Rich Katherine: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Rich Katherine: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13037] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I think it is very nice for the member who has just resumed her seat Marian Hobbs to believe that. I think she wholeheartedly believes everything she has just said. But I can say that there are hundreds and hundreds of academics up and down the country who are totally at odds with her view. I think one of the most telling statements in that whole speech was the comment about academic freedom which I think will send shivers down the spines of many people who work in academia up and down the country: “When 60 percent of funding comes from the State it is a bit rich to expect full academic freedom.” 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I just warn the member that this is a debate. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: It is a debate but I want to lay it on the cards. I was talking about financial autonomy not academic freedom. 
John Hayes 
: Come on Booboo you can do better! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Hayes I am on my feet ruling on a point of order. The member can stand withdraw and apologise. 
John Hayes 
: I stand withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: As I was in the middle of ruling that was not a point of order; it was a point of debate. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: The member can stand and attempt to clarify the issue but I think the impression that those of us on this side of the House were left with was that academic freedom was to be something that academics could not take for granted if they received their money from the State. In fact this was one of the main issues that came up time and time again in many of the submissions. A number of people came along to the select committee and said that one of their major concerns is that this bill could have an impact on their ability to write what they want to write and to offer courses that they want to offer in the event that their courses may be at odds with the Government of the day. To give some evidence of the fact that the National Party has always been a defender of academic freedom I found out today that the Centre for Labour and Trade Union Studies was opened by none other than Maurice Williamson during his tenure in Cabinet. He opened that centre obviously disagreeing with much of the content of the course but he was there as a defender of academic freedom and he opened it. 
The next thing that Marian Hobbs brought up was this debate about the “bums on seats” mentality in tertiary education funding. Well I think it is ironic that that member would raise this as an issue. Which Government was it that put all those bums on seats to do homeopathy for pets? Which Government put all those bums on seats to do radio singalong courses? Thousands and thousands of people signed up for that course and did not complete—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: We just do not want interjections across the floor like that. The member can do it once within reason but not constant like that. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Thousands and thousands of New Zealanders signed up to that course and did not even complete it. Which Government was it that put bums on seats to play golf? Well actually one would not be on a seat; one would be standing on a golf course! What about the pendulum swinging for beginners? What about COOL IT where the tertiary organisation in question handed out loads and loads of discs and vouchers and enrolled thousands of people who never completed the course? I suppose in effect that it was not a “bums on seat” mentality but it was certainly a “get the numbers up and grab as much funding as we can” mentality. Not to mention the crochet jackets for small pets—I might have made that up but given the types of courses this Government was funding—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: That is just too much. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I suppose the quality of courses that this Government was funding at the time gave evidence of the fact that some tertiary reforms were needed. But I think it is important to put this bill into context. Here we are after nearly 8 years of a Labour Government which campaigned in 1998 and 1999 on reforming tertiary education only now bringing in a bill. What we saw from Labour’s tenure was not just a number of glossy documents and brochures which are currently stopping doors as we speak but not a lot of progress. We saw the growth of the Tertiary Education Commission from a handful of staff to over 300 people. We saw the commission open offices up and down the country. We had an office in Dunedin that was designed to interact with stakeholders whatever that means; it can mean everything or nothing depending on who uses the word. Then the Tertiary Education Commission decided that those offices and that structure was not “fit for purpose” which is what it said when we asked about this. It went and closed them all down. So after spending well over $420 million if one looks just at that cost alone we were no further ahead. 
A lot of tertiary providers bought into this new regime and went through a rather expensive process of writing charters and writing profiles. I remember talking to one university that said it would have spent $35000 to $40000 on writing its charter only to get in a position where the Government said: “We don’t want you to do that any more we want you to write another document and we want you to do a plan.” Michael Cullen said in his first speech that this bill was aimed at reducing bureaucracy and at introducing a high-trust model with low compliance designed to protect academic freedom which I have already covered and that it would lead to better allocation of funding. The funny thing is that rather than reduce bureaucracy some tertiary providers will have to do more planning than they did before this plan will eventually be brought in. They will have to do not just their charter but a long-term plan and some will have to do a short-term plan and a medium-term plan as well which brings in more compliance and more writing. Frankly why do we expect universities to plan 10 years out when a lot of Governments cannot do that? A lot of Governments cannot predict what will happen in 10 years. So it just adds to a lot more compliance and a lot more navel gazing. It is all money that is not spent on students and not spent on the provision of courses. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Point me to the clause in the bill that says that. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I will not do that but I will point to the report that the member signed off. A little addition in the commentary to the bill under the heading of “Charters” says that the committee members had considered the arguments for charters and that they believed “long-term planning is integral to the governance of an institution”. So one has to do not only these charters but additional planning documents—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No look that really is the final warning to members. 
John Hayes 
: Yes! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Well that member is lucky too. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: We really do appear to have hit a nerve tonight. I think that Marian Hobbs may not be as au fait with the bill as she thinks she might be. 
The aim of this bill was to reduce compliance and reduce the amount of reporting. The upshot is that it will require the production of more plans in terms of the process and more accountability. I do not think we are any further ahead—let alone before we have the debate about the types of courses. The Tertiary Education Commission can dress things up as much as it likes but really what it is bringing in is a blunt mechanism of determining the number of seats it will provide for limited funding. There is no fancy way of doing this. Although the member over there says that it is not a “bums on seats” mentality someone still has to determine how many seats will be provided. We have some concerns about some of the decisions that have been made and that will be made in certain areas that we have been tracking in the education sector particularly when there are long-term shortages for certain types of staff. 
Tonight we have heard some interesting comments about competition. The previous speaker also said that this will get rid of competition and that competition is a bad thing. Well I can report to that member that students are not thick. Students will still decide to go to certain universities because they have an interest in a certain subject and they know of a professor or a course that is held in high regard. They will determine to go to one university as opposed to another because there is an expectation that they will get an audience with people who are of a higher calibre depending on what the perception might be. We will never get rid of competition between universities or other tertiary providers because students will continue to make decisions based on the information they have and so they should. That brings higher quality into the sector. It ensures that people are honest with their funding and are accountable to their communities. 
I have already made a comment about “stakeholders” which is the most overused word in this bill. What does it mean? It can mean everything; it can mean nothing. The stakeholder-negotiation investment people I think are basically a waste of money and probably designed to have cups of tea with people rather than to make some decisions regarding the tertiary education sector.