Street Maryan: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Street Maryan: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:659;Page:8513] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It is not often that legislation goes to a select committee and returns to this Chamber worse than before. Usually the select committee deliberation is a process of improvement of legislation not a process of degeneration. This legislation before us now is in fact materially worse than it was before. 
There are a number of questions to ask and the parts in particular that I wish to speak to and will speak to during the course of this Committee stage relate particularly to the constitution of polytechnic councils. But it is worth going back to review the purpose of polytechnics and to try in the discussion of that to divine the purpose of this legislation because it is not clear. It is not clear why the Minister for Tertiary Education requires such dominant control of polytechnics around the country. It is not clear why the Minister refuses to have guaranteed iwi representation on polytechnic councils. It is not clear why the Minister is afraid of student representation on polytechnic councils or of industry union and staff representation on polytechnic councils; none of that is clear. 
The purpose of a polytechnic is to deliver post-compulsory—that is tertiary—educational opportunities that are fit for purpose in its particular region. Here we have a Government within the space of 12 months taking to the polytechnic sector in a way that it has not taken to any other part of the tertiary education sector in New Zealand. At a time when jobs are at a premium when people are being laid off and when normally they expect to be able to turn to their tertiary institutions and say “OK times are tough. Let me go and upskill; let me go and retrain.” this Government through this legislation is not only limiting opportunities but limiting the way a polytech might respond to the educational learning and training needs of its community. That is most clearly demonstrated in the provisions around the restriction on the number of councillors and on who might be on a polytechnic council. 
This legislation under the Minister’s hand provides for polytechnic councils to consist of no more than eight members. Although the number is not of particular concern—I do not mind if there are eight—what is of concern is that there are no guaranteed positions for iwi or for communities or for anybody who may have an interest a legitimate interest in the operation and the offerings of that polytechnic. The second thing of concern is that four of the eight members will be appointed by the Minister and that is the worry because that goes to the heart of the autonomy of the institution which in turn impacts on the academic freedom of an organisation. That has to be of concern to everybody in the tertiary education sector because who knows who is next? 
I would like the Minister for Tertiary Education to get up at some point in this debate and explain exactly why she has chosen to restrict not only the numbers on the councils but also who might be able to be appointed to a polytechnic council. It is not sufficient for the Minister simply to say in the legislation that in principle it is a good idea to have Maori representation. When we are talking about polytechnics that are grounded in the training of young people and in the retraining of adults who are losing their jobs it is not sufficient simply to say that iwi representation is desirable in principle. 
We know that many of the industries for which polytechs deliver particular training programmes are located in areas where Maori take up a large number of the educational opportunities and where Maori dominate the industries that are being served. I take the example of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology in my own area of Nelson. The forestry horticulture viticulture agriculture and aquaculture courses that are offered through its programmes are absolutely pertinent to the development of that region. Not only do iwi have a vested interest in the development of the region but they also have an interest and a very strong interest in many of those industries as well. So it is not sufficient for the Minister simply to put legislation up that says that we will have only eight members on a polytechnic council and by the way that she will appoint four of those members. It is not sufficient. 
I can only assume that the National members on the Education and Science Committee were directed by the Minister to make this legislation worse because that is what they have done. There will be no student representation on polytechnic councils—which is something that has been in place for a long time—no guaranteed staff representation and no guaranteed union or business representation. Those are the very people who might be able to advise a polytech on the offerings that that region needs the kind of training that the industries require the polytech to provide the certificates diplomas and degrees that are necessary to feed into the future and the future skills required in each of the regions. 
This legislation is not only ill-advised but also demonstrates the hallmark of this Minister which is the obstinacy of the ignorant. She has no grip on the content of the tertiary education portfolio she has no way of responding because of her lack of awareness of what is currently provided and she has no vision for the skills that ought to be provided by our tertiary institutions most particularly the polytechs for the next 10 or 20 years. That is the vision that is lacking. 
The tertiary education strategy is a wafer thin document that does not link tertiary education opportunities to skills training and the skills that are required for the future of this country. It is a shabby piece of work. It is not worthy of a Minister to come to this House to strip back polytechs without any justification—with no hint of justification—with no reason that is possible to divine except for some obscure or hidden reason to which she is not owning up. That is not good enough—that is not good enough. Because she is ignorant of the impact of these changes on local communities her refuge is obstinacy. That is not sufficient. That is not a ground on which to make law. 
This is not good law; this is not good process. The bill should have come out of the select committee better than when it went in. That did not happen in this case. There are a number of amendments in my name seeking to improve the representation on polytechnic councils including iwi staff students and community interests. All of those are legitimate claims on the membership of a polytechnic council and none of them has been adequately addressed in this legislation. 
This is a shabby piece of work. It is not going to serve our polytechs well. But worse than that it will not serve the needs of our society into the next 10 to 15 years. It is not the stuff that visions are made of. It is not the stuff that will provide for our educational needs in the future. It is offensive on several counts.