Rich Katherine: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Rich Katherine: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13679] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I too am glad to speak in this third reading debate on the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill. It was very interesting to hear some of the speeches on this subject from members opposite because many of them fell into the same kind of pattern—the same kind of jargon—and they basically went along the lines of “Blah blah stakeholder engagement. Blah blah transparency.” Marian Hobbs was a fine one. She talked about stakeholder-driven change and she said that this was not top down but bottom up. I sat there and thought that if anybody criticises the education sector for its own jargon and meaningless bumf he or she should have listened to that speech because it had all the categories and all the words but it did not actually mean anything. 
One of the things we find with the whole tertiary reform debate is that there is a lot of high-level discussion but if we distil it down it does not make a lot of common sense. That was certainly something that Paul Hutchison and I found as we were part of a presentation about what the changes might be. After about an hour and a half of worthy and earnest questions on our part we were struggling to understand exactly what the impact would be for certain tertiary organisations. Finally my colleague Paul Hutchison said: “Look just give us one example. What difference will this bill make to Auckland University?”. After some “ums” and “ahs” the officials with whom we were discussing this said: “Oh actually it is not going to make terribly much difference to Auckland University.” So after all this there is no difference. How can that be when we saw on television last night that Auckland University is now moving away from open entry with some of its courses? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: They have been planning this for about 5 years! 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Dr Cullen is exercised by my bringing this up. The Labour Party which purports to be the party of the workers is now being accused of shutting out students from disadvantaged backgrounds and creating an elitist institution. This is one of the examples that we will see more and more of whereby some institutions say they will limit the number of people coming into their courses because they will not offer spaces for students for whom they receive no funding. These institutions will understandably offer courses if they are funded for them but if they are not why would they bother? Why would they offer spaces for the benefit of the community if they are not funded to offer them? 
Sue Moroney 
: What’s National’s policy? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: As usual Sue Moroney is chipping in with her inane little utterances. She does not have a blind clue what difference this will make to tertiary reform but she will focus her mind when the likes of her local university says: “We’re cutting this course that course and we’re not going to offer spaces for courses that young people want.” 
It is the same for certain sectors. We spend a lot of time talking about other aspects of education. At the moment the early childhood sector is crying out for trained early childhood teachers. This is another area where the Tertiary Education Commission will ensure that there are fewer spaces than there have been in the past. 
One of the other points made by the Hon Marian Hobbs was that this legislation will move tertiary providers away from competition. Competition is not actually a bad thing. If members opposite think that students do not understand what competition is then they do not understand the students they are hoping to improve the tertiary sector for. Students know exactly which courses are quality courses. Students will often travel to work or study with someone with a particular area of expertise or with someone who has a PhD or has carried out research in a certain area. 
Sue Moroney 
: And then be disappointed. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Sue Moroney says that students will be very disappointed if they travel to work with specific people. What kind of comment is that to make? How would it be for our hard-working professors researchers and people who are internationally renowned to know that some little minion on that side of the House thinks that their skills training and research amount to nothing and that they are interchangeable like cans of baked beans because they are all the same? 
On this side of the House we believe that the tertiary sector is about quality. It is about having skills in a certain area and it is about an understanding of that quality and competition. People will travel to study in certain areas and that is one way of ensuring that we have an excellent offering in our polytechs and tertiary providers. 
The Hon Marian Hobbs also said that we are moving away from a “bums on seats” mentality. I find that interesting. Which Government was it that put all the bums on the seats for the radio sing-along courses or the bums on the seats for the pendulum swinging for beginners classes? Pendulum swinging for beginners may have been big in Sue Moroney’s area but I would like to hear her take a call and explain how that particular course contributed to the Government’s overall goal of economic transformation because on this side of the House we cannot see how that kind of course contributed to that goal. Neither can we see how twilight golf or some of those other shonky courses which apparently were moving away from a “bums on seats” mentality to some other method of applying funds contributed to that goal. 
The big buzz word is of course “transparency”. As Dr Cullen knows our universities in particular have a long history of transparency and quality and they do not need this particular bill to be able to offer that. Certainly when it comes to introducing a streamlined approach and less bureaucracy I think that those who are involved in the sector will be desperately disappointed. One of the things that this bill introduces is more bureaucracy. There is a requirement to do more planning to put together more documents and to undertake more stakeholder engagement whatever that means. From listening to members opposite stakeholder engagement seems to involve hanging out with anybody talking about anything—preferably if there is food there. But in terms of the enhancement of the process we cannot see how that will have an impact on tertiary provision in this country. 
National is looking at how we get better results out of the investment we make as a country. We still have to allow students to make the decisions they need to make to invest in themselves and to do courses that reflect their interests. We are concerned about some of the impacts of this bill and about what will change within some regional areas. We have already seen some discussions come to the surface in Southland—certainly in Otago—and last night in Auckland. We will see more of those stories. There will be more students who are not able to do the courses they want to as the rubber hits the road with this kind of reform. 
Here we are 8 years down the track and the reforms are being put in place now. Eight years down the track! The Government has spent over $400 million to get this far and it has very little to show for it apart from a big stack of glossy brochures about so high a big bill as a result of stakeholder engagement and a number of offices that have been opened and closed as the Tertiary Education Commission decides what is fit for purpose and what kind of organisation it will be. We have certainly seen a large number of bureaucrats added to the public purse. We have gone from an organisation that had no staff to one that has well over 300 and certainly most of us are trying to work out exactly what value they add to this process. 
In terms of reforms the jury is out about whether it will make a positive difference. National thinks it will make a negative difference as a lot of this rhetoric does not transfer into change that is good for students. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.