Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) Link to this

This is important legislation that is designed to determine the future of polytechnics in New Zealand. I am delighted to support the bill.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this

I think it is wonderful to be able to get up and support the Minister of Education, Anne Tolley, in her moving of the second reading of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill, especially in terms of the way that she was so well supported and the depth of understanding that was apparent in the speech that she left for Minister Gerry Brownlee, who was acting on her behalf. I am not referring to the absence from the House of the Minister of Education, but I say that her lack of making a speech is, I think, indicative of her level of understanding of this particular legislation.

In fact, if we want to give credit where credit is due, this legislation is owned by one member in this House. Only one member in this House supports the bill as it has been reported back in this particular shape, and that member is the Hon Roger Douglas. The point that we got to on this legislation was one of stalemate.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I note that the Minister of Education was in the House. I am quite happy to give leave for her to take the rest of the time for her speech and to follow her when she has made it properly.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) Link to this

I am delighted to stand in support of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill, in the name of Minister Tolley, at its second reading. We on this side of the House recognise that education is vital to the economy of this country. That is why education was one of our major planks in an election where we were overwhelmingly supported by the country.

Polytechnics are extremely important to local communities and our national economy. This sector has indicated that the way polytechs are currently governed is inefficient. What we need as a country, in terms of making our economy stronger, is institutions that are strong, sound in terms of their financial management, and responsive to the needs of their local communities. This includes meeting the changing needs of employers, communities, iwi, and others who need high-quality vocational education.

In terms of areas of change, there are many proposals in the bill. I did not hear the member who has just resumed his seat, Trevor Mallard, speak much about them, at all. I do not know that he necessarily understood the bill, because I did not hear him talk about it very much. The bill proposes that polytech councils be reduced in size from 20 to eight members. These eight include the four ministerial appointees. There were 56 submissions, and submitters had a range of views about the members and who should make up the council. I thought it would be useful to share some of their thoughts rather than some of the ranting of the previous speaker. Waiariki Institute of Technology is in the Taupō electorate. It currently has a strong co-governance model, and it wanted to see that any ministerial appointments were balanced by an equal number of appointments by the iwi authority. The change the Education and Science Committee has come up with in terms of those four members appointed by the council would allow them to do that. It gives them the flexibility to choose a model that will work for their polytech, and that is what this bill is about. It is about improving governance and making sure that the communities are able to choose a council structure that works for them.

Ngāi Tahu also said they wanted a 50:50 model. One of their comments was that they agreed that the chief executive officer did not necessarily have to be a member of the council. In the second reading version of the bill, councils can choose for themselves. This is important, and I think the previous speaker completely ignored or perhaps did not understand that the bill gives polytechnic councils the choice of those four members. Councils, of course, are in partnership with the Crown, so there will be four ministerial appointees and four appointed by the council, and the council can choose how it is made up to best suit its needs. This Government recognises that not all polytechs are the same, so we are allowing that degree of flexibility.

I will give members a couple of other examples. Tai Poutini Polytechnic agreed that the academic board and student representative were not necessary, and that the focus should be on skill. A couple of other submitters were strongly in favour of strong governance and the need to improve governance skills on the council. Unitec was another polytechnic that was supportive of the change from a representative model, and Wintec was also supportive, not believing that—as the Opposition might try to tell us—the changes would limit academic freedom. They were supportive of these changes. We also heard about some of the other polytechs, like the Universal College of Learning, that use a governance matrix when they are recruiting and selecting members to make sure that the balance of skills is appropriate so that it makes the council as strong as possible going forward.

Another area that this bill addresses—which was not discussed at all by the previous speaker, so I wonder whether he remembers the bill at all—concerns flexible interventions. The bill proposes a gradually escalating series of responses to the risks that polytechs may face, such as financial or educational problems. I think it is important to remember that the focus of this bill is making sure that we have the best polytechs and the strongest polytechs in terms of both financial and educational outcomes. The select committee recommended some additions to the terms and conditions, and they were taken into consideration. A number of changes were incorporated as a result of the feedback that submitters gave us, which is an important part of the select committee process. That is an important point to note.

Another key change was the option for the Minister for Tertiary Education to combine the councils of two or more polytechs if they have themselves recommended that they be combined and if the Minister is satisfied that their communities have been consulted. Again, this is another level of choice for the polytech councils involved. It reinforces choice for the councils themselves, which is something members on this side of the House encourage, so that we can allow the polytechs to have a bit of flexibility to make choices for themselves.

Another key highlight, which is a significant part that was supported by all of the submitters, was the setting up of the tertiary high school in South Auckland, which basically will be up and running at the Manukau Institute of Technology by the beginning of 2010. I am delighted to speak in support of the second reading of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. Thank you.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) Link to this

The Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill represents nothing but bad news for the students of polytechnics, for the staff of polytechnics, and for the regional communities of New Zealand. It is essentially a power grab by the Minister of Education. Certainly, this bill will allow the Government to intervene more rapidly when polytechnics have issues with financial or educational performance, but the Minister will not stop there. The bill will allow the Government to intervene in the affairs of polytechnics that are performing, as well as of the ones that are not performing. In order for that to happen, local communities, staff, and students will be denied a say in the governance of their institutions, and to Labour that is unacceptable.

The bill reduces the size of polytechnic councils, ostensibly to improve their effectiveness and capability. In practice, it means that councils of 12 to 20 members will be reduced to just eight members, four of whom are ministerial appointees. Those appointees will include the chairperson and the deputy chairperson. Representatives of anyone other than the Minister are not so welcome on the proposed new councils. There will be one academic board member appointed by the council, a community member appointed by the council, one student representative, and the chief executive officer. On the proposed new councils, what the Minister says goes. We keep hearing from members on the other side of the House that this Government is about choice, about personal choice and individual responsibility, and is not about telling people what to do, and then what does it do here? It gives all the power to the Minister, and says she has the final say and is the only one who can determine what goes on.

The decisions of a polytechnic council primarily affect the staff and the students of that polytechnic. Why, then, does the Minister believe that staff and students do not deserve to have guaranteed, adequate representation on that council? We should be preserving their right to be heard in the decision-making process, rather than adopting the attitude of “this Minister knows best”. There will be some representation for staff and students, but it will not be enough. The Government claims these changes will increase the efficiency of the councils. In reality, the Government is stripping the councils of legitimacy as it denies key stakeholders the right to make their voices heard.

For many New Zealanders, community polytechnics provide a vital service. They are right in the heart of their community. Why, then, is there no guaranteed place under this bill for a community representative? Why does the community not deserve to have a say in the governance of its local polytechnic? Under the proposed new form of the councils, there is no room for community representatives should a polytechnic serve more than one community, as many polytechnics do. Which community will be represented on the council of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology? Who will miss out? I guess that is entirely up to the Minister to decide.

In this bill the Government notes that it is desirable in principle for a council to include Māori representatives and to reflect socio-economic and ethnic diversity within the community. However, it makes no effort whatsoever to guarantee either. We see in this bill, as we have seen in the Auckland super-city legislation, an example of the National Government’s attitude towards Māori representation. National shows a complete disregard for the rights of Māori to be represented and for the value that this representation would bring.

The Labour Party supports some provisions in this bill, which we believe will make a positive difference. We have consistently supported the establishment of the tertiary education high school at the Manukau Institute of Technology, and we will continue to do so. Ensuring that high school students who would otherwise be likely to leave school without qualifications will be provided with other opportunities to gain qualifications is important to us. Labour is committed to making sure that at-risk students do not fall through the gaps, and initiatives such as this one are important steps towards achieving this goal.

Having said that, I say the other provisions of this bill make it impossible for Labour to support it. We do not support restricting the right of Māori, of students, of staff, and of communities to participate in the decision-making processes of their local polytechnics. These polytechnics belong to their communities. The right of members of the community to be represented on the council of their local polytechnic should not be disregarded. Why does the Government want to restrict Māori, student, staff, and community representation? Why does it want to slash these representative bodies to half their current size? Although this bill targets only polytechnics, I cannot help but wonder what the Minister will do next. What else does she have in her sights? Will universities or wānanga be next in line to get this treatment, and for what purpose?

The provisions in this bill send a clear message to New Zealand’s regional communities, which highly value the skills and training that their local polytechnics provide. The Government obviously does not trust those communities to be decision makers when it comes to the governance of their polytechnics. The Government obviously does not respect their input. That attitude is simply wrong. In this case the Minister does not know best—I do not know whether there are any cases where she does know best—and Labour will not be supporting this bill.

Unfortunately, I am not on the Education and Science Committee, but I have heard from many of our select committee members about what went on there, and about their views regarding this legislation. The Labour members of the committee had grave concerns about the passage of this legislation, with the exception of, as I said, the provisions that will enable secondary school students to attend tertiary high school at the Manukau Institute of Technology. That is the one measure in this bill that we support. The concerns of the Labour members of the select committee were, firstly, that there has been no adequate explanation of why this legislation is necessary for the polytechnic sector alone, out of the whole tertiary education sector. Members on the Labour side of the House believe that either the Minister is operating on the basis of outdated information regarding the polytechnic sector or she has intentions for this part of the sector that she does not have for other parts of the tertiary education sector—and, quite frankly, we would find that to be rather bizarre. The purpose of such limiting provisions, which hand considerable power in respect of the running of institutions over to the Minister and restrict community representation, is ultimately unclear.

Next, I say we oppose the absolute reduction in council numbers from 14 to 20 members down to eight. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, this restricts the number of community representatives able to be appointed to polytechnic councils, and that limits the perspectives able to be brought to the education that a polytechnic might offer to its region. That potentially impoverishes the educational opportunities available in the regions, in our view. There is no clear purpose for this provision, given that the operating cost of the councils is not large or excessive. The only purpose that can be divined is for the Minister to be able to exercise more control over polytechs. The ultimate purpose for that, however, is still unclear, as I mentioned earlier.

A particular concern for us regarding the reduction in the number of council members relates to situations where a polytechnic serves more than one community—for example, the University College of Learning, which serves Palmerston North, Wanganui, and the Wairarapa district. There is no guarantee that those diverse communities, with differing educational needs, will have their needs represented at the council level. This was the subject of submissions from mayors in various areas, an unusual occurrence in itself and one that reflected the level of their concern about these provisions.

We will not be supporting this bill. Thank you.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) Link to this

Tēnā koutou katoa. I would love to get up and support a great educational bill that would advance the kaupapa of tertiary education, which is a sector dear to the hearts and minds of my party, where several of us have worked over many years, and for which we feel a strong solidarity and a desire to see improvement for the benefit of the students of Aotearoa New Zealand. But this bill is not it. The Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill is not supported by the Green Party. Throughout the select committee process Metiria and I could never discover why it was so important to the Government, for evidence that there was widespread governance failure across the country’s polytechnics was never established by anyone. This bill is thoroughly interventionist and contradicts the endless ideological bleating about the nanny State by the Government and the ACT Party, which are supporting it. It shows little faith in polytechnics, nor yet in the ability of communities to sensibly govern those institutions, which are of great importance to the educational opportunities of many communities, especially for second-chance learning and in regional areas.

With reference to the underlying drivers for the bill, as the Tertiary Education Union said to us in its submission, this is a traditional private sector model based on false crisis assumptions. As the Human Rights Commission submission said, there are serious concerns about ministerial powers. Of course, the Green Party supports the proper management and governance of polytechnics, and the good use of public money to that end, but we are not convinced those issues are seriously addressed in this bill.

We have a number of very serious concerns, which are described in our minority view in the commentary on the bill, and were outlined in the first reading speech that Metiria Turei made. Those concerns are based on listening carefully to the submitters. On the substantive issue of the reduced size and make-up of the polytechnic councils, the submitters to the select committee were many and varied, but the majority were extremely concerned about the reduction in the number of council members. Many were prepared to accept that 12 to 20 members were too many, but few of them thought that eight was by any means adequate in terms of numbers. The fact that four members will be appointed by the Minister will severely reduce councils’ ability to represent communities and to involve key groups such as tāngata whenua, staff representation, student representation, chief executive officers, as well as those diverse communities—not to mention union or employer representation, which is vital in a vibrant tertiary institution. If there are to be eight council members, with four appointed by the Minister, there is already a strong opportunity for bias and control, and we can add to that a reduction in opportunity for various community voices.

The first and fundamental issue is Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It was shameful that Ngāi Tahu and other tāngata whenua had to come and explain to the select committee that, as mana whenua of Aoraki, they were accustomed to operating effective Treaty-based relationships as of right with local learning institutions such as Aoraki Polytechnic. In this bill they are now being treated as a stakeholder in the community, and may or may not have representation on polytechnics, depending on the whim of a council as to whether it feels it is appropriate to choose such representatives. Their views were echoed by many other submitters, who thought we were past arguing about the status of the Treaty in this kind of context. The new section 222AC(1) could be seen as a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi when it states that when appointing members of a polytechnic it is “desirable in principle” to include Māori and ethnic minorities. “Desirable in principle” means if they feel like it, if it seems like a good idea—but where is the te Tiriti recognition? That is retrogressive in the extreme. It is worsened by the fact that only four positions are available to the community. Of course one of the ministerial appointments might be tangata whenua, but “desirable in principle” does not reflect in any way the obligations of kāwanatanga under te Tiriti to recognise the rangatiratanga. It is “desirable”, but then so is world peace. It will not be required under this law.

During the process, the Government apparently listened to submitters and came back with a modification of section 222AA(1), which was allegedly a response to concerns. This is when things started to get very surreal. The response to concerns was that the four members appointed by the Minister would be set in concrete, and then it would be up to councils as to who they appointed from the other sectors and community candidates. There would be no prescribed positions. Like much other ghastly and Draconian legislation, it was masquerading under the guise of more choice. Choice for whom? The “choice” mantra means that there will be no requirement for student union representation, unless it is chosen over community representation. It is all up to the councils, and the lack of representation of the key, vitally engaged parties is not seen as a problem. It will be councils’ choice, in fact, which sector they ignore.

I will quote from submitters on the issue of numbers. Whitireia Community Polytechnic said to us that academic freedom is a serious issue, and one place must be reserved for mana whenua. They said that a one-size-fits-all approach causes problems because it is not reality. They were prepared to see changes from 10 to 20 members down to 12 members, but not a cap at eight members. The Palmerston North mayor stated that to reduce the number to eight is “impossible for adequate representation”. This issue was also restated by the Eastern Institute of Technology, the Manukau Institute of Technology, the Wairarapa Rural Education Activities Programme, the National Council of Women, Waiariki Polytechnic, The Open Polytechnic, Unitec, the Waikato Institute of Technology, etc., etc. Nobody denied that we might not need 20, but most people overwhelmingly said that eight could not do the job, given the way in which the ministerial appointments had been constructed, and the way in which the community and other appointments would have to compete. The Green Party agrees with the Labour Party’s minority view in the commentary on the bill on all matters pertaining to the reduction in polytech council members and the combined boards.

We do support one part of the bill, and there was a consensus on the select committee. We support clause 17 in Part 1, which relates to enabling Manukau Institute of Technology to provide for tertiary high school students. This is a good practical idea, and it reflects the needs of the community.

But this is a bad bill. We sat there listening to submitter after submitter, wondering whether it was going to change anything, only to find that it did not. When the submitters were so clear about what they wanted out of this legislation—they were extremely clear—it is very disappointing that they were totally ignored. In fact, the position is now worse than it was originally before the first reading of the bill, because now under the mantra of “choice”, polytechnics have to choose whether they will include a student on their boards or whether they will include someone from the community. That is no choice at all for many of our communities, who desperately need to have both at the table, if they are to have an effective polytechnic that truly represents the diversity of their students. As for the issue of Māori representation, this bill is just a disgrace. Quite apart from the issue of the Treaty, if members look at the make-up of the student body at many of these polytechnics, members will see that they are Māori and Pasifika and they want to see their boards reflect their communities from a perspective of knowledge and experience.

So this is a bad bill. It was very disheartening for me as a new member to sit through a select committee process, which is supposed to be an opportunity for improving a bill, only to see it get worse. It made the process feel like token consultation as opposed to an opportunity to improve the responsibility we have for seriously making our educational institutions work for students. The Green Party will be opposing this bill all the way. Kia ora.

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) Link to this

I will be brief. The Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill is all about governance of local polytech institutions. We started with the knowledge that the sector was not functioning particularly well, and there was a desire to look at why that was occurring. The truth is that any board of 14 to 20 members will not function particularly well, and we found that basically that was why the sector was in such a mess. The question became how many people should be on a board of this nature. I think the Minister for Tertiary Education was quite right in deciding that eight members was the maximum number if the board were to function in an appropriate way.

It then became a question of who should be on that board of eight. The first issue was that the Minister, given that the Government is providing the bulk of the money, would make the decision in terms of four members, including the appointment of the chairperson and the deputy chairperson. I must say that, in terms of governance of these organisations, in my view the most important decision that will be made is the decision of the Minister as to who will be the chair and the deputy chair of each organisation. If we get right the chair and the deputy chair, then appropriate governance will follow. So we have four members appointed by the Minister.

The next question was who should occupy the other four positions. It was suggested that the chief executive officer should be on the board. I was indifferent about that, personally. I did not think it was necessary for the chief executive officer to be on the board, because if the chief executive officer cannot influence the board, then the chief executive officer probably should not be in that position. It was also suggested that one of the representatives should be a student and one should be a staff member. I actually think that is bad governance. It is not appropriate, frankly, for students or for staff to be on a board of eight members, or even a board of 20 members. I do not think that is appropriate governance. In any case, any board worth its salt will consult the academic board and the students association. I personally do not believe that staff or students should be represented on the board.

We were faced with a situation where possibly only one community member would be on the board. I think that was insufficient. We now have a position where up to four community members could be appointed. It is a question of whether we prefer four people from the community as opposed to a student, the chief executive officer, and a staff member.

It seems to me that what we have now is an appropriate balance. Four members are appointed by the Minister, and, as I said, the most important job the Minister has is to get the right chairperson and, hopefully, a competent deputy chair, possibly with skills that the chairperson does not necessarily have, so that they are complementary. If we have that, we are on our way. We also have four members drawn from the community at large. As I said, it is not particularly effective to have a staff member or student on the board, nor is it necessary to have the chief executive officer on it, because the chief executive officer will be at the board meetings anyway. Frankly, if he or she cannot influence the board, he or she is not going to make it. To me, we got the right balance.

What I am hearing from the Labour Party is that those members believe that a board of 14-20 people is appropriate. That is simply―

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. Kia ora tātou katoa i tēnei ahiahi. I do not think it would be any surprise to the House that for the Māori Party the crux of the issue in the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill is the whole notion of the value of Māori representation on tertiary governance bodies, including mana whenua and Māori student representation as well. I suppose it becomes more relevant in terms of some of the discussions that have been put before the House today on, in particular, the feedback from the Education and Science Committee. It amended the bill by deleting the four positions for representatives from the academic board, the students, and the community, and for the chief executive officer. There can be no doubt that by providing for only one community member, the chance of Māori representation on any polytechnic council is pretty slim. For us, that is a real concern.

The next question is why Māori representation is such a significant issue. Well, it is pretty simple. Some members have already set it out. It is about a Treaty right. To give that some context, the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System said: “the Treaty of Waitangi marked the beginning of constitutional government in New Zealand. Under the terms of the Treaty, the Crown formally recognised the existing rights of Maori and undertook to protect them. It is in this sense that Maori people have a special constitutional status.” That is one part of the argument—a Treaty right. Although the bill has a requirement that it is “desirable” that the council of an institution should reflect, so far as is reasonably practicable, the ethnic and socio-economic diversity of the communities served by the institution, I have to say that it is a pretty toothless provision that disregards the constitutional significance of the Crown’s relationship to Māori.

I also have to say that the failure of successive Governments to recognise and give effect to the Treaty as a basis of constitutional Government in New Zealand does not grant consent for subsequent Governments to perpetuate the failure. I need to tell this Parliament that the Māori Party will continue to keep the notion of Treaty rights at the forefront of discussions about our nationhood, which are basically reflected in the relationship between Māori and Pākehā in this land. I also have to say that the Māori Party gained a lot of confidence from our relationship agreement with the National Party, which said: “Both the National Party and the Māori Party will act in accordance with te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi” That, of course, will be an ongoing discussion. All of that context simply tells us that Māori representation is a Treaty right that is appropriate in the context of our history and our understanding of tangata whenua rights.

The main concern about the bill is, as I said, the lack of Māori or iwi Treaty partnerships reflected in the arrangements, and I would expect the Minister for Tertiary Education to be working with iwi entities at least to ensure that proper representation is enabled. We spoke about this matter in the first reading. Māori representation on polytech boards stems from our status as mana whenua—the mana of the land. We have been the guardians of the land, the seas, and the harbours of the regions for centuries. To put it into context, Māori welcomed and gave a place to the settlers, expecting to live alongside them in a respectful relationship. We all need to recognise that relationship today, if we want to move into a positive future based on peaceful relationships between people and the land.

To wrap it all up, the unique status of Māori also requires that our values, norms, and ways of doing things should be reflected in all of our key institutions. It is about giving space to Māori culture, and that is what we have been asking for, not only with this bill but also with the whole question about the Auckland super-city proposal. It is important, because giving space to Māori culture is about our survival and about our ability to flourish in the only place in the world where that is possible: Aotearoa, our home.

Many would not be aware that last Friday a hui was called at Te Noho Kotahitanga Marae, at Unitec, in Auckland. It was attended by representatives of iwi, hapū, whānau, marae, and tangata Tiriti from throughout the whole country. At that hui, known as Te Hui o te Kotahitanga, the participants pledged ongoing support for dedicated seats on Auckland’s super-city council for the mana whenua. A report from that hui concluded that it had reinforced the determination of Māori to support the legitimate right of mana whenua of Tāmaki to have reserved seats, as recommended by the royal commission and as supported by 80 percent of the public’s submissions on the super-city. The report concluded that a genuine Treaty relationship would reflect equal, fifty-fifty representation of tangata whenua and tauiwi at governance level. However, as a very minimum there should be three guaranteed seats for Māori representation and, more important, mana whenua representation, as recommended by the royal commission. In that regard, this discussion is not just about polytechs; it is, in fact, about the bigger picture and the whole notion of Treaty rights.

How does all this discussion relate back to a bill on polytechnics? I am proud to speak to a bicultural partnership governance model for polytechnics put together by the Waiariki Institute of Technology—Te Whare Takiūra o te Waiariki. As the local member, I am pleased to support the proposal. The proposal has been approved and strongly supported by the Māori Party, and we have referred it to the Minister for Tertiary Education for consideration. The model proposes an equal number of council appointments for Crown and Māori, with community appointments filling the balance of the required council positions. The model has a bicultural focus and proposes an active demonstration of Treaty commitments. The paper describes those commitments as the Treaty relationship of partnership, the Crown’s duty of active protection, and the duty to act reasonably and in good faith by meaningful participation, including the obligation to consult. The special relationship would be endorsed by formal recognition of representative tertiary education iwi authorities as legislated bodies.

We are talking about allowing iwi to have space to formalise agreements with the Crown that basically allow iwi to set up their own forums and present proposals to these sorts of bodies. I suppose, in a sense, they are legitimised by a rubber stamp from the Crown, as well. Once the iwi authority is established by the iwi in the rohe, it would elect members for appointment to the polytechnic council. If members did not know, a number of polytechnics throughout the country already follow this particular model. The recommendation is that the council then would comprise a minimum of nine and a maximum of 12 members, three of whom would be appointed by the Minister after council input, three appointed by the representative tertiary education iwi authority, and up to four appointed by the people living in the community served by the polytechnic.

I was pretty impressed by the model, as was the Minister of Maori Affairs. The Māori Party will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper at the appropriate time, and I look forward to support for it from, in particular, Labour, and the other parties. I take on the words of Ranginui Walker, who commented earlier this year: “The Waiariki Institute of Technology is a surrogate of the Crown. It has accommodated the tino rangatiratanga of Te Arawa and other tribes in the institution’s catchment area by committing to a partnership with tangata whenua.” That should set the scene. It has been operating in this way since the year 2000, and, in its structure, Te Mana Mātaurangaof the Waiariki trust represents the people of Te Arawa, Mātaatua, and Tainui waka, including Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Awa, Tūwharetoa, and other iwi whose ancestral homelands lie within this area. The structure involves a joint committee of five council members and five from Te Mana Mātauranga. It is a unique bicultural model in a mainstream setting—the best of both worlds. In a practical sense, it aims to indigenise the curriculum and produce graduates who are culturally competent.

So, in conclusion, there are other models of Māori representation such as those of Tairāwhiti Polytechnic and Whitireia Community Polytechnic that reflect the quality of the relationship with local iwi, relationships that are formally recognised through direct council representation. The Tairāwhiti Polytechnic council, for instance, has four community places held by Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Porou, Te Rūnanga o Turanganui-a-Kiwa, the Wairoa Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board, and the Māori Women’s Welfare League. If the community viewpoint, including mana whenua through its representatives, is removed, the focus of governance decision-making under this bill will quite quickly become central government based rather than regionally based. It is more important for central government to respond to community needs than it is for regions to respond to centralised requests.

Māori representation is a Treaty right. It is critical for robust decision-making and institutional success over the long term. It is critical for our capacity as a Parliament to act in accordance with the Treaty of Waitangi. So we will at this point be supporting this bill. We will be introducing an Supplementary Order Paper, and we will reassess the bill at the appropriate time in the third reading.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) Link to this

I will take just a brief call on this very important Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. This bill needs to be enacted very, very quickly. On this side of the House we believe that good governance means having good polytechs. We certainly do need to have good polytechs. We were informed that, as we speak here, seven polytechs are at risk, and we do not want them to fail.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) Link to this

I am very pleased to follow the speech of the member from Kaikōura on the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. Once again, he is failing to acknowledge what the impacts of this bill will be on his electorate of Kaikōura, particularly in his home base in Marlborough. If he has not yet worked it out—and he should have done so by now—this bill will disenfranchise Marlborough from representation on the council of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology. That member should be defending his electorate and its rights to be represented. Instead, he gave a short speech that simply referred to this being a great bill, without acknowledging that he is seeing the disenfranchisement of his community of Marlborough from representation on the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology council. That is a disgrace. He should have the guts to defend his electorate, and not be a puppet to a bill that does away with the representation that his electorate should have.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) Link to this

I think the member does jest. I want to make some largely general comments on the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. In one very, very good way it is a step back to the past. There is a provision in the bill—a bill that is widely supported around the House—that will allow the Manukau Institute of Technology to establish a technical high school.

There was a time in New Zealand when technical high schools had a proud and successful role to play. I think of my father’s own school, Wanganui Technical College; I think also of Seddon Technical College in Auckland, Hutt Valley Memorial Technical College, King Edward Technical College in Dunedin, and so on. These were fine schools that gave generations of New Zealanders a very solid grounding in a technical education. Is it not a tragedy to look back over 30 or 40 years and think about the bright sparks who decided that these schools should be closed down and that a different form of education should be available to those with a bent in technology, in the technical areas in the trades?

So we have come full circle, and I think one of the great things that this Government is doing is re-establishing the role and importance of technical education. We know that the future of this country will depend as much on the technicians and the technologists whom we have available as it will on other groups in the community.

I want to try to put the governance provisions for the polytech sector into a wider context and in a more logical context than, for example, the previous speaker, with his speculation, chose to do. It is important to acknowledge that the polytech sector plays an important role as part of one of the components that make up an effective tertiary sector. We should never ever underestimate the importance or the potential importance that the polytech sector has as part of a well-based, broad tertiary education sector. Any lack of prestige, any lack of quality, and any lack of performance in the polytech sector undermine the ability of this country to meet the demands for skilled labour. That is one area in which, in recent years, this country has not been performing as well as it needs to. We can argue about having 20, or 14, or eight members on polytech councils, but to me that is a largely irrelevant argument. The argument has to be around what governance structures will be the most favourable in terms of encouraging strategic thinking, vision, innovation, and flexibility, and will allow the polytechs to progress.

The significant aspect of this bill, which certainly the Opposition, I think, has either lost sight of or chosen not to acknowledge, is a very, very important shift away from governance arrangements that are pretty much solely based on representation, to governance arrangements that are based on expertise, on vision, and on an ability to provide a rigorous governance structure for the polytechs to develop. I endorse entirely the comments of Sir Roger Douglas about the absolute importance of the quality of the chairperson and the deputy chairperson, but I want to add another dimension and that is the quality of the chief executive. Get those appointments right and the polytechs will function to the standard and the level that the economy of this country and its future require.

In terms of chief executives, I am neutral as to whether the chief executives sit on the council. What I am not neutral about is the qualities that a chief executive needs to lead a polytech: understanding the nature of learning, understanding the nature of a technical education—an education in technology—understanding what happens and what needs to happen in the lecture theatres, the seminar rooms, the laboratories, and the workshop. That is a far greater test of whether a polytech will be successful, than who sits on the governing council. Thank you.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) Link to this

That last speech was rather telling. The member who has just resumed his seat, Allan Peachey, is the chairperson of the Education and Science Committee, whose job it is to defend to the hilt the Government’s proposal in this regard. We have all just witnessed that over half the member’s speech was dedicated to an area of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill that is not contentious at all. I believe that that is because the chairperson has considerable difficulty defending and justifying the very contentious parts of this bill, which takes community representation and the community voice out of polytechnics. I think that speech was very telling.

I am proud to stand and oppose this bill. Labour opposes this bill, unlike the Māori Party. We have heard a speech from Te Ururoa Flavell that would lead one to assume that the Māori Party opposes this bill because there is no dedicated Māori representation any more on polytechnic councils. Mr Flavell spent almost all his time telling us why the bill is wrong and why it needs a provision for dedicated Māori representation. Then, at the very end of his speech, he said that the Māori Party will vote in favour of the second reading. I think that is a disgrace, and I see that that is exactly what the Māori Party does out in the electorate.

Members of the Māori Party make speeches that lead people to believe that they opposed to what the Government is doing. They strongly criticise what the Government is doing, but then they come down to Wellington and vote in favour of the National Government. They uphold the things the Government is doing. The National Government is dumbing down Māori participation. The Māori Party upholds those things that the National Government is doing that are wrecking hard-working families’ lives. That is the Māori Party that we see today. It is a very sad shadow of its former self.

The reason I and my party strongly oppose this bill is that it is built on a false premise. The false premise is that the polytechnic sector in New Zealand is in crisis. There is no crisis in the sector. I did not hear any of the Government speakers actually outline to us the problem that needs fixing. Where is the crisis in the polytechnic sector? There is no issue to fix up.

Of course, there is a bit of strife currently in the polytechnic sector. It has nothing to do with governance, and it has nothing to do with the size of the councils or who is on those councils. But, as we speak, polytechnic staff are taking strike action, some of them for the very first time. They certainly never had to do that under the previous Labour Government. Many of those staff are, for the first time, taking strike action because the National Government has put a wage freeze on them. It is now pitching them against their employers, and their employers have no choice but to say no to a well-deserved wage increase for those staff.

If there is any crisis at all in the polytechnic sector, it is because of the decision of this Government to impose a wage freeze. It has nothing to do with bad governance, and it has nothing to do with the size of the councils. It certainly has nothing to do with specifying Māori representation on those councils—which is what the Government would have us believe. The Government would have us believe that, firstly, the polytechnic sector is in crisis; and, secondly, that the reason it is in crisis is that we currently require Māori representation on those councils. That is a disgraceful link to make. I believe that the Government is absolutely wrong in doing that.

So what is the real agenda here? It is certainly not the cost of the polytechnic councils. We asked questions at the Education and Science Committee to find out how much people on those councils get paid, and it is a tiny amount, particularly for the hours they put in. In fact, it is almost a community service. So it is certainly not cost that is driving this change in the law.

This bill is not about improving representation. It is certainly not about that, because it actually reduces community representation. It specifically sets out to decrease community representation. The real agenda is certainly not about improving governance, because, as, I think, the last Government speaker, Allan Peachey, pointed out, governance has nothing to do with whether polytechnics work well; it is actually about the quality of the chief executive officer. So by the Government’s own admission, this bill is not about improving governance.

The bill will considerably increase ministerial control, because half the council will be appointed by the Minister of Education. The other thing the bill will do is shut down the voice of students. I think that the very strong support coming from Sir Roger Douglas is very interesting. He, of course, has a member’s bill—it has been drawn from the ballot—that seeks to make student union membership voluntary. The Government, of course, supports that bill because it will dumb down the student voice.

Government members cannot wait to dumb down the student voice. They will do so with the bill for voluntary student union membership, and, insidiously, they are also doing so with this bill, because this bill does not allow for a seat at the table to be dedicated to student representation. Actually, the bill did allow for that at the first reading stage. When the bill was referred to the Education and Science Committee, it actually had a provision that allowed for student representation at the council table. But guess what? The Government members on that select committee decided to “improve” it by removing the requirement for student representation around the table.

Viewers watching this debate need to join up the dots. This bill is about dumbing down the voice of the community. It is particularly about dumbing down the voice of Māori. It is also particularly about dumbing down the voice of students. So what exactly is the Minister afraid of? Why is it that she is so desperate to shut down the student voice? I think those are very worrying signs for the future, and not just for the future of the polytechnic sector, of course, but for the future of the university sector as well. Everyone can wait and see—the university sector will be next. It had better start to get its arguments together now, because, clearly, this Government is after dumbing down the student voice and community representation.

Listening to the submissions at the select committee was very enlightening, because significant themes came through, particularly from the polytechnic sector itself. Those themes were these: polytechnics all argued that having the ability to have only four community representatives was not enough, and that they had complex and diverse communities that needed representation. Polytechnics were asking for more representatives. The other main theme was that eight representatives were too few in total. Many of the polytechnics came forward and suggested that they could live with 12 on their councils, but that eight was far too few. The third significant theme from submitters was that they did not need or want that amount of ministerial control. They were worried about the sheer amount of ministerial control that this bill will give to the Minister, to control what goes on at their polytechnics, yet, at the same time, to take away the community voice. So they were worried about more ministerial control and a dumbing down of the community voice.

I make particular reference to the very, very good submission from Wintec, the polytechnic in Hamilton. The chair, Gordon Chesterman, made a very, very good representation to the select committee, and pointed out, for example, that Wintec’s very good deputy chairperson, Clint Baddeley, had been appointed to that polytechnic council as a New Zealand Council of Trade Unions representative. That is another area of representation that this bill seeks to take away; it seeks to take away industry representation.

In my remaining minute, I will raise the issue of gender. We heard from submitters that most of the representation of women on these councils has come from staff representatives and student representatives. But, because of this bill, they will be gone. I want to know what the Minister of Women’s Affairs is doing about that. What questions has she asked about the gender implications of decreasing the representation on polytechnic councils to eight representatives? What questions has she asked about ensuring that another Minister appoints four of those representatives, and about making sure there are no dedicated positions there for staff and student representatives, who actually predominate now in relation to gender issues and balance throughout the country? I think there are very serious questions to be answered on this bill, and I feel proud to be from a party that has the courage to stand up and oppose it.

JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) Link to this

I rise to take the last call on the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill, and I do so with great pleasure because it is time we corrected the record. First of all, the Education and Science Committee did listen, and there have been significant changes to the bill that reflect the views of the submitters. I went back to my own polytech, and I asked them whether it agreed with the changes the select committee members had made. Would having four opportunities to choose local representatives from the community, from the staff, and from the students give the polytech what it wants? In fact, its representatives said to me: “Yes; you have listened.” There are significant changes in amendments to this bill, which shows we have listened.

It is very apparent that the way in which Labour conducted its affairs in the previous Government—throwing money at polytechs that were turning bad—is the way that Labour would like to continue. But those surpluses are gone, and this Government wants to get the governance of polytechs correct. They are important institutions to this Government, and good governance is what it takes. I support this bill and the amendments to it wholeheartedly. Thank you.