Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I'm very happy to respond to that brief contribution from Simeon Brown asking why we are here discussing this particular bill. That's because that's our job. It's what the Parliament does. We scrutinise legislation in this House and the fact that we have the largest and laziest Opposition New Zealand has ever seen should not detract from the fact that the Parliament still has a job of scrutinising the legislation that is being put before it.It's interesting isn't it that the Opposition put forward a Supplementary Order Paper—an amendment to a provision of this legislation which they think is so controversial they should change it—and now they can't be bothered speaking to it. They're too busy. They want to scurry on home. They don't want to actually debate their own provisions—the changes that they want to make to this bill. It's not unanimous. If it was unanimous they wouldn't be trying to change it. So I'm somewhat confused by the confused position the Opposition seems to be taking on this matter.However I do want to clarify one or two of the claims that have been made in the very brief contributions that have been made by the Opposition members—all four minutes or so of it—that we've heard so far this evening. When it comes to the issue around private training establishments (PTEs) that is because we are changing—we are rejecting the previous Government's proposal to rename private training establishments as independent tertiary institutions. That was the proposal put forward by the previous Government and it was strongly opposed by the universities by the polytechnics and by many of those who submitted during the select committee process. Why? Well the reason for the opposition was quite clear. They are independent. The universities and the polytechnics are independent and particularly the universities—they actually have legal independence. It's enshrined in the Act. They were concerned that by calling private training establishments independent tertiary institutions that would somewhat confuse that and I think that's a legitimate point.There were some issues raised by private training establishments which felt that the PTE descriptor was not accurately reflective of the very broad array of different types of education providers that exist within it. I think that is fair and the Government thinks that that is fair because there are a number of community organisations that under the law are actually technically currently called private training establishments when there's nothing private about them. They're often incorporated societies or various forms of other public not-for-profit entities and at the moment they are described as PTEs. That's the reason why I have proposed inserting a new category called community tertiary education provider" which would basically allow for that to be recognised—that breadth that's currently lumped within the PTE sector to be recognised in a more diverse way.I want to talk then about the issues around the term "university". The National member who spoke said "Oh why are we debating what's meant by 'university'?" It's actually one of the most controversial issues for the universities at the moment as to what could be a university and what shouldn't. The universities will fight very passionately about what the definition of a "university" is and I think that they have a legitimate point.But I want to talk in particular about the controversy which is the previous Government's desire—and a desire that's been adopted with slight refinement by this Government—to allow wānanga the ability to apply to use the term "university". I want in particular to talk about the things that would need to be taken into account by a Minister when they were deciding whether or not a PTE or a wānanga—because at the moment a PTE can apply to be called a university but not a wānanga. So a PTE can use the term but a wānanga can't and that's something that Parliament I think would find very difficult to justify and that is one of the reasons we want to change that.But what are the things that the Minister would take into account when making that consideration? The first thing is that the Minister—so if it was me or whoever takes the job next—must take into account the characteristics of institutions described in section 162(4) of the Education Act. In other words they have to take into account the characteristics of a university. So in order for a wānanga or a PTE to use the term "university" the Minister in doing that would have to consider the extent to which they met the definition of a "university" in the Act. So this is not guaranteeing that the wānanga can use the term "university" and I think that's important. What this is doing is it's allowing the wānanga their day in court if you like or their ability to apply and have their case considered.The Minister must also in the process receive advice from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Tertiary Education Commission must require conditions to ensure the public is informed of the legal status of the institution and to "protect the interests of the tertiary education system and the nation as a whole." and must "consult with [the] institutions organisations representing institutions and other relevant bodies … the Minister considers appropriate." One would think that the universities collectively in the form of Universities New Zealand which is technically the Vice-Chancellors Committee would be one of those bodies.I have to say that one of the clauses here that "the Minister considers appropriate" is one of the things that I previously criticised the last Government for. I actually think when it comes to consultation provisions in legislation we should actually be a little more detailed in what consultation is required rather than simply saying "whoever the Minister feels like consulting." So I think that's something that in a future bill maybe the Parliament will want to come back to. I think that given the controversy around things like this actually being a little more specific guaranteeing for example that the current universities would need to be consulted when a new institution is applying to use the term—that's actually quite a reasonable thing. I think that's something that in the future in another bill the Parliament might want to consider.I am comfortable overall. I have had representations from the universities who are not happy about this provision. I am however comfortable that there are enough safeguards in place to ensure that the reputational standing of our universities can be protected and that the term "university" is not going to be undermined by allowing wānanga to apply to use it. In order to use it they will need to basically demonstrate that they meet the criteria to use it and therefore I think that this is a pretty straightforward decision."