Power Simon: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Power Simon: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14362] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 It is always tricky following a United Future member because one is always of the view that he or she could sit down at any stage regardless of whether the bell has gone and without too much notice one finds oneself taking the call at that point. 
I want to follow on from my colleague the Hon Bill English who talked about the mist of language that Steve Maharey uses to describe what is going on in the tertiary sector. I say to my colleague the Hon Bill English that there is one thing in tertiary education that is emerging from the mist and that is a huge bureaucracy. It is worth raising this issue for the Minister and I hope he does take a call to respond to some of the issues that have been raised by the Hon Bill English and myself because during the second reading of the Tertiary Education Reform Bill on 30 May 2002 the Minister had this to say: “This is a significant change but I do not want it to be a bureaucratic change. I want it to be a smart change—” 
Hon Bill English 
: He did not say that! 
SIMON POWER 
: He did say that. “I want it to be a smart change—not heavy intervention but one that will ensure that in the end most providers are able to do this for themselves”—and this is the clincher—“rather than through some gigantic bureaucracy.” 
I tell the Minister that it is worth raising this. On its establishment in 2003 the Tertiary Education Commission inherited 235 staff. Rather than slimming it down to be a light-handed guiding strategic device by January 2004 the commission was employing 324 staff. At that point in 2003 it had already spent $7.8 million on contractors and the outsourcing of work. And that raises the question: what were the 324 people doing? What were they actually doing that $7.8 million had to be spent on consultants and contractors? A parliamentary question showed us that $1 million alone went to BurleighEvatt to create the charters and profiles system. Well call me provincial but is that not what the Tertiary Education Commission is for? Is it not the commission’s job to create the charters and profiles system? What on earth was going on when 12 of these employees are being paid more than $100000 a year? 
So what did the Tertiary Education Commission do? It decided it would restructure the second and third tier management to reflect the streamlined approach that the Minister wanted. Some of those job advertisements I have to tell the Committee make some of the best reading one will ever see: Manager of Instrument Steering; Management of Sector Engagement—the most bizarre things that members will ever have heard. What happened at the end of the big restructuring of the Tertiary Education Commission? The Minister knows the answer. After restructuring the second and third tier management four jobs changed. 
Hon Bill English 
: Surely it was 400? 
SIMON POWER 
: No I tell Mr English that it was four jobs. So there are still 320 people working at the Tertiary Education Commission with $8 million being spent on contractors and consultants. How did they go? What happened? Well the release of the inaugural Performance-based Research Fund report resulted in a court case so that went well. The Tertiary Education Commission failed to prevent a $105 million blowout in the spending of low-value non-assessed non - New Zealand Qualifications Authority approved community education courses. It delayed the funding category review for another year and of course the late landscape document was widely criticised by the Ministry of Education Treasury Te PuniKokiri and the Department of Labour. 
So what is going on in the mist? Well if one believes that which is all true— 
Hon Bill English 
: A shift in thinking! 
SIMON POWER 
: Bill English says it is a shift in thinking. It is actually a whole lot of people running around trying to find consultants to do their jobs. That basically seems to me to be what is happening. 
Referring to the New Zealand Vice-Chancellor’s letter that the Hon Bill English referred to earlier it is worth noting this comment that was made on the community education situation: “There are a number of aspects of this situation which quite frankly we find unbelievable given the plethora of steering instruments reporting requirements and accountabilities to which all tertiary institutions are subject.” My colleague Maurice Williamson who held this portfolio before I did said to me early on: “This is a difficult piece of legislation to oppose if you believe it’s going to be a light-handed steering instrument.” 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I did say that. 
SIMON POWER 
: That is exactly what he said. It is not and the Minister has some serious questions to answer.