Mallard Trevor: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:659;Page:8515] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The Minister for Tertiary Education seems to have a problem in respect of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. She seems to be able to talk or attend the House but not both at the same time. We saw that last week in the second reading debate where she made a fleeting appearance in the House saw that she had missed her speech and ran away like a startled chicken. She would not stay in the House. She would not take a later call as was her right. 
We see now a Minister who does not have the courage of her convictions— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: You cannot make that inference. All members are honourable members. The member cannot use that word. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I cannot believe that this Minister is so out of touch with her portfolio that she does not have the confidence to get on her hind legs and take a call. I think it is disgraceful that the Prime Minister leaves in this position a Minister whose level of competence right through the portfolio is pathetic but in the tertiary area is especially bad. This was the Minister who complained when the vice-chancellors met her— 
Sue Moroney 
: What do they do? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well it was a case of what they do but then she complained that the chancellors would have met the Labour Party. She did not understand the difference between a vice-chancellor and a chancellor within the university system. That is just typical of the lack of preparation the lack of understanding of this sector on the part of this Minister. 
I say to my colleagues from the Maori Party that I regret the fact that they did not take us up on our offer from last week to give us a copy of their amendment so that it could have been considered by our caucus. It was an offer that I made to the Maori Party whip and I think it was regrettable that this was not taken up. I say to the member Te Ururoa Flavell that consideration will go on now as to whether that amendment will be supported. However if the member had any real hope of trying to build support for it then I would have thought he would come to the party that is the biggest party likely to support the shape of his amendment rather than have us find it on the Table of the House during question time. 
I also say to Maori Party members that I will be interested to hear their calls and in particular what their view will be on the third reading of this legislation if in fact as I predict their amendment is rejected by the Government. If it is rejected by the Government will the Maori Party support this legislation in its third reading? Will the Maori Party vote for something that takes away Maori representation as it has done on the bill’s first and second reading? I think it is incongruous and surprising that a party pushing so hard for Maori representation in Auckland can vote at least twice for legislation that strips out Maori representation as it does in this area. 
In my second reading speech I gave some credit to Roger Douglas because I think it is pretty rare in Parliament that the views of one member—albeit backed by the rest of his party—have managed to shift the legislation and to take it from something that was bad to something that was worse. I see that my National colleagues on the Education and Science Committee are smiling; they know what the story is. They know that without the support of the ACT Party this legislation would not be passed. I think that they especially Allan Peachey would probably think that that would not be a bad thing really because with this legislation we are getting to something that is so far away from a model that involves a community and from what has been the strength of polytechnics—that is the involvement of their communities in the decision making. 
Local communities do know best; they can have a major influence. They know where the jobs are they know where the skills that need to be developed are and that is something that I think is particularly important. But there is a possibility under this legislation for the Minister and those appointed by the Minister to totally exclude the local community or parts thereof. For example we can look at the Wairarapa. What could well come out of this bill is that the Wairarapa would have no representation at all. I think that John Hayes did a pretty good job of bringing his local representatives along to the select committee. They promoted the point of view of the Wairarapa and its importance but did that make it to the legislation? No it did not; they were ignored. I am sure that one of the things the candidates for the Wairarapa will be working on in the future will be that particular area. 
The next question I ask is why this Minister applies this measure only to polytechnics. Why does it not apply to wananga? There is not a word not a whimper and not a whisper from Minister Tolley in the chair. 
Chris Hipkins 
: She’s busy reading about Riley the rat 
. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Ha ha! No no—there is no one there able to read that to her. There is not a word. 
What about universities? Why does this legislation apply to polytechs and not to universities? How does the Minister differentiate between those different forms of Crown entities? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What’s the logic? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think there is no logic with this particular Minister; it is something that is absolutely and utterly lacking. 
I also want to know what the rush is. What is the urgency about this legislation? Why is it the key legislation that has to be passed before the Minister goes home for Christmas? You know she has another bill on the Order Paper that she told us ages ago was much more important. Maybe she does not have the numbers to do what she wants on that legislation; therefore it languishes on the Order Paper. But nothing in this legislation necessitates movement at this sort of speed. 
There is a question about whether corporatisation is going on as part of this exercise. If we were to pick a piece of the education system that Sir Roger would want to sell first as a bit of a trial a bit of an experiment then I am sure that polytechs would be that part of the system. I know that a number of private training establishments are lining up to take over polytechnics if they can and I wonder whether this corporatisation of polytechnics is in fact the first stage of the agenda that will go on with the second stage moving on to their sale. 
I have two final comments to make on the bill. The first is that as Minister of Education dealing on occasions with both universities and polytechs in pretty severe financial difficulty I had no problem with the legislation as it existed as far as getting people in there to sort the institutions out was concerned. There were some big steps to be taken on occasions and they were taken. As Minister I was not always popular for doing that especially around Taranaki because of the steps that had to be taken there. Popularity was not very important as far as I was concerned; what was important was whether I had the right tools. The tools were there; this legislation is unnecessary. 
The final point I will make is that the exposure as far as we are concerned is in fact much bigger in the university sector than in the polytechnic sector. That is the area where we are likely to have the bigger problems but the Minister is not addressing that.