Smith Murray: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Smith Murray: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:16202] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the first reading of the “Education (Unitec Prevention) Amendment Bill” also mistitled the Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill. As has been said by previous speakers this bill is not about establishing universities as much as it is against the establishment of Unitec as a university. This bill is reprehensible in terms of the way that Unitec has been treated. Whatever the rights and wrongs of Unitec’s application to become a university the fact that Unitec has been strung along for 5 years at huge expense and been mucked around by this Government is absolutely reprehensible. I think the more airing that the issue gets and the more that this Government’s attitude towards Unitec on this matter is aired the better it will be. 
The purpose of this bill clearly is to prevent Unitec from registering as a university. It also alters the application process for a tertiary education institution that seeks to be registered as a university. At present institutions submit their proposals to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority which then considers whether the institution should become a university. The bill provides that the Minister must make a decision on the strategic implications of establishing the new university for both the nation and the tertiary education system before a detailed assessment of the criteria can be carried out by the authority. There is a retrospective aspect to this bill in that any current applications will fall under the bill’s jurisdiction. Unitec is the one such application. 
The Government is obstructing Unitec’s efforts to become a university. This is the third time in 4 years that the Government has drafted legislation to block Unitec. The story began in 1996 when both the Auckland Institute of Technology and Unitec lodged applications to become universities. In November 1999 the Minister disestablished the Auckland Institute of Technology and established the Auckland University of Technology. In 2000 both the change of Government and the threat of legal action by the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee halted Unitec’s final tick-off. Unitec argues with some force that the way it has been treated is unconstitutional and is a breach of the well-established principle that the executive should not suspend the law or the application of the law without the authority of the legislature. It relies on section 1 of the Bill of Rights 1688 and also on  
Fitzgerald 
 v  
Muldoon  
a 
case reported in 
 New Zealand Law Reports 
 1976 Volume 2 at page 615. 
The fact that Unitec has been singled out like that is simply not a very good look for any Government. But it reflects the sort of ideology of this Government which comes through in terms of its education policy and has been well seen throughout the approach that it takes. Indeed it has been reported to me that Howard Fancy made a comment publicly not long ago that when this Government came into power the ministry had one policy objective and the Government had a multitude of policy objectives. That just shows the amount of political interference and involvement that there has been in the development of education policy. It shows that blind ideology dominates over common sense over rational planning and over the best interests of New Zealand. 
Unitec argues that excluding it from university status serves no useful purpose. It has argued that in the competitive market model there has been such an overlap between universities of society which traditionally study the humanities and pure science and the newer universities of the economy often known as institutes or universities of technology that the two are virtually indistinguishable. Dr John Webster Unitec’s chief executive officer said that the Minister had obviously decided that Unitec now meets the criteria for university status so comfortably that if a fair assessment was conducted the Minister would find it hard to turn down the application. It is very hard to argue against that conclusion. 
Both the Association of University Staff and the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee have endorsed the bill. They support restrictions on the number of universities arguing that New Zealand needs to have a greater level of investment in the existing universities rather than more universities. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Of course! 
MURRAY SMITH 
: Of course one would expect them to argue that. There is something of a degree of self-interest involved no doubt in their comments. The Association of University Staff and the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee are concerned that any increase would upset the Performance-based Research Fund result and could threaten the international reputation of the New Zealand university sector. The association would also like to see the bill go further by restricting the term “university” from usage by private establishments. 
However this bill does give an opportunity for a lot of examination of the whole area of university structure. United Future members have a number of questions that they want to see addressed during the select committee process and we will support the bill’s referral to the select committee in order to hear submissions and start addressing those issues. Our support for the bill is not beyond the first reading because of the real concerns that we have about it. Some of the questions we want to see addressed are questions like whether there are too many universities whether we have too many of the same model of university at present and whether there are other models. I have heard New Zealand First suggest that maybe we ought to expand the meaning of “university” and bring in some other models and I think that is a worthy issue to pursue. Then there is the question of whether New Zealand is big enough to sustain more universities of the same scale as the current institutions. In 2002 Auckland University received $197 million Otago University received $129 million and even the Auckland University of Technology—the best comparison with Unitec—received $75 million. Universities are expensive. Another question to consider is whether the hundred million dollars that would likely have to be spent on Unitec is the best way to spend our education dollar. Should early childhood education take priority over another university? In 2003 Unitec received $55.8 million from the Government. If it became a university that amount could easily double. 
This bill is evidence of strategic planning by the Government for the university sector. However New Zealand needs to have a better focus for the overall tertiary sector. If the Government is to continue investing in universities New Zealand needs to have an improved designation for universities. Their purpose both individually and as part of the greater university sector needs to be examined and better described. Research functions alone cannot be the only criteria to evaluate universities on. What about teaching standards? Primarily universities carry that dual function yet there is a dearth of research and evaluation in terms of teaching standards and that really is what we should be looking at very closely. 
To support this bill is to consent to the transfer of a large amount of power even if that power is not used frequently to the Minister of Education. Can the current Minister or any future Minister be trusted to act in the words of the bill in the interests of the tertiary education system or the nation over and above his or her political ideology? I think not. At present the Tertiary Education Commission is unable to take a leading role in the direction of the universities. It remains a fledgling bureaucracy which hampers the strategic planning of the tertiary sector. That is another issue that we ought to examine. For other tertiary education institutions seeking reclassification as universities this bill would indeed save them substantial amounts of time and money and that approach is welcome. I understand that a proposal can cost in the vicinity of $500000 on the part of the institution and that that would be matched by an equally large amount from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority in order to assess it against the criteria. To request a reclassification straight from the Minister would be somewhat less expensive than that. 
In terms of the restructuring of institutions and the approach that is taken in the bill there is some commendation for sorting out the overall policy objectives before institutions are put to the extent of using valuable resources which could well be wasted at the end of the day. That does have some merit but I go back to the point that those sorts of issues should have been addressed 5 years ago at the time that Unitec was looking to become a university and not now 5 years later when Unitec has been strung along and has now been put into the position of having to look at court action—and then the Government is looking at frustrating that as it has looked at frustrating other court action. United Future will support this bill’s first reading. We look forward to the continuing debate on it.