Delahunty Catherine: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Delahunty Catherine: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8470] 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koutou katoa. I would love to get up and support a great educational bill that would advance the kaupapa of tertiary education which is a sector dear to the hearts and minds of my party where several of us have worked over many years and for which we feel a strong solidarity and a desire to see improvement for the benefit of the students of Aotearoa New Zealand. But this bill is not it. The Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill is not supported by the Green Party. Throughout the select committee process Metiria and I could never discover why it was so important to the Government for evidence that there was widespread governance failure across the country’s polytechnics was never established by anyone. This bill is thoroughly interventionist and contradicts the endless ideological bleating about the nanny State by the Government and the ACT Party which are supporting it. It shows little faith in polytechnics nor yet in the ability of communities to sensibly govern those institutions which are of great importance to the educational opportunities of many communities especially for second-chance learning and in regional areas. 
With reference to the underlying drivers for the bill as the Tertiary Education Union said to us in its submission this is a traditional private sector model based on false crisis assumptions. As the Human Rights Commission submission said there are serious concerns about ministerial powers. Of course the Green Party supports the proper management and governance of polytechnics and the good use of public money to that end but we are not convinced those issues are seriously addressed in this bill. 
We have a number of very serious concerns which are described in our minority view in the commentary on the bill and were outlined in the first reading speech that Metiria Turei made. Those concerns are based on listening carefully to the submitters. On the substantive issue of the reduced size and make-up of the polytechnic councils the submitters to the select committee were many and varied but the majority were extremely concerned about the reduction in the number of council members. Many were prepared to accept that 12 to 20 members were too many but few of them thought that eight was by any means adequate in terms of numbers. The fact that four members will be appointed by the Minister will severely reduce councils’ ability to represent communities and to involve key groups such as tangata whenua staff representation student representation chief executive officers as well as those diverse communities—not to mention union or employer representation which is vital in a vibrant tertiary institution. If there are to be eight council members with four appointed by the Minister there is already a strong opportunity for bias and control and we can add to that a reduction in opportunity for various community voices. 
The first and fundamental issue is Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It was shameful that Ngai Tahu and other tangata whenua had to come and explain to the select committee that as mana whenua of Aoraki they were accustomed to operating effective Treaty-based relationships as of right with local learning institutions such as Aoraki Polytechnic. In this bill they are now being treated as a stakeholder in the community and may or may not have representation on polytechnics depending on the whim of a council as to whether it feels it is appropriate to choose such representatives. Their views were echoed by many other submitters who thought we were past arguing about the status of the Treaty in this kind of context. The new section 222AC(1) could be seen as a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi when it states that when appointing members of a polytechnic it is “desirable in principle” to include Maori and ethnic minorities. “Desirable in principle” means if they feel like it if it seems like a good idea—but where is the te Tiriti recognition? That is retrogressive in the extreme. It is worsened by the fact that only four positions are available to the community. Of course one of the ministerial appointments might be tangata whenua but “desirable in principle” does not reflect in any way the obligations of kawanatanga under te Tiriti to recognise the rangatiratanga. It is “desirable” but then so is world peace. It will not be required under this law. 
During the process the Government apparently listened to submitters and came back with a modification of section 222AA(1) which was allegedly a response to concerns. This is when things started to get very surreal. The response to concerns was that the four members appointed by the Minister would be set in concrete and then it would be up to councils as to who they appointed from the other sectors and community candidates. There would be no prescribed positions. Like much other ghastly and Draconian legislation it was masquerading under the guise of more choice. Choice for whom? The “choice” mantra means that there will be no requirement for student union representation unless it is chosen over community representation. It is all up to the councils and the lack of representation of the key vitally engaged parties is not seen as a problem. It will be councils’ choice in fact which sector they ignore. 
I will quote from submitters on the issue of numbers. Whitireia Community Polytechnic said to us that academic freedom is a serious issue and one place must be reserved for mana whenua. They said that a one-size-fits-all approach causes problems because it is not reality. They were prepared to see changes from 10 to 20 members down to 12 members but not a cap at eight members. The Palmerston North mayor stated that to reduce the number to eight is “impossible for adequate representation”. This issue was also restated by the Eastern Institute of Technology the Manukau Institute of Technology the Wairarapa Rural Education Activities Programme the National Council of Women Waiariki Polytechnic The Open Polytechnic Unitec the Waikato Institute of Technology etc. etc. Nobody denied that we might not need 20 but most people overwhelmingly said that eight could not do the job given the way in which the ministerial appointments had been constructed and the way in which the community and other appointments would have to compete. The Green Party agrees with the Labour Party’s minority view in the commentary on the bill on all matters pertaining to the reduction in polytech council members and the combined boards. 
We do support one part of the bill and there was a consensus on the select committee. We support clause 17 in Part 1 which relates to enabling Manukau Institute of Technology to provide for tertiary high school students. This is a good practical idea and it reflects the needs of the community. 
But this is a bad bill. We sat there listening to submitter after submitter wondering whether it was going to change anything only to find that it did not. When the submitters were so clear about what they wanted out of this legislation—they were extremely clear—it is very disappointing that they were totally ignored. In fact the position is now worse than it was originally before the first reading of the bill because now under the mantra of “choice” polytechnics have to choose whether they will include a student on their boards or whether they will include someone from the community. That is no choice at all for many of our communities who desperately need to have both at the table if they are to have an effective polytechnic that truly represents the diversity of their students. As for the issue of Maori representation this bill is just a disgrace. Quite apart from the issue of the Treaty if members look at the make-up of the student body at many of these polytechnics members will see that they are Maori and Pasifika and they want to see their boards reflect their communities from a perspective of knowledge and experience. 
So this is a bad bill. It was very disheartening for me as a new member to sit through a select committee process which is supposed to be an opportunity for improving a bill only to see it get worse. It made the process feel like token consultation as opposed to an opportunity to improve the responsibility we have for seriously making our educational institutions work for students. The Green Party will be opposing this bill all the way. Kia ora.