Clendon David: Education (Restoration of Democracy to University Councils) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClendon David: Education (Restoration of Democracy to University Councils) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 02 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8500. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to stand to reiterate the Green Party’s support for this bill. It is a well-thought-out piece of legislation that seeks to undo some of the damage that has been done to the tertiary sector over recent years by this Government. It is a simple and straightforward enough proposition to get a much better balanced and more democratic approach to establishing the governance of universities. It is a topic somewhat dear to my heart. I studied at three different universities and taught at two. I had a 13-or-so-year career as an academic and I understood from the inside out that the culture of a university the way in which it is governed and the way in which it is managed is very influential in the success or otherwise of that institution and that is a point I will return to.I was on the select committee that dealt with the ill-fated Education Amendment Bill (No 2) and there was an enormous number of submitters who were almost universally opposed to it including some fairly high-powered groups and individuals and including Universities New Zealand representing the vice-chancellors of all of the universities. It was not the most radical hare-brained group you could name in the country. They came out not least of all criticising this notion of reducing the number on the governance bodies and critically making so many of them ministerial appointees. There is a serious challenge there to the independence of the universities. They are deemed to be the critic and conscience; this is part of their founding purpose—to be critic and conscience of our societies and for the most part they have historically done that quite well. That is not something we should take lightly.We saw an example just a week or so ago where the independence of an academic was threatened and challenged. A gentleman from the University of Canterbury was threatened with being blacklisted for a ridiculous business about being called a gang associate. The police commissioner to his great credit has backed off that and will put the matter right but it just highlights that academic independence is important. It is always under threat and it must always be defended and governance bodies have a role in doing that.One of the submitters on the earlier bill—the bill that fundamentally changed the nature of governance bodies—noted that the bill as it was then confused governance and management. Mr Foster-Bell with his interesting litany of numbers and percentages and so on was actually talking about management. I have been a business adviser. I know very well that a small tight fast-moving nimble management team is actually a very good thing to have. But sitting behind that you want a very strong governance group that reflects the diversity of the organisation and there are few organisations as complex and multifaceted as a university. We need to recognise that complexity in the make-up of the governance body. It should be making long-term well-informed thoughtful decisions about the future of that organisation and then devolve them to the management team to implement.I mentioned earlier the culture of universities. We want our universities to reflect a culture of inclusiveness of participation; because I know from experience both as an academic and as a student that that is where people thrive. People need to feel that they are part of something where they are included and where their opinions their information their knowledge and their contribution is respected—even if not always necessarily listened to in the sense of winning the argument. If you take away from people the right to have the argument to be part of the contributing body to speak to the matters—whatever their matters might be—before the governing body and if you deny people a voice at that table you are doing them a significant disservice. Over time it will degrade the quality of the decision making and it will degrade the quality of the culture of that organisation. I am a great believer—both in public sector and academia and indeed in business—in this notion of being inclusive and of encouraging participation because only then do you get the best out of people.If people know they are on a governance body by the grace and favour of a Minister or indeed of ministerial appointees their contribution will be constrained because they will always have a thought of: “Oh I mustn’t offend. Mustn’t rock the boat as anything too overtly critical might end up with me being spun out of here.” So the notion of having preserved positions was important in maintaining that integrity and that independence. This is a very good bill. We are very pleased to support it.