English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Question No. 7 to Minister  
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Question No. 7 to Minister  
[Volume:620;Page:15372] 
7.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What is the Government’s policy on the purpose of equivalent full-time student funding? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 The equivalent full-time student or “EFTS” as it is called is the unit of measure for the student component system of tuition subsidies. Our purpose in creating the student component was firstly to split tuition funding from research funding. This has been achieved through the transfer of funding to the performance-based research fund and the creation of centres of research excellence. Secondly we want to make tuition funding more strategic not just the “bums on seats” approach of the past. We have moved to a situation where funding is now being based on a profile. We have already moved to strategically limit the funding to private training establishments aviation and classification 5.1 and put a 15 percent limit on equivalent full-time student growth in any individual institution. 
Hon Bill English 
: In the light of that response why has the Minister allowed the construction industry and the supermarket industry to access millions of dollars of tertiary student funding for 4-hour induction courses compulsory for all employees through which they have pushed 40000 students in the last 12 months and should not these 4-hour induction courses be paid for by the industry and not by tertiary student funding? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes they should. One of the changes we are making is ensuring that any partnership between business now includes payment by industry for industry training. We now want to put as much as we can on to the industry training model whereby we have a partnership and funding with industry. 
Lynne Pillay 
: How does the purpose of equivalent full-time student funding and the student component system differ from its purpose in the previous universal tertiary tuition allowance? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As stated in the 1998 white paper the purpose was simply that: “All domestic students enrolled in approved courses will be subsidised.” A key objective was that the policy was not to bias students’ decisions towards any particular type of course. The Government reserved the right to reduce funding rates if volumes rose more than forecast. In short the policy was more about volume at a lower unit cost. By contrast we are now working to ensure that tertiary education delivers what we need in our economic and social development as a nation. It is a vision that is shared by many in the National Party but not by Bill English who called the strategic approach unwise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why have the Minister and his Government set out to destroy the air pilot training industry and its over 700 students by stopping funding of their aviation training courses? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The original reason we addressed the issue of aviation pilots is that we had larger numbers of people who were beginning to run up debts encouraged by people in the aviation industry to get training when they were never going to get a job. I am determined to ensure that we have a proper partnership with the aviation industry where it sets out its training needs and it pays for its bit and we pay for ours. 
Deborah Coddington 
: What action will the Minister take given his reply to my written question where he admits that the Open Polytechnic is breaching its enrolment cap for fulltime-equivalent students in its life works programme; will he bail out the polytech with up to $86 million of taxpayers’ money or will he sit back and allow the polytech to go into statutory management? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I need to point out to the member that there is absolutely no risk whatsoever to the Crown in relation to what is happening at the Open Polytechnic for the very simple reason that the institution works within a cap. It is therefore currently talking with the Tertiary Education Commission about how to manage that growth back under that cap. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: What is the Government’s policy on raising minimum entry standards to tertiary courses that receive equivalent full-time student funding following a decision by Massey University to limit its primary teacher - training intake to reflect demand for higher teacher calibre and fewer jobs to fill? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Entry qualifications for universities are set by the universities themselves. That is their role. However the House will know that a paper is currently out after the finishing of consultation with institutions about the future role of those different institutions where issues like entry qualifications have been canvassed. I look forward to seeing what it has to say. 
Hon Bill English 
: Who is accountable for a situation where thousands of construction and supermarket workers have been forced to enrol at Unitec where they or their employers are forced to pay fees to cover course costs while Unitec and an organisation called Site Safe simply pocket the equivalent full-time student subsidy to build up their own organisations at the cost of 40000 construction and supermarket workers? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: If such a situation has occurred then the responsibility would lie with the institution and the funding body. However I say to the member who came in here with cardboard boxes full of nothing that straight after question time I will check every single fact because I never believe a single word he says. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What sort of snake oil does he expect the aviation students to swallow and why did he personally assure students at the Aotearoa Tertiary Students Association conference in April of this year—22 April to be precise—that students currently enrolled in aviation courses in 2004 would be able to complete the 2005 portion of their course and why is he now again going back on his word? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Because my assurance stands but I am equally determined to ensure that the aviation industry sets out its needs properly and clearly and joins us in funding them. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Around this country there are about 735 or maybe more students all of whom believe that their funding is to be cut. But up rose the Minister today after he had been asked the specific question about whether the funding is to be cut. He gave no such assurances to— 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I did. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No the Minister did not. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I did. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well why can the Minister not make himself clearer then? There are hundreds of students out there who have got themselves higher student loans for 1 year than any other students bar dentistry for example. Why can the Minister not tell them now that they will have their courses finished and funded by him as Minister? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I said at the beginning of my answer that students who are in the system have been assured they will continue through their course of study. But I am equally determined that we are going to get cooperation from this industry to plan out its needs and help fund the students. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given the Minister’s concern about correct information regarding 40000 workers being forced to enrol at Unitec has he seen a letter from Site Safe signed by its executive director that states: “Enrolment at Unitec for all Site Safe trainees is a requirement—our requirement—and should people wish to attend Site Safe courses” which they have to because they are compulsory in the construction sector “they will need to provide the requisite information for enrolment or pay the penalty of increased course fees.” and does he endorse Site Safe charging workers a penalty of $40 if they do not fill out the Unitec enrolment course properly when they never wanted to be students at Unitec? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I will check that letter out straight after this because I never believe a single word that man says— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not have that. The member must not say that because I accept the word of every member of this House. The first sentence of his answer was perfectly OK but he will withdraw and apologise 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the letter along with a number of others between Site Safe and complainants. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very strong answer given by Mr Maharey. He got a little bit carried away at the end and that has been dealt with and that is fine. But can we expect that he will be back down to the House sometime before 5 o’clock so he does not avoid scrutiny on this evening’s news to make a ministerial statement about the issues raised by Bill English? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As the member knows that is up to the Minister. It is not a point of order. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will be aware under the Standing Orders that the issue the Minister has raised about my credibility is one I have every right to take exception to. I regard his statements that my word cannot be believed as offensive and I would ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did apologise—I asked him to. 
Hon Bill English 
: Not on my point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry I have already asked the Minister to withdraw and apologise and he has.