Mallard Trevor: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8464] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 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. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order. The member will carry on with his speech. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Is it not? Oh I am allowed to seek leave— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Can I just say that the member knows full well that he cannot seek leave for another member. If members want leave they seek leave for themselves. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: OK I will do it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member has the call and I ask the member to continue with his speech. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I seek leave to interrupt my speech and complete it upon the completion of the speech of the Minister of Education. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Well I will put the leave. Leave is sought for the member to discontinue his speech until the Minister of Education has completed her speech. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We give Government members a chance and what do they do? They run away; they are chicken they are scared. They come into the House; they run away they go into the lobbies. Why can we not have a Minister of Education who at least knows what day of the week it is and the fact that she should be in the House. What a dopey dopey dope! She comes into the House looking like a wasp— 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have called for order. The House will be silent. We will hear the point of order in silence. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: I am sure you understand my point of order—that we do not refer to the absence of members from the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is quite correct. The member speaking was making reference to members being in the lobbies which is not in the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Minister of Education came into this Chamber. She came through that door. She is not here now—I cannot say that she is in the lobby but I cannot see her at the moment— 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I say that the member is trifling with the Speaker. That is about the third reference now that we have had and I ask you to take appropriate action. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member makes a fair point. The member speaking is not entitled to construct circumstances to try to circumvent the general understanding of this House that members are not to make reference to the absence of another member. I tell the member—I warn him—that this is the second time objection has been taken to that. If a third infraction occurs I will discontinue his speech. The member is invited to continue to speak on the bill as it is before the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I express my disappointment at the quality of the speech that was given by the Leader of the House on behalf of the Minister of Education. I express my disappointment that when the Minister of Education came into the House she chose not to make a speech. 
It is very sad that we do not have a Minister of Education who is prepared to make a speech supporting her own legislation. But then again we should not be particularly surprised at that fact because we know that in the end the Minister of Education had her arm broken by Sir Roger Douglas through negotiations with Allan Peachey who said: “Minister you have one of two ways of doing this bill. You could do it reasonably and you could have Maori representation as was promoted by the Labour Party in the select committee or you could have no Maori representation and go with the ACT point of view.” That is the position we are in. ACT has taken out the chief executive the student representative the staff representative and another representative—but I have forgotten which—from polytechnic councils. It has taken out four representatives. 
What the Government has done is accept that there will be no Maori representation on those bodies. I know the view of the Maori Party; I will be very surprised if those members support this legislation because all the representations made to them have made it clear that this measure is not a matter of going forward for Maori representation; it is a matter of going backwards. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That’s right—stand up for Maori after that sort of speech. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Frankly I would be surprised if Tau Henare could be talked into supporting this legislation. It will be interesting to see whether Tau Henare will vote for legislation that wipes out tangata whenua representation on polytechnic councils. That is what this legislation does: it wipes out that representation. It is not a matter of not putting it in; this legislation takes it out. We want to know whether Tau Henare will support Pita Sharples when Pita Sharples makes it clear that the Maori Party will not support this legislation because of what it does to Maori representation. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh whatever! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No it is a question. I do not know whether Tau Henare’s oft-stated principles will override his party loyalty or how comfortable he feels about being led along by Rodney Hide and his friends in this particular area. 
This legislation is also very bad news for regional New Zealand. By the way the bill is constructed it means that there is a possibility that no one from a local area where an institution is based will be on its council. There is no requirement for local representation at all. 
I say to the Minister—no I cannot say that. I ask whoever is in charge of the bill in the House at the moment—probably Allan Peachey—whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper when this bill comes back to the House next week. I am listening; there is no response no denial. We think that even the Government members know that they have got it wrong. We think that even Allan Peachey knows that they have it wrong and that he will promote with the Minister a Supplementary Order Paper especially about the timing of ministerial appointments. Frankly under this system it is weird. The old councils will nominate four people but without any knowledge of who the four ministerial appointments will be. It is topsy-turvy upside-down incoherent and illogical. To be absolutely fair even Roger Douglas knows that the legislation is wrong. I ask Sir Roger whether he is aware that there will be a Supplementary Order Paper. No he is not aware of it either. 
It is very very sad that the Government is so unprepared for its legislation that it does not have a Minister of Education who is prepared to back it at the second reading. The Associate Minister of Education was sitting in the House and he did not stand up to move the second reading motion. There is no one here with a coherent understanding of the legislation. 
To be fair there is one Government member with a good understanding of this legislation and that is Allan Peachey. He knows what the bill is about. He does not totally agree with its shape and he made that pretty clear in the sessions at the select committee. He could have put together something that is coherent. I think that if Allan Peachey had had his way he would have been able to construct something that would be ongoing. A number of us accept that a reduction in the size of the councils is something that could and should have been done and there could have been a reasonable compromise. I would trust Allan Peachey to broker that sort of compromise. He tried. He worked hard. He ran back and forth to the Minister. He took proposals up and down but in the end the woman was not for moving. She will stick her head in here occasionally. She will stick her head in through the door but when it comes to serious debate she will not front up. 
I think it is particularly sad that this a case not of the Minister knowing best but of Bill English pulling a few strings. It is a case of Bill English saying: “Let us do things this way. It does not really matter that everyone objects to it.” 
I will make one point from the select committee. There were two or three—and I am not absolutely sure about the third one—council chairs who are active members of the National Party and who came to the select committee and made representations. Not one of them supported the changes in the bill—not one of them. Not a single chair supported the changes. I think that is very very sad. 
I do not expect National to listen to the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions the tangata whenua representations or the Maori students. No one expects Anne Tolley to listen to any of those representations but I would have thought that the Government would listen when two or three National Party activists who have had a lot of experience in running polytechnics come to a select committee and say that the system the Government is promoting is wrong. They said that it will not work it is inappropriate it will not fit their communities and it will reduce the quality of decision making in polytechnics. I think this bodes ill for a Minister who says: “I know best. I do not care what you National Party activists are saying. You can get stuffed. I will do what I want.”