Sepuloni Carmel: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Sepuloni Carmel: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5947] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. This bill represents an attempt by the Government to take over the governance of New Zealand’s polytechnics. The Minister for Tertiary Education will be allowed to appoint half of a radically reduced board of eight members. All the power is in the hands of the Minister. The Government’s argument is that this will allow it to intervene more easily when polytechnics have financial or educational issues. The reality is that the Government will be intervening in all polytechnics not just those in trouble. This intervention will come at the expense of community representation. Currently polytechnic councils operate with representatives from a wide variety of groups including academic staff general staff students and employee and employer representatives. 
Colin King 
: Speak from the heart don’t read it! 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: Perhaps Colin King the member who spoke before me should have written his speech and then he would have spoken for more than 30 seconds. The current arrangement allows a wide range of valuable perspectives to contribute to the running of each polytechnic. The Government’s proposals will strip councils of this representation leaving only the Minister’s representatives the chief executive officer a member of the academic staff a student representative and one community representative. The Government argues that this will improve the efficiency of the boards. But what about the legitimacy of such a board when important stakeholders in the polytechnics are being denied adequate representation? 
Polytechnics are vitally important for much of regional New Zealand. Members on this side of the House recognise that but members on the other side unfortunately under the leadership of that Minister do not recognise it at all. Polytechnics provide the skills and training that regional economies need. They also ensure that young people in regional New Zealand who want training qualifications are not all forced to go to the main centres. Polytechnics have become an essential part of communities all over New Zealand. These same communities now find that the Government is refusing them input into the governance of these institutions. It is the kind of Minister-knows-best attitude that these communities do not need. 
Many of New Zealand’s polytechnics serve several communities—like the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology and the Waikato Institute of Technology—but these institutions’ community representation under National’s proposal is woefully inadequate. Are these communities expected to fight over a single place on a council so that they can have a say in its governance? That is unacceptable. It shows the disconnection between the National Government and New Zealand’s regional communities. These communities want leadership not micro-management from the Minister—also known as nanny State. 
In the explanatory note of this bill the Government notes that it is desirable in principle that the polytechnic councils should have Maori representation. It also notes that the councils should reflect the ethnic and socio-economic diversity of the communities that the polytechnics serve. These are worthy points that Labour agrees with. However the bill makes no provision for any of this. This is essentially a case of the Government saying that it would be nice if we had Maori representation while deliberately not making any effort to ensure that this happens. This kind of attitude to Maori representation is obviously not new to the National Government as we have seen with its refusal to allow Maori representation on the super-city council. It continues with that pattern in this bill. Is the National Government fulfilling its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi? Is it responding to the spirit of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? I do not think so. By denying Maori representation on the super-city council and now on the councils of polytechnics nationwide it is clearly not. 
These changes to representation on polytechnic councils are disturbing. What will be in the Minister’s sights next? Will the boards of universities and wananga soon be stripped of stakeholder representation and stacked with the Minister’s appointees? With this bill the Minister is wresting control of the governance of polytechnics from New Zealand communities. Why? It is true that some polytechnics have had financial or educational issues in the past but there are many reasons for this. The fact that the National Government instead of investigating the reasons why some polytechs have run into difficulty is choosing to gain greater control over their boards suggests a hidden motive. The bill represents the corporatisation of our nation’s polytechnics. 
This bill also includes a proposal to establish the Manukau Institute of Technology as a tertiary education high school. This is a proposal that Labour supports as it will support year 11 to year 13 students who would otherwise leave school without gaining qualifications. Despite this the bill as proposed would do more harm than good to tertiary education in New Zealand. We will not take the good with the bad if it means that communities are sacrificing their say in the running of these institutions if it means that Maori and other ethnic groups are denied representation and if it means the corporatisation of these valuable community assets. 
This bill would deny communities representation on the boards of institutions that should be serving their needs. It would add insult to injury to Maori who are already denied representation on the super-city council. It would mean that the Minister’s appointees would make up half of every polytechnic board giving the Government enormous power over the governance and direction of these institutions. New Zealand polytechnics should work to support their communities providing the skills and training that are required. A diverse range of representatives from communities unions and employers is necessary so that this aim is achieved. This bill would ensure that these groups do not receive adequate representation and that this aim is not achieved. Labour cannot and will not support this bill. Thank you.