Peachey Allan: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peachey Allan: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13189] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak to Part 2 of the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill. It does give me an opportunity to correct an omission when I spoke on Part 1. I acknowledged the role of the officials and the fine outstanding work of Dr Hutchison which I want to repeat and of the National members on the Education and Science Committee. I really should have paid tribute to the Hon Brian Donnelly who led the committee through very difficult and complex stuff without a yawn without missing a point and with a very very good grasp of detail. Although I disagreed with some of the things that Mr Donnelly said when he spoke in the House earlier this afternoon I certainly do respect his grasp of the detail. There is no doubt about it when Mr Donnelly abandons the sinking ship to go to the Cook Islands the select committee will very very much miss his chairmanship. 
Colin King 
: A very good man. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: As Mr King says the committee will be losing a very very good man. In speaking to Part 2 perhaps I could reflect for a minute on one of the things that so many of us are noticing in this Chamber now—Mr Donnelly’s defence of the Government was far more rigorous than the Government has been able to put up for itself. It was interesting to listen to the comments of the Minister in the chair Maryan Street when she spoke; and I just take the opportunity to congratulate her on her promotion and to wish her well. 
When we think about Part 2 the words that kept coming out were “plans plans plans”. Goodness gracious me it took me way back to fifth-form history and the lessons one learnt about the failures of the 5-year-plans of the Communist systems of Europe. I hope we are not falling into that sort of trap—the view that somehow one can plan plan plan and somehow things will get better. Then that marvellous word “commissariat” came out. It is not a word that I have heard for many years but it was dropped into the conversation so readily and so easily and with so little thought that it really does give those of us on this side of the Chamber a little bit of cause to wonder just what the underlying driving ideology is that has come from the other side. 
I also want to take a minute to acknowledge the previous Minister of Tertiary Education and to congratulate him upon his appointment to the vice-chancellorship of Massey University. I think I am right in saying that he will not be the only former member of this House to hold that position. It is going to be really interesting to talk to Mr Maharey in a couple of years’ time and see the extent to which his perspectives have changed and see the extent to which he will be pulling his hair out trying to run a university under the plans and other constraints that are being imposed by his very colleagues. 
One would have to reflect a little bit on the irony of the situation. We are debating Part 2 because Mr Maharey when he was Minister for Tertiary Education made a bit of a botch of things. They put Dr Cullen in to sort of tidy it up and now they have landed it on poor Pete Hodgson. In 12 months’ time the original cause of the trouble will be trying to run a university under this constraint. 
When I reflect on the provisions of clause 2 I must say is not the House fortunate to have a man with the understanding of the industry training sector that my colleague Mr King has? Did he not speak well in drawing the Committee’s attention to the issues being faced? Would it not have been good if the Labour members on the committee and those in the Chamber had actually instead of being in such a rush to get these controls and these plans and goodness knows what into place taken a little time to listen to what Mr King has been saying and to reflect on what sound observations and advice he has on this subject?