Street Maryan: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Street Maryan: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5945] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. There seems to be a theme developing this week from the National Government: do not listen to the public. It does not matter whether thousands of people march in Auckland to express a view on the need for Maori seats in the Auckland super-city; the Government will not listen. It does not matter whether thousands of people sign a petition against cuts to adult and community education; the Government will not listen. It does not matter whether locals do not want the northern boundary of Auckland City to change; the Government will not listen. It does not matter whether the select committee on the Auckland super-city finishes its work in respect of Maori seats; it does not matter because the Government will not listen. This theme brings us straight to this bill. 
The essence of this bill is the cutting back of community representation on polytechnic councils. It takes the possibility of community input and representation on polytechnic councils out of the equation. It moves polytechnic council membership from anywhere between 14 and 20 members to eight of whom four are appointed by the Minister for Tertiary Education one is a student representative one is an academic representative appointed by the council and one is a poor community representative who is to be elected by a process that is not entirely clear. There is also the chief executive officer of the polytechnic. That is the sum total. So what has been taken out? 
The Maori Party may be interested to know that this bill contains particular provisions around Maori representation. First of all there is none. Maori representation has been taken out as has Pasifika representation. Business representation and union representation have also been taken out. For the Maori Party’s benefit I will quote from the explanatory note of the bill in respect of Maori representation which states: “it is desirable in principle that a polytechnic council should include Maori; and that so far as is possible a polytechnic council should reflect the ethnic and socio-economic diversity of the community it serves.” For a party that was not prepared to have a Maori as its president what are the chances of this Minister appointing people who represent Maori interests? What are the chances? National cannot even do it in-house so how could it possibly do that in an area that really matters? 
Here we have another iteration of this week’s theme of “Let’s not listen to the people and let’s chuck out any provision in legislation that requires community input.” It is probably a little more honest than some of the activities earlier this week whereby people were led to believe that the select committee process may reflect their views only to have the Prime Minister cut across that process. It may be more honest for the Government simply to say upfront that it has no interest in the community being represented. 
I will highlight a couple of disadvantages. Polytechnics are charged to deliver educational opportunities and training for the benefit of the region they serve. How will a polytechnic council know what the interests of the region are if there are no community representatives including business representatives on its council? Let me give some examples and I will choose one at random. The chairman of Eastern Institute of Technology David Pearson said that regional voices ensured that the institute could best service Hawke’s Bay but that he was worried that this legislation will weaken the voice of regional interests. He said that there is no strong voice guaranteed for business and communities in these proposals and that a real potential also exists for political swings backwards and forwards as Governments change. Let me also refer to the chairperson of Wintec in Hamilton Gordon Chesterman. He is quoted in the  
Waikato Times 
—and this is even scarier—as saying: “This section of the bill suggests that the polytechnic sector is in disarray sending a bad signal to the international market place. We rely on the growth of our international students so to suggest we are in a poor state is sending a message that New Zealand is not the best place to gain qualifications.” We can also look at another article which quotes the Universal College of Learning’s chief executive Paul McElroy. It states: “the local polytechnic council is doing a ‘stunning’ job and there is no need to give board members their marching orders.” 
That leads to the next question: what is the purpose of this restructuring of the polytechnic councils? Why does the Minister want to reach so far into the polytechnic councils to run them and to control four out of the eight councillors? Two of the other members of the council—namely the chief executive and the academic board representative—are dependent on those four for appointment and the other two are the poor student rep who will have to carry the can for the whole student community and the somehow elected community representative. 
The control being exercised by the Government in the polytech sector is not a healthy sign. It is not a healthy sign for academic achievement. It is not a healthy sign if a polytech is meant to be required to reflect the needs of and to provide training appropriate to its region—and it will be unable to do that. It is not a healthy sign because we do not know what the Minister’s agenda is; we are not told what it is. The polytechnic sector does not need the kind of wholesale swingeing attack that this bill represents. There are possibilities for improvements in polytechs and they know that better than anybody. They know it better than the Minister and they themselves are looking to improve their performance every day and every year. There have been difficulties in the past but to lump all polytechs into this kind of bucket is a slight on all of them. 
This bill is not an essential move. It conveys the impression that the Minister is keen to control the polytechs and through the graded process of being able to intervene she will be able to again alter and reach into those polytechs in order to control what they are doing. Governments should not be in control of curricula. Governments should not be in control of the kinds of courses put up by a polytech as long as it is meeting the requirements of its region which is what polytechs are charged to do under existing legislation. This bill takes away community voice. It takes away people’s representation on polytechnic councils and even worse it introduces a very serious precedent for the control of tertiary institutions. Academic freedom is one principle that is very important to every tertiary institution. To have the Minister who has no understanding of the importance and the merit of academic freedom as the person who will determine who runs the polytechs is enough to give everybody—I was going to use an inappropriate word—a fright when they think about the purpose of a polytechnic. 
This bill is dangerous. It is limited and although we might wish to say some good things later about the tertiary high school it is apposite that this particular bill is being brought in this week when we have had the repeated theme of not listening to the public.