Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:12975] 
11.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: Is he satisfied with the progress of the Tertiary Education Commission in its consultations with the tertiary education sector and associated agencies; if so why? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 In general yes. For instance consultation on profile guidelines and profile reporting and monitoring is complete and all issues identified during the consultation process have been resolved. That has led to a tailored approach based on business cycles of different types of tertiary education organisations. The Performance-based Research Fund consultation process was a valued one and of course as the member will know is supported right throughout the entire sector. Just last week the Tertiary Education Commission released a significant report for public consultation which is  
The Distinctive Contributions of Tertiary Education Organisations. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister agree with Blake Shepherd of the Ministry of Economic Development in an email dated 3 March 2004 when referring to the  
Landscape  
document now called  
The Distinctive Contributions of Tertiary Education Organisations: a Tertiary Education Commission Consultation Paper 
 when he described it as “essentially we are worried that TEC is forwarding some ideas that are ill-considered and this will put the integrity of the TEC and the wider tertiary sector at risk.”; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The toing and froing of emails is something that I see and I am familiar with Mr Shepherd’s comments on the  
Landscape  
paper. The role of the Ministry of Education versus the Tertiary Education Commission and other agencies is of course to comment on each other’s papers. I encourage a free and open debate. That free and open debate resulted in the change of what was then called the  
Landscape  
paper to the current paper and that is the appropriate thing for public servants to do. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: How does the current approach to consulting the sector differ from previous approaches? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It differs dramatically. In the 1990s there was no intermediary body between the Government and the tertiary sector despite the fact there were frequent calls for a Tertiary Education Commission. Instead students saw an environment without consultation. Their fees went up automatically it seemed at an average of 14 percent per year and it led to people giving feedback to the Government such as the Universal College of Learning comments on white papers that said they were driven by an ideology of relentless pursuit of competition. Northland noted that uncertainty for the whole polytechnic sector was a result of the Government’s tertiary review at that time. Southland said they were constrained by ever-increasing bureaucratic demands and of course no one in the then National Government ever talked to anybody. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister agree with Te PuniKokiri and its comments that the  
Landscape  
document has a section that “also comes across as social engineering in nature. The impression it gives is that students should be studying what TEC thinks they should be studying.”; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am breathless with concern. I say to the member that I encourage the Tertiary Education Commission which is an intermediary body to release its information to all kinds of people. It receives all kinds of feedback. I am very happy that the end result of all that consultation is a very lively and demanding paper around differentiation in the sector—exactly as it should be. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister agree with Nick Montague from the Ministry of Education who describes the document in an email dated 12 February 2004: “Overall the paper still does not give a clear sense of what the TEC is going to do with this document and how they will consult or what the process is for this.” and: “The tertiary education system is complex and the application of simplistic rules from the centre is unlikely to deliver the desired results or will prove too slow.”; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Once again I say that this debate is one that has resulted in a paper that from what I understand has not had one single bad piece of feedback. People are very keen to see what this paper has to say. So I encourage open debate by all these people—unlike Mr Simon Power who I guess if he were in place would just do what the Americans told him to do. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps the Minister could set aside some time to teach the rest of us how to lead a life of blameless excellence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not know how that is a point of order and the member knows it. 
Simon Power 
: I seek leave to table three documents. The first is advice from the Ministry of Economic Development on the Tertiary Education Commission landscape document. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Simon Power 
: The second is advice from Te PuniKokiri criticising the Tertiary Education Commission landscape document. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Simon Power 
: Lastly is the document from the Ministry of Education commenting on the Tertiary Education Commission landscape document. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.