetime is that Performance-based Research Fund. That is how big it is. It has made that kind of change. Unfortunately for Mr English I was the academic and not him so I probably know. 
The second point is about Bernie Ogilvy. I thought the United Future contribution as always was a very good one. He gave a contribution tonight that unlike the ones by Mr English actually did make a contribution in terms of something that has got to happen with export education. It is a very large $2 billion business. It is something that now is a significant player in our economy and we have to make sure that we organise that industry and do not have it run by every disparate player in the country individually. I think that is a very important point he made. I hope that is what is happening under Trevor Mallard’s leadership as we are moving towards that kind of very significant industry being more integrated and being led properly in the way that it should be.  
 Brian Donnelly as usual made a very good speech as well particularly about student allowances and debt. Yes we have made changes this year. Yes they have made a difference. I personally think that we as people who represent taxpayers will have to do more in this area. I think we have a very significant issue around student debt. We have tried as a Government to turn it back with interest-free loans by trying to keep fees low by ensuring that allowances are extended and by doing a range of smaller things particularly in terms of work for students. But frankly I think the people who sit in here—with the exception of people like Simon Power who is a little younger than people like me who went through tertiary education without this debt burden—are still struggling with making sure that we do something significant about reducing that debt. But this Government has tried to put its money where its mouth is and move it forward. 
I think Simon Power and I are proud to be provincial—that is what I would say. He said “call me provincial” as if that was bad; it is not and we would both fit into that category. I think he raised some interesting points about the Tertiary Education Commission. I think we have to ensure that we end up with a Tertiary Education Commission that does not see itself as the centre of the system. It is supposed to be there as a funding body and to assist the institutions themselves to develop good relationships with people who are trying to use their university polytechnic or whatever—the student the business community the iwi. That is the relationship that should be strong. But let me remind Simon Power that if we want a more strategic focused approach which is making decisions about where money is invested there needs to be some kind of central body to do it and I am glad he agrees with that. 
Donna Awatere Huata ironically I think raised the issue of accountability. I understand that she takes it very seriously. Let me say that the 5.1 funding which is a policy put in place by—and Bill English was not the Minister then—the National Government last year blew out in a way which was unacceptable. Because we do have funding mechanisms in place where we can deal with that we have. We are trying to get ourselves a system where yes there is community education and yes people are accountable. I say to Donna Awatere Huata that she is wrong that we will hold people accountable for this expenditure. In the case of Christchurch Polytechnic we have an audit going on now. If that audit comes back and we find that that money has not been accounted for properly we will act on that institution in the same way as we would with anybody else. It will have to front up with the money account for it and do the same thing as any other organisation would be required to do. I will not be panicked into doing things before we have proper information before we have the proper dialogue that should go on but we will always make sure that taxpayers’ money is accounted for properly. If Christchurch Polytechnic cannot do it then it will unfortunately have to account for the money that is there because that is the requirement of this Government—that people do front up. 
Those seem to be the major points. I think Mr English wants to speak again so I will sit down. If when he is finished there are points I need to account for I will rise and do that.