Donnelly Brian: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Donnelly Brian: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13172] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 National members cannot have it both ways. Prior to the last election they had a field day over the excesses of 5.1 funding the singalong courses and the twilight golf courses which actually came about as a result of the uncapping of the equivalent full-time student numbers in 1998. Who was it that uncapped the number of equivalent full-time students in 1998? The consequences of that were first the blowout in the number of equivalent full-time students used by the private training establishments which Labour then put a totally artificial moratorium on. Then there was the blowout in the polytechs and institutes of technology. Then National members had the gall to say: “What we want to do is get rid of any bureaucracy. Let’s go back to ‘bums on seats’ and the uncapped EFTs.” I am sorry but those members cannot have it both ways. 
In this particular case it is the second tranche I guess of the reforms that Labour has attempted to put in. The first one failed somewhat because some of the funding mechanisms were left in place by the former Minister. When Maurice Williamson travelled to Finland and Ireland and studied their tertiary education systems he said that he met up with people who said: “If you plan you are almost certainly not going to get it right. But if you don’t plan you absolutely are not going to get it right.” That is what occurred with the “bums on seats” situation. There was a misalignment. This bill the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill is attempting to achieve some alignment. 
I would be the first to agree that the bill is more heavy-handed in terms of bureaucracy than what existed in the past but we have to look at what occurred as a result of the light-handed bureaucracy in the past. Mr Peachey asked what was wrong with two people sitting in the department running our universities. Well there was only one university in New Zealand then. Members may recall that it was called the University of New Zealand and it was set up in 1876 at the request of Canterbury much to the chagrin of Dunedin. Of course there were a lot fewer students and it was a lot less complex sort of a world. If that is what National wants to take us back to then it really does have a dinosaur policy on tertiary education. I continue to ask this question which I cannot get an answer to: if National gains the Treasury benches will it repeal this legislation? Would it reverse these reforms? National members cannot seem to tell me that. There has been speaker after speaker but no one will address that simple yes or no question. 
I would be the first to admit that the members of the Education and Science Committee worked constructively although from time to time we did have to point out one or two of the basics to Dr Paul Hutchison. For example even when this bill has gone through academic freedom and institutional autonomy will still be protected because it was in the Act anyhow in a different part. In fact we went so far as to say “Let’s just confirm that this is in the other part of the Act as it has got to be considered in this part.” 
What I mean when I say that National cannot have a bob each way is that Dr Hutchison has put up some amendments one of which I would like to talk to because I think it has some merit but the other amendments actually create more bureaucracy. They require even greater levels of consultation and they try to prescribe to the Minister all of the different groups he should be consulting with when at the same time Dr Hutchison says that this measure is too bureaucratic. The North American native indigenous people used to call it talking with a forked tongue. 
The area in which there is some merit—and I think it is a 50:50 call from New Zealand First’s point of view as to whether we will support it—is the amendment about commercially sensitive information. I would like to take a call later if I could to go through this in a bit more detail because I believe it needs explanation. I think that in this particular case there is some merit in the amendment on that particular issue set out on Supplementary Order Paper 161 which is in Dr Hutchison’s name. I am not saying at this point in time that we are going to support it but I can say that I think there is an issue around this one.