Hughes Gareth: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Hughes Gareth: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:665;Page:12767] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairperson. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. Having been a student at university last year I have been pretty interested in the big changes that we have seen in the sector since this Government has been in office. We have seen essentially the Government make tertiary education less accessible and more expensive. In some ways it is making it downright impossible to even be a student in New Zealand. Today I will grade the Minister for Tertiary Education. He comes across as being a very effective Minister. He is spoken about in sort of hushed and awed terms. When we look at his record and grade what he has done in this sector we find we could give our Minister something below an A probably below a B and probably even below a C. I think the Minister would get an F. I think he has been a failure as a Minister. 
Right now if you want to study at Victoria University the University of Otago Waikato University Massey University or Auckland University the chances are that you might not get to be enrolled even if you have good grades— 
H V Ross Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I draw your attention to Standing Order 103 about the use of the word “you”. I know the member is a new member here so we can make exceptions but— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member does not have to qualify the point of order by referring to matters of age or the time that a member has been here. 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: Just sit down. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member responsible for saying that will be walking—whoever said that. I do not need any assistance. The member Ross Robertson simply raised a point of order. The point of order was a valid one. The member Gareth Hughes ought to be a bit more careful about the use of some pronouns. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You are a very experienced Chair and you will be aware that during the time that you spent addressing my point of order there was an interjection. People should know especially long-serving members that there are to be no interjections whatsoever during the taking of a point of order. It came from members opposite. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes and I caution the member responsible for the interjection that if there is one more infringement like that someone will be taking an early shower. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: I apologise Mr Chairperson. I would not give you an F. We are seeing our universities close their enrolments in some cases such as Massey University with only 30 minutes’ notice. I was at Waikato University this morning. This year it has turned away 403 students many of whom were school leavers who had anticipated being able to study at university who wanted to become educated and who wanted to contribute to the economy. 
Why are we doing this? It is not because of a well-thought-out policy. It is not because there are more well-paid jobs out there attracting all the potential students. It is simply because of a lack of funds. It is because the Minister would not get any more funds for the sector. Like Ruth Richardson and Roger Douglas in the 1980s and 1990s this Minister has used the crisis of the recession to ram through possibly the most fundamental changes to the tertiary education sector. No longer do we have the open egalitarian system that Kiwis are proud of; rather we are seeing a more closed system. In this area the Minister would have to get an F. 
In Budget 2010 the budget for tertiary education was $4.2 billion which is the same as last year’s budget. When we look at inflation we see that the most recent budget was essentially a cut. When we compare ourselves with Australia which we are trying to catch up to we see it is investing an extra $5.7 billion over the next 5 years. Compared with other OECD countries we are ranked at 18th out of 30 for the proportion of our population with a tertiary degree—at 27percent. Australia is aiming for 40 percent. How will we catch up with Australia if we put less funding into tertiary education? In fact we spend $3000 less per student than the OECD average and we are in the bottom quarter of the OECD for expenditure on tertiary education as a percentage of GDP. 
Throughout the Budget process we have seen all sorts of “kites” floated throughout the year and some of those measures were announced in the Budget. We saw a few additional places being funded but not enough to cater for all the students who want to become more skilled and educated. In that matter the Minister would possibly get a C or maybe a B. It is good that we have a few more students there but not enough. The Minister reduced the fee maxima making certain courses more expensive. I reckon that gets a D: a D for dumb. Do members know why that is? It is because we have a doctor shortage. That initiative will make it more expensive for doctors to enrol in courses. It is bad for our economy students and our health. 
We have seen the Minister limiting access to tertiary education based on performance. I thought this Government was about incentivising people not about regulation but instead we are seeing in the tertiary education sector more punishments and regulations. The Government could have gone down an incentivised path to promote performance. It also gets a D because this approach will disadvantage minorities including migrants without English as a first language. It will disadvantage students from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds and it is not smart for the economy. 
The Minister has also introduced a lifetime limit to access to student loans. It does not matter to him that we already have a lifetime limit to access to student allowances which is already a good balance and check within the system. This Minister is limiting those people who want to do a double degree or who take a while like the Minister did to get their zoology degree. It means the system is very inflexible and very rigid and again I think we have to give it an F. 
We have also seen the Minister prevent access by Australians to student loans. I think the rest of the Committee might agree that that possibly gets a B; it is not the worst thing in the package. 
We are seeing the introduction of a $50 student loan administration fee for the 560000 Kiwis who have student loans. Of course that has to get an F. Maybe the Government gets an F for failing because the Minister and the Prime Minister would love to bring back interest on the student loans but the policy that we do not have interest on our student loans is just too damned popular for that to be done. That measure will increase the burden. Nationally the total student loan debt stands at $11 billion. We need to be reducing the burden on students. This Government gets an F for tertiary education.