Mallard Trevor: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8603] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I regret that the member who has just resumed his seat Allan Peachey did not take his full time because in my opinion that member of all the National members—in fact of all the people on that side of the House—has the best grasp of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. He worked hard as chair of the Education and Science Committee to try to broker a compromise that was in the interests of the polytechnic sector and of long-term stability in that sector. But unfortunately the woman was not for turning and for that reason we were unable to make that sort of progress. I think Mr Peachey understands the potential of the sector in a period of relative turn-down. During a recession and coming out of a recession are really important times for polytechnics to be involved in skill development and in working with the business community in particular in order to prioritise and get the resources where they need to be so that we have the skill development that this country so desperately needs. 
I think all of us accept that the current shape of polytechnic governance is not perfect. I think all of us believe that there are too many members on some of the councils. There is an acceptance that we could bring the numbers down without losing anything and that from that we could get a coherence that would work. I see that the member is nodding. But I think there is also a view amongst many people that the changes have gone too far and that when the Minister for Tertiary Education forces her appointments to be made then at that point the gaps will become apparent. There will be communities or communities of interest that will not have any input at that particular level although we all think that input is important and valuable. Obviously the proof of the pudding will be in the eating in that particular area. 
I join the chairperson of the Education and Science Committee in thanking the officials. They did do a good job. It is fair to say that during the process they were under some pressure because as I have discussed with the chair they forgot I think whom they were advising. I think that for a period of time they thought they were advising the Minister and they were getting the Minister to clear their reports to the select committee. That of course is constitutionally inappropriate. They were appointed as advisers to the select committee on the bill and for them to brief directly someone who was not a member of the select committee was not appropriate. In the end I think we cleared that issue up and got it sorted but there was a period of tension when the officials indicated that it was their intention to breach the privilege of this House and to report directly to a member who was not a member of that select committee. It does not matter whether that member is their Minister; for the purposes of this exercise they were appointed as advisers to the committee. I can hear the Minister chirping. She does not understand the legislation and she certainly does not understand the importance that this Parliament has put on its privileges and the approach that should be taken in that area. 
I say to the Maori Party members that I regret that their amendment was not passed. I regret that they did not do some work on it earlier because I think it was the sort of amendment that had the potential to garner further support from other parts of the House if in fact there had been a proper process. In fact I think a member who sits directly behind the Maori Party whip if he had been pushed pretty hard could well have been talked into supporting it because it is absolutely consistent with the things that he has been pushing for over a period of time. But the records will show—and I regret to say this to the Maori Party—that on the first reading and the second reading the Maori Party members voted for the continuation of this legislation which wipes out Maori representation. It is all very well for those members to say other people did that too but Mr Flavell would never have accepted that sort of excuse from children when he was involved in the education system. The fact that Johnny and George did it does not mean that Sam should do it as well. That excuse is the approach that Mr Flavell is using at the moment and it is just not good enough. 
I turn to the Minister and say I really appreciate seeing her in the House today. I appreciate that she gave a speech. I appreciate that she covered the areas that were missing in the second reading in the speech that she did not give. I appreciated her fleeting visit to the House during the second reading and I appreciate how fast she moved when she realised what was going on in the House. It is pretty sad when a member who has been here I think for 7 years and who has been a Minister for a year does not understand that she has to be present in the House to make a second reading speech. Anne Tolley used to be a whip— 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday a number of points of order were taken against that member for referring to a member who was not present in the House and he continues to do that now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that if he wants to raise a point of order he should come directly to it. What happened yesterday is in yesterday’s newspapers and it is not particularly relevant to what is happening today. I listened very carefully to the member’s presentation. He made comments about how he appreciates the Minister being in the House and appreciates the time that is spent here and he did not refer directly to the Minister being absent from the House which was the subject of the member’s point of order. Therefore the member is in order and I invite him to continue. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought you might have dealt with the fact that Paul Quinn referred to the Minister’s absence from the House in his point of order. That in itself was out of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order. The member will continue. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As I say I very much appreciate the fact that the Minister has turned up today and has used her second reading speech so that all the work of the officials has not gone amiss. I regret the fact that she appeared to get her pages out of order and lost her way as she was giving her speech. My advice to her is that it is very useful before one comes to the House to read through a speech and to make sure that the pages are in the right order and that it makes sense. Then she will not make a mistake again of the type that she made. 
I cannot remember back to the Minister’s first reading speech but I must say that— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: You do have trouble with your memory. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Minister’s first reading speech did not create a great impression on me but I know that her “second reading speech” made no impression at all. In the Committee stage she did 3 minutes and 20 seconds over a period of 2 hours during which time she was signing her Christmas cards and I say that showed very well on Parliament TV. I compliment the technicians who showed the Minister on a number of occasions when they thought she was going to speak writing on her Christmas cards. But I think we are having the third reading now and what did the Minister do? She got the pages of her speech wrong. She got at least three pages out of the four wrong and the first one I cannot remember. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: Have you got anything to say about the bill? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Minister is chirping away asking whether I have anything to say about the bill. I have actually been in the House and I have talked about the bill right through the debate. I am sorry that that member has not chosen to get on her feet and speak properly on the bill up until now. 
The Minister can chirp criticise wail and cry but in the end this bill will go down as the legislation that has struck out representation from iwi on polytechnic councils. National has said to Business New Zealand that it does not want its representatives who know about the local economy to be on councils. National does not want local business people to be on polytechnic councils because Anne Tolley knows best. I say people should talk to Anne Tolley about the WelTec council talk to her about the people from the Wairarapa who are on the Universal College of Learning council and talk to her about Gordon Chesterman who used to run the election campaigns for the National Party in Hamilton. He came to the select committee and said we should not do this. A whole pile of people who are members of the National Party know about polytechnics. We know that they are members of the National Party because they told us that. We have worked with them in the past and we know them well. They are good people mainly. I appointed numbers of them to polytechnic councils because they had the talent to do the job. The Minister has said that what they say does not matter. Anne Tolley does not care what her National Party members say and she does not care what the chairs of the councils say because she knows best.