MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this
I am happy to take a call on the first reading of the Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly from New Zealand First. Labour will be supporting this bill going to the Education and Science Committee. Of course, it is part of our confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First to further explore a university of technology, or non-university, class of institution, and I know that this is an issue that the member in charge of this bill has been interested in for a very, very long time through various bills in the House. I think this bill has come at a good time with the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill currently at the select committee. The Government will be looking very closely at the debate that occurs at the select committee, as we decide what to do beyond that.
The Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill is an interesting bill; it concerns an issue that has been around for a while. It looks to establish universities of technology, which are dual-sector institutions sitting between universities and polytechnics. They will provide teaching in applied and vocational education and training across a full range of levels, from foundation courses to higher degrees. The bill sets out a series of characteristics defining how such an institution would look, but it does not set out the criteria for judging when or how they should be established. Of course, if this bill is passed through the House, that issue would need to be urgently addressed, and policy would need to be developed to cover those questions. As I said, this bill has come at a very opportune time with the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill currently at the select committee.
The tertiary education strategy for 2007-12 includes priority outcomes. Part of that is a focus on the importance of increasing achievement of higher-level vocational skills. Members may be aware of the recent Leitch report from the UK, which suggests that intermediate level training—roughly our level 4 to 6 skills—has a significant impact on the productivity of the workforce, and I am sure that is something the select committee will be looking at. Increasing the capacity and the capability of the tertiary sector to meet this increased need for higher-level vocational skills has been identified by the Tertiary Education Commission and the groups working on benchmarking as a key area that needs to be developed.
But, of course, there are two different approaches that could be taken, given where we are with the tertiary reforms and the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill, which is at the select committee. One way to go—one end of the spectrum—is to create a distinctive university of technology class as this bill does. However, many of the benefits of such a class of tertiary education organisation could be realised in any case without the establishment of such a status, and without some of the disadvantages—and there are some—of the university of technology concept. Many of those disadvantages have been looked at in this House over a number of bills. They include transition costs, potential lack of focus on core business by institutions striving for a new status, and—of course—strong opposition from the university sector, although that may not be seen by some as a reason not to do it.
The alternative approach recognises that we can achieve major strategic change and the appropriate level of differentiation without the system being put in place through the tertiary reforms, without introducing a new class of institution, and focusing particularly on the polytechnic sector as a way of delivering this. Under this approach the Tertiary Education Commission would give positive encouragement to polytechnics that are developing high-level provision to meet a strategic need. This approach would fit well with the emerging distinctive contributions approach, while allowing for new thinking about the issue.
I think the select committee consideration of the bill is going to be very interesting. Establishing a university of technology category would bring us into line with overseas jurisdictions, where such a category is very common. That means that institutions that are interested in becoming universities of technology would find it easier to promote themselves accurately overseas in a way that they, perhaps, find difficult to do now, because the term “university” is protected and they are not allowed to use it. Under this bill the term “university of technology” would be protected, and it too would be used as a marketing tool under strict guidance. As I said before, we would need to see how that would work in terms of the policy development of those criteria.
In the 1990s, when effectively a market model was put in our tertiary institutions, and we moved to the “bums on seats” model, many universities did go into areas that polytechnics and institutes of technology traditionally work in. So it is not uncommon to see different sectors moving. Of course, that option was not open to institutions that were not universities. I think it is probably fair to say that the market value of the word “university” is still very high. That could be seen as a reason for allowing other institutions to use the term, in order to market themselves effectively overseas, just as it could be seen as a reason for keeping the term, in order to make sure we do not dilute that brand in any way. I am sure that will be a hotly contested issue at the select committee between the various interested groups.
I finish by looking at the situation in Australia. The Australians too have two kinds of universities. The term “university of technology” is commonly used in Australia. Those institutions are very well known for their professional skills, and that has developed quite well. I know there are many institutions that simply want to see a level playing field; they do not feel that there is a fair playing field. We will be looking at that issue at the select committee. As I said before, Labour will be supporting this bill at this stage.
METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this
I will take just a short call on the Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill to say the Green Party is very pleased to be supporting it going to the select committee.
We really appreciated the Hon Brian Donnelly’s clear discussion about the history of the tertiary sector, in his speech on this bill. It is very useful to understand the history of the tertiary sector and how it came about in the way it did, in order to look at ways of reforming it—and reforming it in quite serious ways, as this bill suggests we might.
The Greens recognise that the sector itself has real issues with this bill, and we are looking forward to hearing those issues come through at the select committee. Some institutions have worked very hard to achieve their status under the current regime, and they would understandably feel somewhat aggrieved that we will provide an alternative mechanism for other institutions to achieve the same status in a slightly easier way. The fact is that if reform is needed, we do need to look at it seriously. We will listen to the submissions from the tertiary sector so we can understand those concerns better, and see whether we can find the best possible way of dealing with those concerns.
We value the concept of an institution that elevates the trades and vocational education, and bridges the gap between the practical needs of a trade or a vocation and the opportunity for research and advanced skills in the area. I think Mr Donnelly is quite right when he says that the needs in the trades and vocations area have become increasingly complex over time, and require a higher level of educational engagement. That is perfectly reasonable. Technological changes and the developing needs of society are driving that change, so we need to have a tertiary sector that can readily meet those opportunities. This is especially so when we consider the nature of the global environment and the changes in it, the increasing understanding of peak oil and the need for energy alternatives, the impacts of climate change on all aspects of our society, and the need to be really prepared for the changes that are inevitably coming.
One obvious area where this is so is the building trade; it is the most obvious, and it is probably the most common. The very interesting Ministry for the Environment publication called Value Case for Sustainable Building in New Zealand states: “Internationally, government and other public bodies are increasingly asking for sustainable buildings, which are also being widely encouraged and implemented by a responsive property construction sector. This has led to increasingly sophisticated and innovative building designs and technologies that encourage both energy conservation and CO2 reduction.” It goes on to say: “We are in an excellent position”—in this country—“to become leaders in sustainable building.” The same opportunities that are reflected in that comment can be found in the energy sector, in transportation, in planning, and in many other areas that are traditional trades and vocations. But these opportunities can be pursued only if the trade and vocational educational institutions are able to provide a quality bridging opportunity from certificate to postgraduate courses, with the full capacity to also engage in high-level research in those areas. It is a perfectly understandable and reasonable extension of this area of the tertiary education sector.
I also believe that there is considerable advantage to Māori and Pacific Islanders in these kinds of institutions. Māori are still highly overrepresented in the lower levels of certificate and diploma courses. We know that 93 percent of Māori women in tertiary education are studying at that lower certificate level. But we also know that Māori women with postgraduate or higher degrees have the highest median income of all ethnicities. What this means, in effect, is that Māori women start a long way back when it comes to tertiary education, they are doing catch-up from a secondary school system that has failed them, but they work their way up systematically through the tertiary sector into the high level of degrees. If they can do it, they are very highly sought after in the workforce, and the outcomes for them and their whānau are exceptional. So institutions that can provide a seamless educational pathway, from the certificate level to postgraduate degrees, will provide Māori women, and others having to play catch-up, with very accessible pathways to a quality education, a quality income, and positive lifestyle outcomes at the end.
That is, effectively, the Green Party position; we do not need to expand on it too much more. As I say, the issues are complex; we understand that they are not simple. We will be looking forward to further investigation at the select committee, and we congratulate the Hon Brian Donnelly on having this bill brought out of the ballot and debated tonight. Kia ora.
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. The focus of the Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill is very much a topic of passion for the tertiary sector. Adding a new category of institution—“university of technology”—is a proposal that I know will generate much heat.
The central premise of the bill, which is that more flexibility is needed to better recognise dual-sector institutions, is an argument in which we have considerable interest, in terms of the argument for kotahitanga—our unity of purpose. In an environment that aspires to promote the growth of knowledge—as one would expect to find in education environments—we believe that we should value every contribution as part of the collective pursuit. We also believe that the expression of manaakitanga towards others requires us to work collaboratively in the spirit of mutual respect and harmonious relationships.
The central challenge confronting Parliament is that institutions with an exclusive focus such as those that the Education Act interprets for universities, polytechs, colleges of education, specialist colleges, or wānanga should not be threatened by the existence of a new category of institution—namely “university of technology”. However, this is not the first time that the question of definition has entered the tertiary sector. A paper given by Aroha Te Pareake Mead at the United Nations workshop on traditional knowledge, held in Panama City in 2005, chronicles a very similar journey for whare wānanga. Mead argues that although mainstream universities have translated their name into te reo Māori—for example, Victoria University being translated to Te Whare Wānanga o te Ūpoko o te Ika a Māui Aoteaora—they were vehemently opposed to the whare wānanga taking on the name “university”. The opposition to this became so intense that the New Zealand Vice-Chancellor’s Committee lodged a complaint with the Minister of Education and the Advertising Standards Authority that Te Whare Wānanga o Aotearoa was describing itself as a university of New Zealand. Yet, ironically, at no time did the universities ever acknowledge the inconsistency in their own use of a traditional Māori term.
Other aspects of interpretation and definition surround this bill. We have heard concerns that the bill is advancing the commodification of education—that is, in promoting a view that education should be exported as a commodity in the international market, the bill overlooks the importance of education as the transfer of knowledge. Another interpretation of the bill is that it is not just about Unitec but about the transformation of the tertiary sector. Such a view put forward by Unitec is that changing the categories may have a transformative effect on the very nature of learning. People will be more able to engage in education and will benefit from more diverse opportunities to research, design, develop, learn, and teach trades and vocations.
We know that a key concern for Māori is that the policy of strategic relevance that the Tertiary Education Commission believes to be the pathway forward may not necessarily connect with what Māori communities are looking for in education. As Te Wānanga o Raukawa recently told us, it is quite possible for the Government to hit the target but miss the point. What remains uppermost in our analysis of this bill is the need for the Crown to make a commitment to actively protect the taonga that is mātauranga Māori, as well as to ensure that there is an opportunity for all to make a distinctive contribution to the nation’s tertiary education sector. We believe in transformation and we believe in liberation. We most certainly believe in the revolutionary impact of education.
The Māori Party will therefore support this bill going to the select committee, in order to allow the tertiary sector and the public to have a say. I take this opportunity to congratulate Brian Donnelly on presenting this bill to the House. Kia ora.
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) Link to this
I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the first reading of the Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill. We support this first reading. We do not have representation on the select committee that will be responsible for working on this bill, but we plan to keep a keen eye on what submitters have to say, because this bill presents us with some very real tensions that we hope the select committee will be able to make sense of and resolve.
On one hand, we have career tracks that have progressed over the years from what may have been described in the early years as apprenticeship level training, through to, in this day and age with the development of technology, studies and disciplines that mirror in terms of complexity and standards of competency the commitment that academic disciplines demand. On the other hand, we have a growing disquiet about the possible perception that New Zealand universities are not of international standing due to a gradual process of dumbing down our definition of what constitutes a university. The tension is not about some sort of academic snobbery, but rather about how we categorise institutions that provide credible training with a clear career outcome in mind alongside institutions that produce quality research as well as the teaching of academic disciplines, in a way that still maintains New Zealand qualifications at an international standard that is well recognised and well understood.
The bill suggests, it seems, that universities of technology can straddle the divide between a university and a polytechnic, allowing students to progress through to doctoral studies, and to marry in a tidy fashion both practical and theoretical practice. United Future has had some very interesting discussions within our own caucus and separately with tertiary providers about the possibility that the sponsor of this bill is suggesting. We have not currently reached a fixed position on what should happen. So on that basis we are very happy to see the bill proceed to the select committee. We believe, however, that there is already some confusion in New Zealand within the tertiary education sector as to how to understand and differentiate between institutions. If this bill can bring greater clarity, we will be thrilled to continue to support it, but we are looking for that clarity. We congratulate the sponsor of the bill on putting it forward, and on being brave enough to take up the debate, which is probably long overdue.
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) Link to this
On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill. At present in New Zealand we have a university of technology that is not a university of technology. The reason is that within New Zealand there is no such thing as a university of technology. If we are to accept the information given by the president of the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors’ Committee, that institution is not a university either—or, at least, not yet. The Auckland University of Technology is, in fact, by classification a university. However, it would appear that, when measured by all the criteria of a university, it is not considered by its peers to be a university.
In 1990 the Education Amendment Act enabled institutions other than universities to confer degrees. This is notwithstanding the requirement within the Education Act 1989 that degrees be taught within a research-based environment. Society was experiencing an accelerating sophistication of technological skills and knowledge. I will give the House an example. In 1990 radiology was taught through Auckland Hospital. It was a 2-year course, resulting in a diploma qualification. Basically, it taught students how to deal with X-rays, the necessary safety measures, and the mechanisms for achieving images of bones. A very basic understanding of physics was required. Nowadays, students are required to understand magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, and a range of other technologies and therapies. One almost needs a degree in physics in order to understand the new technologies. No longer can we recognise the skills and the knowledge required with just a diploma. Indeed, not only have such skill levels been recognised with bachelor’s degrees; they are now recognised with master’s degrees.
As polytechnics have responded to the increasing sophistication of technological knowledge, some, particularly those that have had a significant body of PhDs being undertaken, raise questions about the concept of parity of esteem for their qualifications in relation to university qualifications. Whether or not we like it, the public perception is that the qualifications offered by traditional universities are somehow superior. However, if I can quote Joce Jesson: “What continually gets ignored in the public debate is that standards set by NZQA for the degrees conferred by the new institutions require higher levels of regulation, compliance, and oversight than many of those offered by the traditional university.”
In 1996, both the Auckland Institute of Technology and Unitec decided to make applications for university status. There is a very broad definition of what a university is in the Act. The problem was that nobody knew what this definition meant in detail. As a consequence, international panels were contracted to provide greater details. One of the criteria set was that the proportion of sub-degree students—that is, certificate and diploma students—compared with graduate and postgraduate students, had to be less than what both the Auckland Institute of Technology and Unitec were providing at the time. The imposition of this criterion meant that to become universities, both of these institutions would have to reduce the number of sub-degree programmes. However, the capacity of these institutions to range from sub-degree programmes to degree programmes was their very greatest strength.
At a time when there is a desperate shortage of technical and vocational skills, the last thing that we need is a situation where all of the incentives for our most successful vocational and technical institutions are to reduce their number of sub-degree programmes. Yet that is what the current environment does.
What this bill is trying to do is create a class of tertiary institution that is neither a university nor a polytechnic, but displays the characteristics of both. Such an institution would offer degree and postgraduate programmes equivalent to those of a university, but with the focus on the technical and the vocational. Research would be practically based, rather than being the blue-sky research of universities. Courses would be taught in a currency-based or scholarship-based environment, rather than in a research-based one. What this means is that teachers would have to be up to date with current knowledge in their areas, rather than being actively involved in research activities. At the same time, such institutions would have a heavy emphasis on sub-degree programmes in the technology areas, and would be able to ensure that students had diploma to degree programmes available.
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) Link to this
The Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill is intended to amend the Education Act of 1989 by establishing a new category of institution, a university of technology. The National Party will support this bill going to the select committee stage, because that will give an opportunity for those with a direct interest in the sector to express their views. I have to say that at this point in time the only person who has spoken to me and who is in favour of this bill is its sponsor, and I do congratulate the Hon Brian Donnelly on the work he has done and on his willingness to take up the cause.
I am also very conscious, of course, of the work that has been put in by Unitec and its chief executive, and of the interest that organisation has in this bill. However, I am also conscious that in supporting this bill going to a select committee, this House will be imposing a major obligation on tertiary institutions to come before the select committee and present their view either in favour or to the contrary of this proposal. That will be an expensive and a time-consuming operation, but I can assure those institutions that those of us who are on the Education and Science Committee will value their input and listen very, very carefully to what they have to say. The select committee will have a very significant role to play with regard to this bill, and my expectation would be that the way that the select committee goes will ultimately decide the fate of the bill.
Some very big claims are being made on behalf of the bill, and at the select committee those claims will be scrutinised very carefully. Four in particular stand out. One is the suggestion that more flexibility is needed in order to better recognise dual-sector institutions that provide pathways for both sub-degree and degree education.