Hobbs Marian: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13034] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I rise to support— 
Katherine Rich 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I went for the call a number of times quite audibly. You looked around and you looked around and there was no movement on the other side. I had thought that under the Standing Orders the first person to stand and seek the call would get the nod. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is completely wrong. That is not what the Standing Orders say. The call was Labour’s. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I rise to support the— 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. What you have ruled is absolutely true but it is nevertheless important if those members on the Labour side have the right to take a call that they take it. In this case the member was very very slow in rising to her feet and Katherine Rich had called a number of times before Marian Hobbs actually stood and took the call. Madam Assistant Speaker it could well have been that you may have decided to give Katherine Rich the call. So it is important if members are seeking the call that they do so quickly. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is completely wrong. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Speaking to the point of order Madam Assistant Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on it. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Speaking to the point of order Madam Assistant Speaker I say that it may not have missed your attention but the chairperson of the Education and Science Committee is in the Chamber and I was waiting out of courtesy to see whether he was going to take a call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Ron Mark 
: Speaking to the point of order Madam Assistant Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on it. 
Ron Mark 
: Just in case members of the Opposition had forgotten I say that your ruling is absolutely correct. Those members might like to recall that last week a member from the Opposition side of the House was given the call even though that member was sitting in a seat and had made no attempt to stand and take it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not relevant Mr Mark. We deal with the situation as it happens. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I rise to support the second reading of the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill. I respond in the first place to some of the arguments we have just heard. We were told by Dr Hutchison that there was a huge myriad of defects in the bill. The only one that I heard as valid has been rectified and I still cannot understand why National is opposing the bill. 
Let me take members through that defect. Dr Hutchison quoted from the vice-chancellors when they talked about how the State had a degree of control. The interesting thing was that in the debate that we heard and from the submissions that we heard—and I am sure that the member was in the same select committee that I was in—the vice-chancellors slipped from talk of academic freedom to that of financial autonomy. To talk about financial autonomy of universities when they get 60 percent of their funding from the State is a bit rich. That was the distinction that was being made and the game that was being played. 
So what we did in clause 3 was reiterate for those who are a little slow—and that remark counts for some of the vice-chancellors as well—that the new functions and powers must be exercised in accordance with the existing provisions. This bill is an amendment to an Act so it goes back to the existing provisions in section 161 of that Act which are to enhance academic freedom. That was said over and over again. We have clarified that there is no effect on academic freedom and that there is a rightful responsibility of the State in terms of financial responsibility given that taxpayers’ money is invested heavily in tertiary education. 
The second comment that was made left me smiling very wryly having lived through 5.1. It was not the Labour Government that lifted the lid on 5.1—and if members do not know what I am talking about I tell them that these are the soft courses. When National was so interested in bums on seats and on tertiary success being counted in terms of numbers of bums on seats it was not interested in the calibre of the courses that were being offered to attract those bums on seats. National lifted the cap so that any amount of money could be spent. So the spending went from $13 million to $78 million to over $120 million and Labour has put that cap back on. It was the National Government with its interest in bums on seats that did not worry about the calibre or the quality of the courses. The quality of the courses is what this is all about. 
The question I have to ask the National Party when it gets to reply is that if we have answered its concerns if the whole myriad of defects is only one defect that has been rectified and if the other defect was National’s and that has been rectified too then why is National not voting for this bill? What is so wrong with it that National is not voting for it? I have heard about only two defects—one caused by National and one that was not a defect at all. It seems to me that National will say it will spend a lot of money repealing this legislation. If that is so I would love to understand why. 
The third thing that was said by the previous speaker from the National Party was that tertiary institutions are required by this bill to have long-term plans. That is not so. There are 3-year plans. If institutions want to have a charter as well with 10-year plans they are offered that opportunity but it is not a legal requirement. The simple reason for it not being a legal requirement is that one could have a real difficulty between a 3-year plan and a 10-year plan that was approved by the Minister—one could set up really nice opportunities for lawyers. 
New Zealand’s national development in all areas requires a tertiary education system that performs at the highest level. We have a strong tradition of providing a broad range of educational opportunities for adults be that in the Rural Education Activities Programme be that in schools—the old night schools and community education centres—or be that in the workplace. This is reflected in the fact that we do not differentiate as many other countries do between higher education and universities and other forms of tertiary education. 
Our industry training system for instance is a unique partnership between education and industry which delivers recognised qualifications for learning on the job. New Zealand does not experience the gap that other countries do between the industrial wing if you like and what industry requires and the training organisations. They are meshed together and they work together. The National Party understands that it has members within its own group who have as members of the shearing industry been very much involved in the provision of industry training in that area. 
The tertiary reforms are designed to build on those strengths and extend high quality across the system. In our diverse tertiary education system however one size does not fit all. So Government investment will take account of the distinctive roles that various types of tertiary education organisations play in the sector. A small rural polytech functions very differently from a large urban university or even from a large urban polytech. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: How does the member know that? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Very well and I will not go into that. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Tell us how you know that. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Because I have served on the select committee and I have served as a Minister in that particular ministry—OK? 
The current funding system does not always recognise the diversity of tertiary education organisations. This bill allows a Minister to earmark funding for the different types of organisations which is a flexibility that will help to give New Zealanders access to excellent tertiary education throughout the different organisations in the tertiary sector. 
Many New Zealanders access adult and community education and this plays a vital role in our society. For many it is a first step back into formal learning after leaving school without qualifications—and members know that we have had too many of those people. Every year we celebrate on Adult and Community Education Day the stories—and they often bring tears to the eyes—of people who have come back into learning in New Zealand because of our particular provision of adult and community education. The bill clarifies the current arrangements so that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority can ensure that providers of adult and community education meet the high standards that our communities require. That was not there before. We put money into those adult and community education providers so that they could actually design and build those quality assurance things. This was not done by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority coming over the top of them; it was a case of working with them with funding provided by the Government. 
Overall the bill aims to provide greater certainty for all players in tertiary education. It clarifies the roles of the Minister the Tertiary Education Commission and the tertiary education organisations. It allows for a 3-year planning and funding cycle. It was quite extraordinary to listen to National speakers and not hear them repeat the joy that that was received with by the vice-chancellors. It is much much better than the 1-year funding cycle that they had. This may sound like a minor detail but its implications affect all players in tertiary education. Students will have greater confidence that the course they are studying will be available for the time they need to complete their qualification. Many tutors in tertiary organisations are currently employed part-time and on casual contracts as changes in student numbers from year to year cannot be predicted and student numbers entirely determine funding levels. 
As a result of agreed funding over years in the new system organisations will be able to build up their capability which is something that is desperately needed in order to deliver a certain type of course or qualification be it in information technology or whatever. For example a regional tertiary organisation may decide to deliver a world-class winemaking course. Under the old system the organisation would not have the certainty it would need to have in order to make the necessary investment decisions. In the new system that organisation will have that certainty. 
The bill provides the backbone of a high-quality system. Making these changes requires participation from a range of stakeholders and the bill reinforces the vital role that stakeholders will play in that system. There was a real problem about this in terms of commercially sensitive information. It was made quite clear by the Tertiary Education Commission that although an institution has to declare things to the commission in order to get the funding it does not have to declare that which is privately funded. The institution mentions that it is getting funded but it does not have to give over those commercial secrets or that commercial knowledge. We said that when applying that the commission had to comply with the Official Information Act but the Act provides the commission with options to withhold information provided by those institutions. If the commission received an information request it would likely seek the view of the institution when considering whether to withhold such information or transfer the information request to the institution. 
If New Zealand is to become a high-income knowledge-based economy we need our tertiary education system to respond quickly and effectively. Together with existing legislation which provides for academic freedom this bill provides a framework for an innovative and creative system that can meet the needs of society and the needs of business students Government taxpayers and tertiary organisations themselves. I commend this bill to the House.