Flavell Te Ururoa: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9077] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare a tatou e hui neiiteneipo. If there is one concept that any party would like to support in tertiary education it would be strategic relevance. Today we are encountering systems upon systems of arrangements to plan to fund and to monitor the tertiary education sector. We have the Tertiary Education Commission—the TEC—which is the lead agency to steer the system. We have the tertiary education strategy known as the TES and we have the statement of tertiary education priorities known as STEP which is two documents that will be cut down to one single document—the tertiary education strategy—by the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill. We have the tertiary education organisations known as TEOs which currently submit two types of documents to the Tertiary Education Commission namely charters and profiles which this bill proposes to whittle down to a single document called a plan. 
A person could get very confused with all the acronyms alone—TEC TEOs TES STEP and the like. Let me add one more to the mix: EMRG. Or two more: MTEF—Maori tertiary education framework—and the Maori TES. For Maori we have the Tertiary Education Commission’s external Maori reference group known as the EMRG whose purpose is to provide the commission with a collective Maori view of all the streams of tertiary education at a strategic level. 
 In the midst of all these arrangements the proposal to simplify and streamline the system is obviously really welcome but simplicity is one thing cultural competency is quite another. The Maori Party’s key concern in relation to the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill is how tangata whenua will fare within the staged system of reforms of the tertiary system instigated by the Tertiary Education Commission. So we come to the bill knowing that only a society that knows where it comes from and the forces that shaped it is in any position to understand itself and know where it is going. 
A key point we would make is that there is a huge difference between what Maori see as strategically relevant to the survival of Maori as a people and what the Crown may see as strategically relevant to the economic growth of the nation—a huge difference. An analysis might be brought to us by way of a statement from Russell Bishop and Ted Glynn in 1998 when they said: “If one lesson is clear from the history of our country it is that the imposition of a model of change from outside of the experiences understandings and aspirations of the community group is doomed to fail—failure that is if the objective is other than assimilation or the perpetuation of a situation of dominance and subjection.” 
When we turn to the previous tertiary education strategy 2002-07 Maori are positioned first as national citizens rather than as tangata whenua. Although the strategy sought to articulate a vision of “a prosperous and confident nation supported by a unified and connected tertiary education system” it minimised and relegated the relevance of tangata whenua to sideline roles as players in the marketplace. 
In another reversal of strategic relevance Treaty partnerships were not defined as parties to the Treaty but were instead fashioned as merely one of a number of stakeholder groups and probably last in the line after partnerships with business and industry. 
From looking deeper into the detail of what has gone before we find that in the Maori chapter Te RautakiMataurangaMaori contribution to the achievement of Maori development aspirations there was a raft of statements about being accountable to Maori communities and about governance structures and processes that will meet the expectations of Maori communities. But where does it say that these things have been achieved or that they have even been monitored? Nowhere. That is because these things have not been actioned at all—out of sight out of mind. 
Where does this leave the Treaty then? Does that mean that if it is not written in it will somehow be included? It is sort of like the references to the Treaty being deleted from the New Zealand curriculum. In the first instance whoops a mistake is made and back in it goes. 
These are the questions I have asked when considering the proposal to consolidate the four tertiary education steerage documents into two. On closer reading of the bill what I have found is missing is any requirement on tertiary providers to demonstrate a commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as was required in the predecessor documents charters and profiles. It does not seem to be around. 
Under section 181(b) of the Education Act 1989 this is still a requirement. Unfortunately the Maori Party is a little bit concerned that the Maori MPs in Labour have sat quietly while the deletion of the Treaty has been put in place here and cut out of the policy. We might add this to the report card on the Treaty deletions this Government is clocking up: the Treaty taken out of the draft school curriculum done; the Treaty deleted from health specifications done; the Treaty deleted from legislation in progress; and the Treaty taken out of charters and profiles in progress. 
Fortunately the public does not support the “slash in silence” approach of this Government and they have acted in ways that seek to restore optimism for the Treaty-based future. So just as health providers have reacted angrily and schoolteachers flooded the Ministry of Education with their objections we will be looking to the select committee process for the voice of New Zealanders to be once again heard in upholding the mana of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. But unfortunately again it shows that our Maori caucus colleagues in Labour may be having their voices suppressed. It also makes us suspicious of the nature of the consultation process that the Ministry of Education and the Tertiary Education Commission have or more likely have not gone through in order to get to this point. 
Have they fulfilled their obligations to consult with Maori hapu iwi staff students and communities about how best to support and advance the developmental aspirations of Maori and is this consultation actually apparent in the bill in the new tertiary education strategy or even in the promised but yet to be seen Maori strategy? Or have they succumbed to what the renowned educationist Paulo Freire called domestication—being trained to obey—rather than what he believed education should be doing which was about liberation to be able to explore and think freely and to think for oneself? 
Our consultation as the Maori Party with Te Mana Akonga the national Maori tertiary students’ association tells us that in far too many instances the tertiary education organisations are failing to adequately consult with Maori in developing charters and profiles despite the legal requirement to do so. In some instances consultation with Maori students has consisted of a letter informing them of what has already been determined. In other instances the content and concerns raised in submissions and hui have been inadequately reflected in charters and profiles or not reflected at all. But when this lack of consultation has been raised with the Tertiary Education Commission there has been no evidence of any action having been taken. 
I have taken a little bit of time to outline some of the important background to this bill. Whilst we support moves to clarify and simplify procedures the overriding concern is that the new changes will be beset by the same problems as the parent documents. The key limitation with this new set of reforms is that until there is a clearly outlined and specified relationship between both the tertiary education strategy and the yet to be released Maori tertiary education strategy particularly in relation to provider compliance and Government monitoring there is always the risk of disconnection. 
We in the Maori Party have a particular reason for concern when I think back to some of the questions I got to put to the Tertiary Education Commission at the Education and Science Committee recently. I asked questions about how one would judge whether courses are relevant and received the answer: “TEC does not judge cultural relevance.” Further they do not have any criteria any systems to assess cultural relevance. Under those conditions is it likely that courses that are seen by Maori as relevant and about the survival of Maori language and culture are accepted? Probably not. Yet the Tertiary Education Commission is charged with the role of planning monitoring and funding the tertiary sector specifically in relation to relevance. 
The Maori Party has more questions than it has answers about this bill. We have questions such as whether without a specific Maori focus or Maori chapter in the new tertiary education strategy will Maori issues fall off the table? When can we expect to see the proposed separate Maori strategy document that was meant to be released at the end of April 2007? What will be the level of connection between the Maori tertiary education strategy and the tertiary education strategy? How willing will the Tertiary Education Commission be to ensure that tertiary education organisations consult with Maori in the development of their plans particularly given that they do not have a good record of doing so? 
We will support this bill because we support the general concept of simplifying and streamlining an overly complex system. However we will be keenly watching the select committee process to assess how well this bill responds to the imperative of delivering what Maori see as strategically relevant to the survival and flourishing of Maori as a people.