Hutchison Paul: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:16210] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 This education bill is ironically called the Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill and the explanatory note states that the bill “proposes to clarify the current process for determining the establishment of universities.” I was absolutely in agreement with my colleague Dr Lockwood Smith who noted from the  
Bills Digest 
 which is a very thorough objective impartial view of the situation the final comment regarding the retrospective application of this bill—and it says it all. Under the heading “ 
Comment 
” it is stated: “This appears to be designed to prevent any successful Court action by Unitec based on the present law forcing the Minister to complete the entire Section 162 process to a favourable conclusion for Unitec before the Bill is passed.” That is what the bill is about. It is fairly and squarely about a blockage by this Minister Mr Maharey. It is nothing to do with clarification of the process. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Not at all. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: What is it about? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: It means the Parliamentary Library will probably get closed down now. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: That would be a very very serious possibility under this Minister. [ 
Interruption 
] It could be closed down for putting out that dreadful neutral impartial objective highly thoughtful well-researched paper. 
What I would like to point out to the House is that what came out on 17 September from the Hon Steve Maharey—the man who has led a life of blameless excellence—was a statement headed “Law establishing universities clarified”. Every time I think of that Minister I think of his background as a sociologist and of the words of Professor Roberts of Victoria University who used to say that for every new sociologist that gets a PhD and comes to town it brings a hundred thousand new problems. Well here we have a university lecturer one Steve Maharey who did not quite get the PhD but unfortunately for New Zealand has become the tertiary education Minister. He has brought not just a hundred thousand new problems but many many more than that. He stated in his press release: “The bill allows the Minister to decide to reject a case if not satisfied on national-interest grounds.” The Minister knows best—that is what it is. This is the “Minister knows best” bill and that absolutely defies the whole idea of academic freedom choice and quality. Central to this sector is the philosophy of any good education system that there should be choice quality and freedom but here we have the Hon Steve Maharey saying that the law that establishes universities is being clarified and that it will allow the Minister to decide to reject a case if he is not satisfied with it. The Minister knows best. 
I note that there is almost an alignment with that position from those such as the Association of University Staff. That has nothing to do with vested interests of course! The association said: “Any move to increase the number of universities would extend the current two-tier structure in research capability revealed by the Performance-based Research Fund results and has the potential to threaten the international reputation of the New Zealand university sector.” 
I go back to the basis on which the Education Act 1989 was established and the criteria that were set out by the Act in terms of the qualities that a university would ideally have. I think Stephen Franks went over them. They are primarily concerned with more advanced learning the principal aim of which is to develop intellectual independence. He was absolutely right to say it is nothing about size and nothing about the number of universities. It is all about quality and it is all about quality outputs. Around the world there are examples of universities of extraordinary quality that are small and there are examples of just about every configuration that one can imagine. It is hugely worrying when we have a tertiary education Minister just saying the Government will stop that by blocking it come hell or high water by means of legislation because he thinks he knows best about it. 
The criteria for universities go on and I think Stephen Franks pointed out that one of them was the point that a university should accept the role of critic and conscience of society. I well remember the late Dr Eric Geiringer who used to say just how important it is to have researchers in universities—indeed acting as a beacon a lighthouse—who are questioning innovating and doing all the things that are vital with regard to looking at everything a Government and a Minister such as Steve Maharey do and bringing them to task in terms of what education should really be about. As I have said that should be under conditions of choice and of quality. 
There are four key areas in relation to this bill that one should stress. The first is its retrospective effect. Is there a compelling reason to bring in the retrospective clause? On any criteria there is no compelling reason whatsoever for that. If one goes back into the history of this bill and looks at the blockages and the go-slows that this Government has imposed year after year one realises that the Government is absolutely defying Unitec and not allowing it to have its application heard fairly. In fact the retrospective provision should not interfere with accrued rights or legitimate expectations to be treated fairly and consistently. The bill does not contain a savings clause for existing applications for university status as is the usual practice. The Unitec application is the only application affected by the bill. There is no compelling case whatsoever for retrospectivity. 
The second key point is that surely each application should be treated on its merits. That is absolutely fundamental and when determining the application of Unitec the Government should allow that process to happen. But it has put up every possible hurdle and obstacle in the road for Unitec. The Government failed in its legislation a couple of years ago and it has now descended to the dizzying depths of bringing in this bill. The third key point is whether statutory obligations should be carried out. Undoubtedly Unitec’s application was illegally suspended in May 2000. Even when it was discharged in May 2003 the Minister failed to carry out his statutory obligations. The fourth and final key point is whether the bill will streamline the process. In actual fact the bill does the direct opposite of that. How can those who are to be consulted comment on the national interest when they do not even know whether the institution concerned has the characteristics of a university? No the so-called decision will just be made. How can the Minister take a decision on the national interest without that information? 
This bill is yet another of the excesses of the Labour Government in determining to control whatever it possibly can and it is a huge worry when it tries to do that to our university institutions.