Upston Louise: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Upston Louise: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8466] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am delighted to stand in support of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill in the name of Minister Tolley at its second reading. We on this side of the House recognise that education is vital to the economy of this country. That is why education was one of our major planks in an election where we were overwhelmingly supported by the country. 
Polytechnics are extremely important to local communities and our national economy. This sector has indicated that the way polytechs are currently governed is inefficient. What we need as a country in terms of making our economy stronger is institutions that are strong sound in terms of their financial management and responsive to the needs of their local communities. This includes meeting the changing needs of employers communities iwi and others who need high-quality vocational education. 
In terms of areas of change there are many proposals in the bill. I did not hear the member who has just resumed his seat Trevor Mallard speak much about them at all. I do not know that he necessarily understood the bill because I did not hear him talk about it very much. The bill proposes that polytech councils be reduced in size from 20 to eight members. These eight include the four ministerial appointees. There were 56 submissions and submitters had a range of views about the members and who should make up the council. I thought it would be useful to share some of their thoughts rather than some of the ranting of the previous speaker. Waiariki Institute of Technology is in the Taupo electorate. It currently has a strong co-governance model and it wanted to see that any ministerial appointments were balanced by an equal number of appointments by the iwi authority. The change the Education and Science Committee has come up with in terms of those four members appointed by the council would allow them to do that. It gives them the flexibility to choose a model that will work for their polytech and that is what this bill is about. It is about improving governance and making sure that the communities are able to choose a council structure that works for them. 
Ngai Tahu also said they wanted a 50:50 model. One of their comments was that they agreed that the chief executive officer did not necessarily have to be a member of the council. In the second reading version of the bill councils can choose for themselves. This is important and I think the previous speaker completely ignored or perhaps did not understand that the bill gives polytechnic councils the choice of those four members. Councils of course are in partnership with the Crown so there will be four ministerial appointees and four appointed by the council and the council can choose how it is made up to best suit its needs. This Government recognises that not all polytechs are the same so we are allowing that degree of flexibility. 
I will give members a couple of other examples. Tai Poutini Polytechnic agreed that the academic board and student representative were not necessary and that the focus should be on skill. A couple of other submitters were strongly in favour of strong governance and the need to improve governance skills on the council. Unitec was another polytechnic that was supportive of the change from a representative model and Wintec was also supportive not believing that—as the Opposition might try to tell us—the changes would limit academic freedom. They were supportive of these changes. We also heard about some of the other polytechs like the Universal College of Learning that use a governance matrix when they are recruiting and selecting members to make sure that the balance of skills is appropriate so that it makes the council as strong as possible going forward. 
Another area that this bill addresses—which was not discussed at all by the previous speaker so I wonder whether he remembers the bill at all—concerns flexible interventions. The bill proposes a gradually escalating series of responses to the risks that polytechs may face such as financial or educational problems. I think it is important to remember that the focus of this bill is making sure that we have the best polytechs and the strongest polytechs in terms of both financial and educational outcomes. The select committee recommended some additions to the terms and conditions and they were taken into consideration. A number of changes were incorporated as a result of the feedback that submitters gave us which is an important part of the select committee process. That is an important point to note. 
Another key change was the option for the Minister for Tertiary Education to combine the councils of two or more polytechs if they have themselves recommended that they be combined and if the Minister is satisfied that their communities have been consulted. Again this is another level of choice for the polytech councils involved. It reinforces choice for the councils themselves which is something members on this side of the House encourage so that we can allow the polytechs to have a bit of flexibility to make choices for themselves. 
Another key highlight which is a significant part that was supported by all of the submitters was the setting up of the tertiary high school in South Auckland which basically will be up and running at the Manukau Institute of Technology by the beginning of 2010. I am delighted to speak in support of the second reading of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. Thank you.