Shearer David: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Shearer David: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8614] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I would like to take a call on the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill because at the end of that speech I was more confused about what we are doing here at the end of the sitting than I was beforehand. I will correct the previous member who was speaking Jo Goodhew on what the Waiariki Institute of Technology actually said about governance. It said that it wanted nine to 12 members. That is what the people in your community want and you are telling them that they want something else. That is exactly what they want. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Mind the pronouns. Do not include the Speaker. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: I am sorry Mr Assistant Speaker; I apologise. I sat through the hearing of the submissions by the Education and Science Committee and I agree with my colleagues that they were handled with courtesy. We listened very carefully to those who came and spoke to us. But the overwhelming impression from those people who came along to submit to us was their unanimous disagreement with this legislation. It is bad legislation. This is what they said. The Universal College of Learning said it does not enable communities to be represented well. The Council of Trade Unions recommended eight to 12 people on the boards; the Waiariki Institute of Technology as I have said recommended nine to 12; and the Manukau Institute of Technology said up to 12. They wanted to keep their community input. Without the numbers they did not believe they would be able to keep their community input. They did not believe they would be able to meet the gaps in skills. 
Paul Quinn 
: Why? Did you ask them? 
DAVID SHEARER 
: They run these polytechnics as that member quite rightly knows. That is the reason why they believe they need to have those numbers. Unitec said that membership of eight would impact on the skills of the representatives. It recommended that discretion to increase the number to 12— 
Paul Quinn 
: Why? What was their reason? They didn’t give you one? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. The bottom line is that there is an assumption here that somehow the system is broken because as the Minister for Tertiary Education said half a dozen polytechs are not financially viable at the moment. The bottom line is that in the end we are not sure that reducing the number of representatives on the boards to eight will fix the problem. We could be coming back here in a year or two to look at the polytechnic situation again having realised that limiting the boards to eight representatives has not worked. Why? Because we have done no analysis. There has been no analysis of those six polytechnics to see what the problem is. Polytechnics such as Unitec in my own electorate have said that they have had a 13 percent increase in students and no increase in funds. That is one of the reasons why polytechnics are not doing well at the moment. They have not had the funding to meet their needs. 
Sir Roger Douglas talked about the need to look at the student and the student’s needs. Yes of course that is right but then he digressed about the need to look at the boards and that is exactly what this legislation that we are looking at does. Maryan Street mentioned the fact that all that is done by this legislation which we are debating on the last sitting day of the year is to change the boards without any analysis of whether that will improve the functioning of those polytechs. I believe that it is a complete waste of time particularly when submitter after submitter who came to the select committee unanimously disagreed with the legislation. 
The Human Rights Commission which does not have a vested interest said one size does not fit all. We have an extraordinary range of polytechnics yet we are restricting them to having only eight members: four appointed by the Minister and four coming from the communities. A number of polytechnics have multiple campuses and multiple communities and they will not be able to be represented under this new legislation. Their boards simply will not have the scope. It is not about numbers; it is about management. Jo Goodhew just said that. Why are we sitting in the House today on the last sitting day of the year debating the numbers? It does not make any sense. It is about competence and it is about community. Those are the key issues—not the numbers. 
What else did the Human Rights Commission go on to say? It said that smaller does not mean better management. Again I agree with the Human Rights Commission. I think Allan Peachey agreed with the Human Rights Commission and so did other National members who are feeling rather uncomfortable in their seats. People from their own electorates who had come in to submit were disagreeing with the legislation which was being rammed down their throats. 
The other thing that people brought up was their worry over the ministerial control. They asked where is the independence of these organisations; where is the independence of polytechnics to be able to run their own affairs respond to their own communities and respond to the business and work environment that is around them. That was what they were asking. They also asked why there are to be eight members. Eight is not a good number. They asked why we should not have an odd number of councillors; at least that way there could be a majority rather than the boards occasionally being tied four-each and unable to get a good decision. 
This is a bill without any analysis of what the real problem is. It is designed to fix a problem about which we have no analysis and it is being applied not to the polytechnics that are failing or not doing well but to all polytechnics regardless of their size regardless of their location regardless of their make-up and regardless of their community involvement. That is what is happening in this legislation. As I said only a handful of polytechnics are not performing. It was mentioned to me that there were 13 percent more students but no increase in staff to support them. My colleague Sue Moroney also mentioned that the real issue is that student numbers are now being capped; students not being able to go to polytechnic is the real issue. It is not about reducing the number of board members from 20 to eight; it is about good management and it is about polytechnics that are responsible and responsive to their own communities. 
Quite bizarrely the Minister said in her 20 August press release: “We are ensuring that in the future polytechnics have strong skilled Councils which will make them easier to govern more effective and responsive to their communities.” I am at a loss to understand how polytechnics can be more responsive to their communities with a smaller number of people from their communities on their boards. All of the polytechnics talked about the value of the range of experience they have on their boards whether that experience be from the local community the business community the union movement or Maori people of the area. All of the polytechnics spoke about the value of having those people on their boards. Now we will be restricting that responsiveness as well. 
Lastly I will say that the proposal by the Manukau Institute of Technology that is part of this legislation has the backing of the Labour Party even though we are voting against the legislation as a whole. Mr Stuart Middleton from the Manukau Institute of Technology has done an excellent job and he deserves to be commended. He is a former teacher of me and of others in this House and we support his proposal. Thank you.