Flavell Te Ururoa: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13044] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou i tenei po. A policy backflip a reversal of position or a change of heart in this House is usually some sort of occasion that we make great political capital of. Tonight I was eagerly looking forward to such an announcement and was fully intending to give my support for yet another flip-flop. The flip-flop I am talking about and that I was looking forward to hearing about tonight concerns Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I found out that remit 45 on the Labour Party conference floor about a fortnight ago was going to challenge the party hierarchy to put the Treaty into policy into legislation and to ensure its enshrinement in a written and supreme constitution of Aotearoa. 
I was told that the party faithful were going to be heard and that today would be the day on which Te Tiriti o Waitangi was truly honoured as our founding document. But I am sorry to say that unless the announcement is being saved up for the grand finale to the debate tonight it appears that the Treaty being omitted from the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill is being continued regardless—regardless of the Association of University Staff’s submission that the goals and aspirations of Maori should be included as a Government responsibility to Maori under the Treaty; regardless of 400 or more submissions received relating to the omission of the Treaty from the latest tertiary education strategy and the statement of tertiary education priorities; regardless of the submission from the Council of Trade Unions that the bill gives scant recognition to Te Tiriti o Waitangi; regardless of the disappointment of the Association of Staff in Tertiary Education Te Hau Takitini o Aotearoa about the lack of reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi; and regardless of the specific recommendation from Te Tauihu o nga Wananga that the bill should be deferred until such time as there is specific reference to the principles of the Treaty for the Tertiary Education Commission and the Minister as there is for tertiary education institutions. 
It would have been awesome if the Labour Government had listened to its own party membership and to key education agencies and stakeholder groups. I would ask whose interests are being served by failing to protect the unique relationship between the Crown and Maori as authorised by the Treaty. Who will be answerable for the fact that although section 181 of the Education Act requires recognition of the principles of the Treaty by institutional councils there is no reciprocal requirement on the Tertiary Education Commission or on the Minister in this bill? As Te Tauihu o nga Wananga concluded: “The bill erodes genuine partnerships a damning indictment on the status and functioning of tertiary education.” 
Although I did ask questions about this particular matter in the select committee I have now had time to reflect on the response and I still have a few concerns. According to some of the policy spin around this bill the idea is that the previous Maori strategy chapter in the tertiary education strategy and the long and visible Maori tertiary education framework is improved upon by the sharper focus in Ka Hikitia by encompassing a few specific measurable things. Let us test the waters. 
The tertiary education strategy 2002-07 in its Maori strategy chapter Te Rautaki Matauranga Maori established six broad objectives for Maori tertiary education with the first one being that tertiary education leadership is effectively accountable to Maori communities. Well consultation with Maori is about as visible as the Treaty of Waitangi in this second reading—not! There is no requirement in this bill for the Minister the Tertiary Education Commission or tertiary education organisations to consult Maori in the plan of the tertiary education strategy. The Association of Staff in Tertiary Education Te Hau Takitini o Aotearoa recommended that this bill along with the accompanying strategic documents needs to confirm explicitly that both the Tertiary Education Commission and the tertiary education organisations must fulfil their commitments to Maori as tangata whenua under Te Tiriti. The Council of Trade Unions went even further and expressed its concern about how real consultation and engagement with tertiary education stakeholders in tertiary education could take place without there being formalised provision for it in this bill. 
One of the issues around this is the poor institutional performances that characterise most tertiary education sector consultation processes. Under the charters and profiles process there was a requirement to consult stakeholders on the development of them but unfortunately this was not adequately monitored by the Tertiary Education Commission and sometimes it did not occur or it was very flawed. Why is this such an issue? At its heart the Treaty is about a relationship with Maori—a commitment to a constructive and mutually respectful relationship. 
We have been given guidance from the courts as to how a constructive and mutually respectful relationship develops—namely the relationship should be built on mutual cooperation and trust there are basic principles of reasonableness and good faith and the Crown has to make informed decisions. All aspects of the Treaty relationship therefore point to consultation. 
In the process of preparing for this bill tonight I came across a statement from the Vice-president Maori of the Council of Trade Unions Te Kauae Kaimahi. Sharon Clair had this to say: “The Treaty or more specifically Te Tiriti of Waitangi is a living covenant to be proud of. What we did with it and what we want to do with it is where the shame or pride lies not in the document.” That is the crunch issue in this bill. For although councils of tertiary education organisations are required to “acknowledge the principles of the Treaty” as specified in section 181 of the Education Act the challenge will lie in taking this out of the goodwill category and making it mean something—meaning something so that the Treaty relationship is given life in the work programme and the organisational structures of the organisation so that the development aspirations of Maori are known and are identified and so that targets are developed. 
The disappointing feature of all the Treaty talk without action is seen in the fact that the goals and aspirations of Maori specified in section 159 should be included as a Government responsibility under the Treaty but in this bill Maori goals and aspirations are not connected to the Treaty. So when we come down to the vital issue of system compliance it will be anyone’s guess as to how well the Tertiary Education Commission will act to ensure that tertiary education organisations do actually consult Maori in developing the plans. 
What we have seen occur through the select committee process is that amendments to clauses 10 and 17 were introduced in order to provide that tertiary education organisations need to consult only such stakeholders as they deem appropriate. “Appropriate” is another one of those great buzzwords for doing nothing—in effect enabling tertiary education organisations to determine who their stakeholders are. There is a risk involved that key groups such as iwi hapu and tangata whenua will be taken off the list to keep the numbers down. 
What we know through the evidence reported from Te Mana Akonga the national Maori tertiary students association is that in many instances tertiary education organisations are failing to adequately consult whanau hapu iwi tangata whenua staff and students. In some instances consultation has consisted of a letter to Maori students telling them what has already been decided. In other instances the concerns from submissions and hui have been inadequately reflected in charters and profiles if at all. The Association of University Staff in its submission was clearly of the view that the requirements to consult do not go far enough. It describes the term “stakeholders” as indefinite stating that it is problematic to not give it specific clarity in the bill and leaving it to the Minister and tertiary education organisations to decide. 
Finally we come to the view that there could be a way around what was otherwise appearing to be an impasse. The Association of Staff in Tertiary Education Te Hau Takitini o Aotearoa recommended that this bill as well as the tertiary education strategy and the statement of tertiary education priorities could include a statement that the Government through the Tertiary Education Commission and the tertiary education organisations could fulfil its commitments to tangata whenua under the Treaty. We would expect the Crown to be explicit in its capacity to express kawanatanga while at the same time making it possible for wananga to express rangatiratanga and for Treaty principles to be given specific reference in respect of the Tertiary Education Commission and the Minister as it does for institutional councils. The Maori Party will therefore support this bill at its second reading in the hope that during the Committee stage of proceedings the appropriate adjustments can be made to ensure that the Treaty actually means something.