Hughes Gareth: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Gareth: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee[Sitting date: 27 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:964. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GARETH HUGHES (Green):Mr Chair kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou kia ora. In this speech I would like to limit my contribution to looking at clause 6 in Part 1 which basically gives the Minister oversight of the university councils. It takes over what the Government did in 2009 with the institutes of technology and polytechnics sector.What the Green Party cares about is quality education. What it cares about is making sure students have a voice and representation around the governance tables at our universities which clause 6 will disestablish in favour of the Minister deciding who will be on there. What we want to see is a good student voice coming through the top levels of a university because ultimately this is what our universities are for. They are not just businesses. They are not just corporations. In fact they are there to educate to inspire and to grow the New Zealand economy with trade enterprise and academic skills.We face a challenging and new time for our university sector. I think now is a critical time to have student voices staff voices and other representatives around that table to make sure our universities are planning for the future. That is exactly what the regulatory impact assessment said. When you look in that report at all the challenges that universities are facing I do not know why you would not want students around that table to provide their insight and advice.Obviously it is an incredibly unpopular change. Of the more than a thousand submissions 474 were opposed to this in particular. Only five—only five people—thought this was a good idea. I invite the Minister to explain exactly what the rationale is. Why are we doing this? The submitters raised numerous concerns around institutional autonomy our international rankings—which actually measure institutional autonomy—why it was beneficial to get rid of student and staff voices. How are we going to make sure diversity is actually represented there and where is the evidence for smaller university councils without those guaranteed representative roles? Where is the evidence? Where is the harm that they are trying to address through this legislative change?I would like the Minister to actually answer the question which is: “Why do we need smaller councils?”. When you look at the corporate evidence in New Zealand in fact the corporate evidence of New Zealand and Australian businesses shows that larger councils or boards actually have better financial performances than smaller ones. So if this is simply around a corporate argument for efficiency I ask the Minister to look at the evidence that is portrayed.If there is an issue as there was in the institutes of technology and polytechnics sector in 2009 what is it? Where is the financial mismanagement? Where is the harm they are trying to address? And where is the international example? When you look around the world you have got the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—they have got 70 people on their council—and Cambridge University has got 30 people. This is why I have put in Supplementary Order Paper 24 to address three issues. The first issue is getting rid of clause 6 by repealing it. This ideological flawed approach to university governance which gets rid of staff and students’ voices should not proceed. There is no evidence there is no support from the public and there is no good reason why this should go ahead. The second part of the Supplementary Order Paper would ensure that tertiary institutions accurately represent the demographics of their constituents and their support staff. By repealing clause 6 I am essentially proposing that we return to the status quo but I think we can do better when it comes to reporting and monitoring diversity. The last part of this Supplementary Order Paper would limit the length of term of ministerial appointments from 4 to 2 years.There is a place an appropriate place for ministerial appointments—not in the dominant position of up to 40 percent which is what this legislation would achieve. What I want to see is university councils representing their students and their staff actively planning for the future and addressing those challenges because they have got the best advice the advice of not just customers—as I imagine some National members may view them—but the students the life and soul of universities; what they are actually there for.What I do not want to see is university councils that look more and more like Minister Steven Joyce that look more and more like the Government’s view. I think we should make sure we ensure diversity and transparency in the university councils. Kia ora.