Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) : It is not often that legislation goes to a select committee and returns to this Chamber worse than before. Usually the select committee deliberation is a process of improvement of legislation, not a process of degeneration. This legislation before us now is, in fact, materially worse than it was before.

There are a number of questions to ask, and the parts in particular that I wish to speak to, and will speak to during the course of this Committee stage, relate particularly to the constitution of polytechnic councils. But it is worth going back to review the purpose of polytechnics and to try, in the discussion of that, to divine the purpose of this legislation, because it is not clear. It is not clear why the Minister for Tertiary Education requires such dominant control of polytechnics around the country. It is not clear why the Minister refuses to have guaranteed iwi representation on polytechnic councils. It is not clear why the Minister is afraid of student representation on polytechnic councils, or of industry, union, and staff representation on polytechnic councils; none of that is clear.

The purpose of a polytechnic is to deliver post-compulsory—that is, tertiary—educational opportunities that are fit for purpose in its particular region. Here we have a Government, within the space of 12 months, taking to the polytechnic sector in a way that it has not taken to any other part of the tertiary education sector in New Zealand. At a time when jobs are at a premium, when people are being laid off, and when normally they expect to be able to turn to their tertiary institutions and say “OK, times are tough. Let me go and upskill; let me go and retrain.”, this Government, through this legislation, is not only limiting opportunities but limiting the way a polytech might respond to the educational learning and training needs of its community. That is most clearly demonstrated in the provisions around the restriction on the number of councillors and on who might be on a polytechnic council.

This legislation, under the Minister’s hand, provides for polytechnic councils to consist of no more than eight members. Although the number is not of particular concern—I do not mind if there are eight—what is of concern is that there are no guaranteed positions for iwi, or for communities, or for anybody who may have an interest, a legitimate interest, in the operation and the offerings of that polytechnic. The second thing of concern is that four of the eight members will be appointed by the Minister, and that is the worry, because that goes to the heart of the autonomy of the institution, which in turn impacts on the academic freedom of an organisation. That has to be of concern to everybody in the tertiary education sector, because who knows who is next?

I would like the Minister for Tertiary Education to get up at some point in this debate and explain exactly why she has chosen to restrict not only the numbers on the councils but also who might be able to be appointed to a polytechnic council. It is not sufficient for the Minister simply to say in the legislation that in principle it is a good idea to have Māori representation. When we are talking about polytechnics that are grounded in the training of young people, and in the retraining of adults who are losing their jobs, it is not sufficient simply to say that iwi representation is desirable in principle.

We know that many of the industries for which polytechs deliver particular training programmes are located in areas where Māori take up a large number of the educational opportunities and where Māori dominate the industries that are being served. I take the example of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology in my own area of Nelson. The forestry, horticulture, viticulture, agriculture, and aquaculture courses that are offered through its programmes are absolutely pertinent to the development of that region. Not only do iwi have a vested interest in the development of the region but they also have an interest, and a very strong interest, in many of those industries as well. So it is not sufficient for the Minister simply to put legislation up that says that we will have only eight members on a polytechnic council, and, by the way, that she will appoint four of those members. It is not sufficient.

I can only assume that the National members on the Education and Science Committee were directed by the Minister to make this legislation worse, because that is what they have done. There will be no student representation on polytechnic councils—which is something that has been in place for a long time—no guaranteed staff representation, and no guaranteed union or business representation. Those are the very people who might be able to advise a polytech on the offerings that that region needs, the kind of training that the industries require the polytech to provide, the certificates, diplomas, and degrees that are necessary to feed into the future, and the future skills required in each of the regions.

This legislation is not only ill-advised but also demonstrates the hallmark of this Minister, which is the obstinacy of the ignorant. She has no grip on the content of the tertiary education portfolio, she has no way of responding, because of her lack of awareness of what is currently provided, and she has no vision for the skills that ought to be provided by our tertiary institutions, most particularly the polytechs, for the next 10 or 20 years. That is the vision that is lacking.

The tertiary education strategy is a wafer thin document that does not link tertiary education opportunities to skills training and the skills that are required for the future of this country. It is a shabby piece of work. It is not worthy of a Minister to come to this House, to strip back polytechs without any justification—with no hint of justification—with no reason that is possible to divine, except for some obscure or hidden reason, to which she is not owning up. That is not good enough—that is not good enough. Because she is ignorant of the impact of these changes on local communities, her refuge is obstinacy. That is not sufficient. That is not a ground on which to make law.

This is not good law; this is not good process. The bill should have come out of the select committee better than when it went in. That did not happen in this case. There are a number of amendments in my name seeking to improve the representation on polytechnic councils, including iwi, staff, students, and community interests. All of those are legitimate claims on the membership of a polytechnic council, and none of them has been adequately addressed in this legislation.

This is a shabby piece of work. It is not going to serve our polytechs well. But, worse than that, it will not serve the needs of our society into the next 10 to 15 years. It is not the stuff that visions are made of. It is not the stuff that will provide for our educational needs in the future. It is offensive on several counts.

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 Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori Party support this legislation in its third reading? Will the Māori Party vote for something that takes away Māori 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 Māori representation in Auckland can vote at least twice for legislation that strips out Māori 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 wānanga? 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.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : It is absolutely clear that Part 1 of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill is part of the agenda of this Government to take further control of polytechnics in this country. We on this side of the Chamber were criticised from time to time when we were in Government of having some kind of nanny State agenda. Well, it is quite clear from the behaviour of this Government towards polytechnics that it does not value academic freedom within polytechnics, does not value community representation within polytechnics, and, in fact, is trying here to take further and closer control of polytechnics. No doubt it wants to move down the path of further funding cuts, and, potentially, get rid of some of the polytechnics in this country.

In Part 1 we see a dramatic reduction in community representation, and in the role of communities in governing their polytechnics. That is a great shame, because one of the things that happened under the tertiary reforms in the previous Government is that communities began to have a greater ownership of polytechnics. Communities were part of setting the agenda in terms of how polytechnics would be run, because those polytechnics are critical to providing the labour force for regions. On this side of the Chamber we recognised that critical role, and we began to work more closely with employers and with representatives of workers to make sure that community need was being dealt with by polytechnics. In one fell swoop that is being taken away by Part 1 of the bill, because there is no guaranteed representation for employers. Employers are the people in a community who look to a polytechnic to provide the skilled staff they need. That is the case in any region in New Zealand. Let us take the example of the Wairarapa, which Mr Mallard mentioned earlier. Employers in that region look to the Universal College of Learning to help provide them with their labour force, and they are being cut out of representation at the governance level by this bill and by this Minister. Workers’ representatives, who know about the training needs within communities and know about what is required in terms of developing a skilled workforce, are being taken out of representation at the governance level by this Minister, the Hon Anne Tolley, and by this bill.

The Minister previously told students—another group whose representation in terms of governance has been taken out—that she valued their role. She told the New Zealand University Students Association in July that she highly valued the position of student representatives on governance boards of tertiary education institutions, and that it was particularly important as part of effective and robust quality assurance mechanisms. So what did the Minister do? Not only has she taken out student representation, but she did so after the select committee process. She came over the top of the select committee and went back on what she told students in July. She decided not to stand up for what she told students in July.

The Minister in the chair can go on signing her Christmas cards and not listening to a single word this side of the Chamber is saying. She has not taken a call to defend this legislation; she is signing her Christmas cards. That is how much this Minister thinks of polytechnics, of students, of employers, of workers, and of Māori; she will sit there and sign her Christmas cards instead of getting up, taking a call, and actually defending the fact that she has stripped away community representation from polytechnics. She has gone back on her word to students, which she gave in July, that she valued their representation. It is an ongoing pattern for this Government; it does not want to listen.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise to my colleague, but he has just pointed out something that I think is very important. Members have an enormous amount of flexibility, and they do multitask when they are in the Chamber. It is my view—and I think there have been previous rulings in the Chamber that support it—that Ministers in the chair are in a special category. They are there to follow the debate, and there are more restrictions on what they can do than there are on other members. I think there have been previous rulings to do with, for example, the use of laptops. I think it is beneath the dignity of the Chamber for the Minister in the chair, who is meant to be taking notes on the bill, to be writing on Christmas cards.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am just exercising my mind as to those things that have been eliminated, such as knitting and one or two other things.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Not in the chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes; those things have been ruled out of order. But in terms of correspondence and the nature of correspondence, I do not think there have been any rulings on those things. Ministers make a call as to how they want to present themselves. In this case I cannot judge whether the Minister is listening, which is what the member is asking. I think that the task she is engaged in is not overly complicated, and I will permit her to continue.

GRANT ROBERTSON: I would never want to contest your ruling, Mr Chair, but I think multitasking by writing Christmas cards and thinking about the bill might be beyond this particular Minister, actually.

In the time remaining to me, I make the point that communities and polytechnics have to work together. If we are to get good outcomes in our workforce, and if we are to get the kinds of skilled people we want, we need communities to be part of governance, and this Minister is stripping that out. Polytechnics could have been playing a significant role in our recovery from the recession if this Minister had been more motivated to invest in polytechnics and support them to play their role, instead of trying to strip out their governance measures, as she is doing today. Instead of wanting to take away student representation and take away Māori representation, she could have supported polytechnics to be an important part of the future of New Zealand. Instead, we are left with the distinct impression that polytechnics are not important, that they are on the chopping block, and that they are about to have their important role of supporting regional economies taken out. The Minister in the chair should take a call, leave her Christmas cards behind for just a moment, and tell us why.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) : Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. Tēnā koutou katoa. It is appropriate that I start my speech today by acknowledging the loss of a very fine young leader from the polytech sector, Mr Todd Fernie, whose death has been made known to the Green Party. Todd was a leader at the Auckland University of Technology in scholarship and in supporting students with disabilities. This loss will be huge. He was a fine leader in human rights in the polytechnic sector, particularly for people getting a second chance at an education and for people who have disabilities and a disabling society to contend with. We think of him today.

I return to the bill. I have been listening to the debate, and I know there are people outside the Chamber who are listening and who do not regard this bill’s passage as a particularly humorous experience. They are looking seriously at what is driving this bill and what is really behind the changes. I stand to speak for a third time on this deeply frustrating bill, which the Green Party has consistently opposed. I will speak briefly, because what more can be said except that the vast majority of submitters were opposed to the bill?

No one has yet made a good argument for reducing representation. The model is a flawed business model. It is arguably a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It is limiting community participation, student participation, union participation, and employer representation on polytechnic councils. It gives the Minister excessive powers to appoint half the board, as well as to appoint the chair and deputy chair.

What is behind the bill; what is the rationale? No one produced a good argument in the second reading debate, except possibly Roger Douglas, who said that small boards work better. The majority of the submitters were quite clear that they did not expect to keep having up to 20 people on the boards, but that eight was far too small a number for them. Many of the submitters were happy to look at 12 to 15 as an adequate number. It is very important that we look at the broader issue, and not just at the issue of having a small group of people who are easily managed. This is about a community institution that represents community interests in education, so eight members simply is not enough.

We must also look at the issue of ministerial powers. It is not common for an external person to appoint the chair and deputy chair of a board. It is far more common in the effective working of a board that the chair and the deputy chair are appointed by the members, as a mandate for the members to build trust and to act in good faith. Now we have an external person, the Minister, who not only will appoint four members of the board but also will appoint the chair and the deputy chair. As an earlier speaker said, this is a curiously nanny State-ish approach.

Hon Shane Jones: Shocking!

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: It is shocking, as the member says.

Ministerial appointments must be driven by something, and as the failure of polytechs has not been established, it would appear that it is an ideological position, driven by a business governance model. That is fine for businesses. The bill is trying to fix a problem that the public tertiary education system does not present, because it is not a business. I know it is hard for some people in this Chamber to believe, but not everything is a business. This is actually an investment in the public good. If it is a governance problem, we need to recognise how we can improve that without reducing the opportunity to recognise the public good.

I worked at Tairāwhiti Polytechnic, and that polytechnic had its issues. Requiring it to act like a business led to some very negative distortions in terms of the student body. Believe it or not, a polytechnic is there for the student body, but what that polytechnic has done is encourage students to enrol for courses for which they were not necessarily suited. We were encouraged to enrol them, whether or not they were suited to particular courses, because the polytechnic needed to survive financially. Students would end up doing courses they were not suited to, and end up in debt and with no qualification. I cannot see how that was in the public interest, or in the public good. But it is a business! If it is a business, all we need to do is get people to pay their money, and there is no responsibility for whether those people actually get an effective qualification out of it. But that is all called choice. I would argue that that is not in the interests of education that is for the public good.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) : It seems that Max Bradford has made a reappearance in the Chamber today. I am sure he would be very, very proud of several of the bills on the Order Paper. He would be very proud of this Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill, and I am sure he would be very proud of the Electricity Industry Bill, which we will also be discussing later tonight. Max Bradford would be very proud of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill because it bears a striking resemblance to his tertiary review green paper that he introduced into the House in the late 1990s, in the dying days of the last National Government. As a matter of fact, a lot of the proposals that the Minister for Tertiary Education, Anne Tolley, has brought forward to the Committee today mirror the proposals that Max Bradford brought forward about 10 or 12 years ago. That shows how much National’s thinking has moved on in the last decade. National members are debating the same failed ideas that National was putting forward in the late 1990s.

Max Bradford’s tertiary review green paper wanted to introduce a corporate governance model not just for polytechnics but for universities and wānanga as well. It wanted to place a higher share of the cost of tertiary education on to students, in the form of higher fees, and it wanted there to be more private sector involvement in the tertiary education sector, through private training establishments. Ultimately, that is where this bill is going. This bill is a precursor to more private sector involvement in tertiary education.

I have to say, though, that there is one difference between the proposals that Max Bradford would have brought forward at the time and the proposals brought forward by Anne Tolley: Max Bradford would have shown up in the House. He would have spoken in the second reading debate, not scurried away. He would have sent the bill to a select committee. He would have fronted up. He would not have sat in the chair and signed Christmas cards while the bill was being debated in the Committee stage. He would have fronted up and justified the reforms that he was putting forward. We have seen nothing even close to that from this Minister. One would think that after the embarrassment of missing her own second reading speech, the Minister would have been the first person to rise to her feet when the Committee stage came up, to correct the fact that she was too hopeless even to be in the House for the second reading. It will show on the record of the House that there was no substantive second reading speech from a Government Minister because Anne Tolley was too hopeless to show up in the House and make a speech.

Anne Tolley does not care enough about that to try to correct it now, while we are in the Committee stage. For a moment I thought she was conscientiously writing down the points that were being raised by Opposition members, so that she could stand up and respond to them. In fact, we have no evidence that she is going to do that. She thinks that her Christmas cards are more important than the law that she is trying to make in this Parliament. She thinks that Christmas cards are more important than participating in the debate on a law that will be in her name.

Carmel Sepuloni: They’re apology cards to everyone she’s upset.

CHRIS HIPKINS: They could be apology cards to everybody whom she has upset this year. I cannot see enough of them to judge whether that is the case.

This bill is an outrageous abuse of process by the National Government, and it shows once again how little regard the National members have for the voices of people whom they disagree with. They are seeking to remove from the councils of polytechnics the voices of people who are likely to disagree with them.

I have been a member of a tertiary institution council, the Victoria University of Wellington Council. I became a member of that council in 2000, and it would be fair to say that at the time I became a member there had been several years of governance failure. The university was practically broke. Up until that point the university council had included many of the people whom the National Government holds up as pillars of good governance. Roger Kerr was on the Victoria University council when the university just about went broke. He was pushing the types of reforms that the National Government has brought forward in this bill. In fact, I would say to the Minister that the reason Victoria University turned itself round is that it had a very inclusive approach to dealing with its financial deficit and its financial problems. The leadership of the university and the council were very committed to hearing the voices of students, staff, employers, unions, and all of the other stakeholders in the community—the alumni—and were interested in involving those people in the process. That started at the council level. It started right at the highest level of the institution’s governance, and as a result there was widespread buy-in to the changes that resulted from that process. I think there was—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I will give the member another call, but I will just give a little clarification, because he has been a wee bit remiss. It is a convention in the House, and it is recorded in Speakers’ Rulings on pages 24 and 25, that the absence of a member should not be referred to in either the House or a select committee. The point has now been made, and I do not wish to have members continuing with that theme. Members can say a member did not take a call and make a lot of references in that vein, but referring to the absence of a member is not something that is permitted, by convention.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The point that I would like you to clarify now is whether it is permissible to say a Minister came into the Chamber for a short time and left the Chamber in a hurry, and to clarify where those lines are drawn. That was the case. The Minister did come into the Chamber. She was here for a very short time, and she ran away—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member is now getting into the area that I said the member Chris Hipkins should not be going into. I think he has just repeated the things that I have a concern about. I am trying to be consistent with regard to rulings. Any single thing that refers to the absence of a member is out of order.

Jo Goodhew: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek your assistance with regard to Speaker’s ruling 108/5. I ask whether speaking to the question could be a ruling that you would perhaps make on this issue. We are hearing a fair bit of repetition that does not in any way address the question. I ask for your guidance on that point.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The presiding officer takes a range of things into consideration, particularly when it comes to closure time. Repetition, relevance, and a whole range of things are in there, and that is the way that we will deal with that when the time comes.

CHRIS HIPKINS: As I was saying, this part of the bill that we are debating reduces the stakeholder representation on polytechnic councils. That ranges from employer representation through to former student representation, current student representation, staff representation, and so on. In my experience, having been on a university council—those councils are not covered by this bill, but until this point they have followed the same governance model as polytechnic councils—the student and staff representatives are often some of the people who are the most prepared for meetings. They offer an insight and a perspective that is not offered by the corporate governors—if we can call them that—who are involved in the governance of the institutions. As a matter of fact, those representatives managed to haul the institutions back, in some instances, from making decisions that would be detrimental to the long-term interests of the institutions. One of the last Victoria University council meetings that I attended as a student representative—and there will be no guaranteed student representatives on polytechnic councils, if the Minister continues to force this bill through Parliament—

Jo Goodhew: There can be four.

CHRIS HIPKINS: Jo Goodhew said there will be four. Obviously, she has not read the bill, as there have never been four student representatives on polytechnic councils. I think a maximum of three was the allowance for polytechnic councils previously, so perhaps the member might like to read the bill that has been put forward in the name of the Minister.

As I was saying, the student representatives, in particular, provide a unique perspective on the governance of councils. That allows the corporate members, or the non-stakeholder representatives, on a council to be given a unique perspective. At perhaps the last university council meeting that I attended at Victoria University, we were debating a number of changes to some of the statutes of the university. The student representatives put forward a position that the corporate members, or the ministerial appointees, ended up supporting, because they thought that the issues that we were raising on the statutes dealing with student grievances and so forth were very legitimate. Those views would not have come forward if the stakeholder model of governance had been abandoned, but, unfortunately, the model that the Government is moving towards is very much one where stakeholders are excluded from governance. The Government is moving away from the idea of having a representative, participatory democracy, where the people who are impacted on by the decisions of a particular body have the chance to have a say in those decisions. Stakeholders certainly have not had the chance to have a say on much of the legislation brought before the House, including this bill, because the Government has an aversion to the regular parliamentary process. Ministers do not speak on their own bills, bills are not routinely referred to select committees, and so forth.

In conclusion, I simply wrap up by saying this is a bad bill. It excludes people from the governing processes of polytechnics.

Hon Member: So sad.

CHRIS HIPKINS: It is very sad. It excludes from the governing processes of polytechnics people who have a lot to offer to the good governance of polytechnics. The Minister seems to completely fail to understand that stakeholder representatives provide a unique perspective. They provide very valuable input into the governance of polytechnics, and it is a shame that she is excluding them from the process.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Ka nui te mihi ki a tātou e hoa tēnei pō. I am pleased to take a call on the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill on behalf of the Māori Party. I simply say that members may be aware of the President of the Māori Party, Professor Whatarangi Winiata.

Hon Shane Jones: Yes, great man—a very good Anglican.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: Ā, he tika tāu! [Yes, you are right!] He is the sort of person who tries to look at everything in a positive light, he seldom gets angry, and he tends to look for the good in everything that is going. We in the Māori Party are very, very much like that. In the second reading of this bill, although we had some concerns in particular about some of the matters raised by Labour members about Māori representation, we spoke to those. We had the view that down the line, there might be the possibility of addressing the issues that I raised in our second reading speech. I signalled at the time that we were looking to put forward an amendment, which is on the Table, for the Committee to consider that might move towards addressing those issues. I apologise to the Hon Trevor Mallard and I acknowledge that with regard to the offer made, we attempted to move in that direction, but, unfortunately, in trying to deal with the parliamentary wording, the wording that we wanted did not quite match up. So the amendment does not quite fulfil everything that we wanted, but it is as close as we will probably ever get to within, I suppose, the realms of the constraints of the parliamentary process. I acknowledge the point that was made and I apologise for that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can you get Tau Henare to vote for it?

TE URUROA FLAVELL: We will leave Mr Henare to decide for himself whether to vote for that one, but I acknowledge the point that has been made.

In the second reading, I think I tried to make the point that historically, as with representation in many parts of our democracy, when it comes to Māori representation and the ability of tangata whenua to have an input at the top table of decision making, the chances are very thin. We had that whole debate throughout the Auckland super-city discussion, and even with regard to health boards and local body elections, it is very, very difficult for Māori to find a space on decision-making bodies. Usually, what happens is we fall back on those people whom we might call culturally aware or culturally safe to provide the view for Māoridom that at least puts our hand in there to try to find that space. Some institutions go as far as having advisory boards, but, as Dr Sharples alluded to earlier with regard to the Auckland City debate, this is at the second tier of decision making and we say that we are past that. The Māori representation that we want to talk about comes from a Treaty perspective—from a Treaty right.

Often people ask how we should implement the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Well, we have the answer. It is to have a bicultural model that recognises Māori representation on polytechnic councils, and our amendment goes in that direction. We look forward to gaining the support of the Committee, hopefully, for that move. However, the Māori experience is that we cannot rely on clauses like “it is desirable” or “acknowledge special status”. We cannot do that. We cannot rely on those sorts of clauses for the special status of Māori, because they do not address the constitutional significance of the Treaty in any debate on Māori representation.

Our amendment tries to set up a process by, firstly, making the space on the council. Members will see that the amendment is divided into two areas, one named “Constitution of polytechnic councils”, which is trying to find that space. The second part is about how appointments are made. I hope that members will take the time to look at that amendment. I think the key wording that we put into the amendment suggests that it must include at least three members, which is our pitch at least trying to work very hard to find Māori space on those councils. I can say that we have heard about the desire of some to have student representation on councils, and again our amendment has moved towards the direction of addressing that issue.

There are some questions that we would like to put forward. They follow on from some of the debate that we had with Tairāwhiti Polytechnic, which I believe provided some discussion to the Education and Science Committee. Tairāwhiti says that it is OK with regard to its model, right now. Why? Because it has a heap of Māori living on the East Coast, that is why. They find their space at the polytechnic council table. Waiariki Institute of Technology says that it has supported this model. Indeed, it provided the basis of a paper that I provided to the Minister, which was supposed to be the basis of a model from the select committee, but it also moved to a new paradigm that was about our recognition and representation against a Treaty model. We have put that amendment forward, and I suppose it will all be tested this afternoon when we vote on the amendment. At the end of the day, our view is that if we cannot get to that model, then the rest is history. So that might give some sort of answer to the Hon Trevor Mallard.

But the good thing is that some might say that putting those models up is too hard. We have to be brave to make the huge decisions about having equal representation for Māori. It is a huge ask in this day and age, but, strangely enough, John Key was brave enough, because he said: “Pita Sharples, go and ask your people about the issue of the Māori flag. Even though the country might get a little bit upset about it, at least let us be brave enough to put it out there and ask the question.” While members opposite are going on about it, I will make the point that at least people were brave enough to put the question out there, unlike some.

In wrapping up, the question is where we go from here. It is quite simple. We have an amendment, and if it is not passed, then obviously in good conscience we cannot support the remaining stages of the bill. That is pretty straightforward. Aside from that, the Māori Party will be working alongside the Minister of Education in terms of our arrangement with National to find a way forward. It might not necessarily reach the height that we want, but, nevertheless, that is what happens when one is in a small party and one is in a relationship. It is better than sitting on the opposite side of the fence where one cannot say anything or do anything. That is where we are at the moment.

I do not want to go against my colleagues opposite, so I will say that in respect of the amendments proposed by Maryan Street, we are prepared to look at her amendment as the voting goes, because it certainly addresses some of the issues that we want. It does not go all the way, but it certainly comes into line with some things we want to put on the table in respect of our model. As I say, the Māori Party will continue to forcibly push for the Treaty right for representation at tables across the board over our period of coalition with the Government. Of that, members can be sure.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) : I move, That the question be now put.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) : I want to point out that the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill really is a signal of the steep slope down which we are going with regard to representation. One thing that has not been talked about so far—and I want to take this angle a little bit—is Pacific representation, because that is part of the reason I am here. Before I even get to that, I want to acknowledge one of our Pacific members on the Manukau Institute of Technology Council who recently passed away. Nancy Sheehan was 48 years old, a mother, and a great woman, and she was one of our Pacific representatives on the Manukau Institute of Technology Council. Now we have only one Pacific representative on that council, but thank goodness we still have one.

I point out that representation is important across the board, whether it be Māori representation, union representation, student representation, or staff representation. But for us the issue is about having fair representation for Pacific people in areas where we have high numbers of Pacific people. This bill effectively takes away the likelihood of fair representation happening. We know that the number of councillors has been cut down from 20 members to 12 members, and then to eight members, and we know that half of those members will be appointed by the Minister for Tertiary Education. We also know that we cannot trust the Minister to make sure that any of her appointees are actually Pacific people, whether or not the polytech is, like Manukau Institute of Technology, Unitec, or Auckland University of Technology—the latter institution is not counted in this instance—located where there are large numbers of Pacific people. We cannot trust the Minister to think to make sure one of her appointees is a Pacific person. Even if the Minister was to appoint a Pacific person, I think the Pacific community would largely agree that the person she appoints would not be representative of us, or that the person would not be the right person to represent us. I just wanted to point that out.

The scary thing about this legislation is that the issue it raises is not just about representation on the polytechnic councils; it is about where else we might lose representation, moving forward. Already I have heard through the grapevine that some moves are being made to take away the representation that Māori and Pacific people have in Creative New Zealand. The Government wants to change the legislation so that Māori and Pacific people will no longer have that representation. We have already seen, earlier this year, the National Government decide that Māori will not have representation on the super-city council. This issue will be a recurring one; we will see it over and over again. I am very concerned about it, as a Pacific person and as a person who represents Pacific people, and we should all be worried about it.

Te Ururoa Flavell said earlier that we cannot rely on clauses that state representation is “desirable”. I have seen the Māori Party amendment, and I cannot say that the amendment is bad; the amendment being put forward by the Māori Party is actually OK. But I cannot understand why the Māori Party still had to vote for the bill when we discussed it last week, despite the fact that everything that was being said by the Māori Party and by Labour was opposed to what this bill suggests. It is not just about denying Māori representation; it actually removes the legislative right for Māori to have representation. Māori already had it, but this bill actually takes it away. The Māori Party could have said it did not support the bill and still put up an amendment. I was confused and really disappointed last week, because the member’s speech went along the lines of saying the same things that Labour was saying with regard to what Māori should be guaranteed under the Treaty, but then it got to the end and went “whammo”; the member said the Māori Party supported the bill despite all of that. Now that was rather confusing to me, and I have not heard anything today from the member Te Ururoa Flavell, the same member who spoke on the matter last week, to convince me that what he was discussing last week made any sense, at the end of the day. I just wanted to point that out.

I go back to the issue of representation. Last week Sir Roger Douglas also stood up in the House and said students and staff should not have any role in the governance of polytechnics. Considering that they are two of the largest stakeholders, particularly students, I cannot understand why he would think that they need to be excluded. But he obviously shares that sentiment with the Minister for Tertiary Education, because she is pushing for that. She says that students, staff, and all the other groups that I have already pointed to do not need to have a voice. Sir Roger Douglas also pointed that out last week. Obviously, we can see why they support the measure. But, as far as we are concerned, students and staff are key stakeholder groups and should have a say on what happens in their local polytechnics.

The National Government seems to want to reframe what polytechnics are about in the first place. Polytechnics were set up to serve the communities in which they are based, and, therefore, it makes a lot of common sense that the people in those communities should have a say on how polytechnics are run. But by doing this, the Government is effectively saying that is no longer the purpose of polytechnics. We on the Opposition side of the Chamber wonder what the Minister thinks the purpose of polytechnics is now, if that is what she is doing. She is taking away representation. She is taking away the opportunity of local people to have a say in their local polytechs. Therefore, I wish the Minister would stand up and clarify the National Government’s new direction for polytechnics, and clarify their new role in this time and space, now that National is in Government. We seem to be missing that clarification. We have not had an explanation of that new direction, because the Minister continues to fill in her Christmas cards and give her apologies to everyone whom she has upset during the year.

The Labour spokesperson on tertiary education, Maryan Street, has put up a number of amendments in respect of this bill. I hope that the National Government takes the amendments seriously and actually looks at them, rather than just pushing them aside and not even looking at what is being suggested. The National Government could take on board a lot of the wise, wise suggestions that our spokesperson on tertiary education has made. She has pointed out that we need to have more than eight people on the councils. Eight members are not enough, and having four appointed by the Minister leaves far too much power in the hands of the Minister over the decisions that are made and the direction that a polytechnic takes.

It has been put to the Minister that we query why she feels she needs to have so much control over what happens in the polytechnics. The National members have pointed out that this measure will allow the Government to intervene more rapidly when polytechnics have issues with regard to their financial or educational performance, but the concern we have is that the Minister will not stop there. Effectively, she will be denying the right of local people, the people who have some stake in what happens in their local polytechnics, to guide the direction of education that occurs in their area.

After we have had to listen to this Government go on and on about how the previous Labour Government was a nanny State and tried to tell everyone what to do, we are concerned that this Minister is trying to intervene and take full control over what happens in our polytechnics. This seems to be in complete contrast with what this Government originally said it would do: that things would come down to individual responsibility; that people would have the right to make up their own minds about things. Now, the Minister is intervening here and taking the lion’s share of control over what will happen in our polytechnics.

I will conclude there. I have made my point about representation. I think that the National Government needs to take seriously the amendments put up by the Hon Maryan Street and the Māori Party. Thank you.

JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) : I move, That the question be now put.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) : It is typical of the nature of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill that the Government is already trying to take closure motions on it, because this bill is all about stifling debate. Members will be aware that in my electorate of Palmerston North tertiary education is a substantial industry and a substantial part of our economy. This bill has sent shock waves through people working at the university, the polytechnic, the wānanga, and the other private training establishments around the city, because they are wondering who is next.

Hon Maryan Street: Tell them about UCOL!

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: My colleague Maryan Street is asking me to talk about the Universal College of Learning, and that is exactly what I am here to talk about. This bill does not suit the needs of that polytechnic in any way whatsoever. The homogenised, one-size-fits-all approach to tertiary education that this Government is so obsessed with does not suit the Universal College of Learning at all, because it has three communities to represent. It has Palmerston North, where its head office is based, it also has Whanganui, and it also has Wairarapa. People have been so concerned about the implications of the limitation on community representation and community involvement that the mayors of Wairarapa and Palmerston North have both been moved to submit to the Education and Science Committee on this bill. Unfortunately, their views were completely ignored, and, again, that just sums up the Government’s approach to this. It has completely ignored representations made by the communities directly affected by this bill.

I have a question for the Minister for Tertiary Education. I do not believe for a second that she will get up and answer it, because she has not made a contribution to the debate so far today―

Chris Hipkins: You might get a Christmas card!

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: She might send me a Christmas card, but I will not hold my breath. My question is why she has started with the polytechs. We all understand that this bill is a practice run for the universities, the wānanga, and anything else she can get her hands on, but I ask why on earth she has started with the polytechnics. They are the institutions that are most closely linked to their local communities. They provide the kinds of services, the kind of trade education, that their local communities need. Who should have the most say in what those institutions are doing? It should be the employers. They need to have input on the kinds of graduates they need. It should be the workers, as well. They should have input on the kinds of skills that the people coming out of polytechs to work alongside them will have. It should be the local communities. It should be those who have the most interest in what those polytechs actually do and what they achieve, but this bill shifts the emphasis away from that, away from academic freedom, and away from freedom of debate, and it puts all the power in the hands of the Minister.

This is not nanny State. I have heard a few members make comments about nanny State this afternoon. This is bully State. This is the Government getting right in the thick of it, taking control of our polytechnics, and having a one-size-fits-all view that just does not work and will not work. For goodness’ sake, why should the student body have its voice on polytech councils stifled? Students should be in there, making decisions and being part of the education that they receive, but, no, everything will be shifted to majority control by those who have been appointed by the Minister, because she knows best. She will not tell us, talk to us, or engage in this debate, but apparently the Minister knows best.

Grant Robertson: Can she actually speak?

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, that is a good question; we might find that out soon. The absolute guts of this bill is about restricting freedom of debate, academic freedom, and the ability for communities to have a say in their own tertiary education and what is provided to their communities. In Palmerston North we have an organisation that works with three different communities. The initial bill—before the bill made it to the select committee—proposed having eight people on the council; there was no way that those three communities could have been adequately represented. But now, as Maryan Street said, the bill that has come back from the select committee is even worse. It has clamped down on the ability for communities to decide who they want on the council, to the point where only the Minister will have any say in, and any control of, how our polytechnics are run.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) : I am gravely concerned about the passage of this legislation. I believe that the provisions of this bill will undermine the quality of tertiary education in our country, and in particular it will continue a very negative trend of this Government; that is, a failure to invest in skills and a failure to understand that we need to upskill our workforce so that we can become a more productive and successful economy. The reason I believe that is that the representation on the polytechnic councils is being severely limited, is being controlled by the Minister, and is being required to act like some sort of commercial board of directors. That is just not appropriate for an institution like a polytechnic, which is a public organisation, a public institution, with multiple educational and social objectives. That includes ensuring that the needs of the local community are being met in terms of learning and skill development. It also means that the needs of the industry, within that area or sector of the economy it is providing learning for, are also being met. The provisions of this bill undermine that.

There is no explanation being given as to why this legislation is necessary. Indeed, it worries me that the Minister is deliberately targeting the polytech sector for reasons that I think many New Zealanders will be very, very fearful of. Handing more power to that Minister to control what are important tertiary institutions, important parts of our community, is something that will worry a lot of New Zealanders. Frankly, this is one of the worst-performing Ministers in this Government. She has trampled all over the sector since she has been there and she has basically ensured that our education system will go backwards.

Reducing the number of representatives on the councils to eight, four of whom are appointed by the Minister and four of whom may include some sort of stakeholder or community representation, is just a joke. What is the problem with the existing polytech system? There has been representation provided for staff, for students, for unions, for employers, and for the community at large. That is appropriate and our polytechs have done a good job. They could do a great deal more. That is one of the points I really want to emphasise. This Government has missed a very real opportunity. We have skill needs in this country; there is no doubt about that. A lot of work has been done under the previous Government to try to pull together a skills strategy, a skills plan, that has the agreement of unions, employers, the Industry Training Federation, the tertiary education sector generally, and the Government as a whole, because we know there is a skills deficit in this country. All of us in this Chamber could probably agree with that.

If we want to really change things, to provide people with real opportunity, then we should be putting a great deal more resource into the polytech sector. We should make sure that the polytech sector has the kind of governance that will reflect the needs of, for example, local workplaces. That is why having union and employer representatives is so important. I will focus on that for the moment. Those are the people who have an idea of what the particular needs are in their workplace. They know what the pre-employment training needs of workers going into industry are, and know what their ongoing upskilling needs are. It is the employers and it is the workers in our workplaces who know those things. It is not accountants, necessarily, and it is not the people whom the Minister might appoint who will be her yes-people. It is the people actually doing the job. I know that that is something members on the other side of the Chamber have a real problem with. In fact, I am surprised: I think this is the first time I have ever said the word “union” and not had a rabid barrage across the Chamber. I do not know what is going on here!

The reality is that workers and their unions have a vital interest in the services of our polytech sector. It is an opportunity provided for them to upskill, as I have said. Why would we be undermining our polytechnics? Why would we be giving this Minister more control? What is she planning? I am really concerned that she will run our polytechs down, ensuring that they cannot do the job properly, and then say they are a failure and they have to be got rid of in some way, or privatised.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education) : I just want to take a very quick call to answer a few of the questions raised. I want to say that it is amazing—well, it is not actually amazing, but it is quite typical—that when one listens to the debate from the other side of the Chamber, those members have only two answers: either to throw more money at something or to throw personal abuse. That is all they know.

First of all, let us look at the polytech sector, which is absolutely critical to tertiary education in this country. The previous Government ran polytechs into the ground. There was $416 million worth of propping up over the last 5 years. So Labour members did not see whether they were effective. They did not check whether they were providing good education for young people and giving them good qualifications. No, they did not do any of that. They just chucked more money at the sector and hoped that it would be all right. Well, it is not all right. It is not doing the job for our young people, especially out in our regions. The Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill in front of us today will change that.

The member who led off the debate from the Opposition today, Maryan Street, has to take responsibility as a previous Associate Minister of Tertiary Education for leaving an unfunded commitment of half a billion dollars’ worth of promises in tertiary education. There was no funding for those promises. The previous Government gave this new Government no option but to have another look at how we could fill the gaps and give tertiary education some certainty in funding going forward. That was on top of the $416 million that the previous Government chucked at the sector, which was short-term, propping-up funding.

I can understand why the newer members of that caucus do not know that and why they stand up in this Chamber and ask why we are targeting the polytechs. We are targeting the polytechs because their Labour Government rammed them down financially so that they are not viable. Those members talked about representation and a whole lot of people sitting around representing groups, but they did not talk about anyone making the hard decisions on behalf of students about making sure they get good qualifications and a good education to counter the amount that they have to borrow in loans. They did not talk about ensuring that they have the opportunities. That is what this bill is all about. That is what this Government is all about, and we will make sure that it happens for young people.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) : I am delighted to follow the Minister for Tertiary Education’s intervention in the debate on the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. She has exited from her Madame Defarge - like act of writing the Christmas cards as we drop the guillotine upon the polytechnic councils of this country. Finally she has come to life and suggested that the previous Labour Government threw money at the polytechnic sector. Well, I tell her that I joined the polytechnic council of Nelson Polytechnic, later renamed Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, in February 1999. Who was in Government at that time? What was the first act that that council had to grapple with? The institution had to take hold of and try to sort out a nearly $2 million deficit. So she cannot tell us that Labour ran polytechnics into the ground. Polytechnics have often been regarded as the poor cousin of the tertiary sector, and this bill enshrines that, boots and all. This legislation will make them the powerless poor cousins.

I wonder who the Christmas cards are being written to. She could be writing to the former members of polytechnic councils to say farewell, to thank them very much, and to tell them to get stuffed, because she does not want to have community representation on polytechnics from hereon in. She could be saying to them that she wants to run them like a business and that she will make sure that whoever runs the councils will act to her and to her agenda. Labour has some suspicions about what that agenda will mean. We have had some signals of that, I think.

The question that has to be asked is why simply polytechnics? Why not wānanga? Why not university councils? Well, maybe because the Minister has now realised that the chancellor is not actually a German president and that university councils are a tougher act to take on than polytechnic councils. They have the political clout that polytechnics do not have, so they are probably safe for a time. But their time will come soon.

I acknowledge that Te Ururoa Flavell, from the Māori Party, managed to get the Minister’s attention briefly while he was speaking before. That was a credit to him because it is the only attention the Māori Party has had on this issue, along with its Supplementary Order Paper, which effectively tries to replicate what is already in place and what is being abolished by this bill, which is the representative model that allows iwi, in the case of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology council, to have three representatives. That council works extraordinarily well. I suggest that the Māori Party members are trying to extract a little bit of dignity from this issue with this Supplementary Order Paper. I wish them good luck on that! But really all it would do is reinstate what is being abolished by this bill.

I ask some of the members of the Government, opposite, to stand up and talk on this bill rather more than, for instance, Colin King, the member for Kaikōura, has. He took two short calls in previous debates on this bill. I want him to explain how this bill works for his electorate of Kaikōura. How will the Marlborough community, which is where he is resident, be represented in future on the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology council? If, as is logical, the council selects the chief executive, a staff member, a student, and maybe a Nelson iwi representative, then where will the Marlborough community representative be? Where will that voice be heard? Where will Marlborough iwi be heard on that council? Where will Marlborough employers or union representatives be heard?

The council of that institution has included many strong voices for the Marlborough community. I am thinking of people such as the former mayor of Marlborough, Leo McKendry and Fran Jessep, a Marlborough businesswoman and past member of the Canterbury Community Trust board. They were very strong advocates for Marlborough on that council. Their advocacy helped the Blenheim campus of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology to gain The Marlborough Wine Research Centre for the nation, with millions and millions of dollars of research funding brought to that campus as a result of that advocacy, which was strongly put to the council by Marlborough representatives. That will not happen any more under this bill. It is a very, very sad day.

I will comment on the idea that polytechnic councils have all had 20 members. They have not. Most have had much less than that. The Labour Party has signalled very clearly that we are prepared to see a reduction—

Hon Member: Fewer!

BRENDON BURNS: Thank you—fewer representatives than twenty. But there is no case to gut it back to eight members, with four chosen by the Minister, effectively giving her the control. I think this really underscores this Government’s attitude to the education sector.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) : This is a very interesting day in New Zealand politics. Māori have learnt today that they can have a flag, which some of them agree with, on one day of the year, but they cannot have a seat around the table in their polytechnics, where they rely on so many of their young people to be trained for their futures. I think that is very telling about this National Government, and about its agenda towards Māori people. It is also very telling about the Māori Party and its support for this bill, which, as we have already heard, removes the dedicated Māori representation from polytechnic councils.

The debate has been enlightening for another reason. We have finally heard the Minister’s second reading speech. She gave it about 2 minutes ago. It was supposed to enlighten us on the reason why this bill is before Parliament. According to the Minister, who got up on her feet just a couple of minutes ago, the reason is that the polytechnics cost too much. Apparently our polytechnics cost too much. I would like the Minister to get back up on her feet and tell us how much money will be saved by this bill. If that is the reason, and if it is a cost-cutting measure, how much is being saved by the culling of, maybe, five or six representatives from these boards?

I did make a second reading speech on this bill, I say to the Minister. She was not in the Chamber at the time, but I asked the question then about how much money these people got paid for being on these councils. When we asked that question in the select committee, the answer from officials was that actually they did not get paid very much at all. It might have been a couple of hundred dollars, if they were lucky. Essentially, it was a case of people providing a community service for a community that they cared about. What is this Government’s response? The Government’s response to those people is to say that they are not wanted. Their ideas and their passion for skills and industry development are not wanted around the polytechnic council table. Their knowledge of their communities, and the responsiveness that they have been so good at, are not wanted in the polytechnic council.

What is the agenda here? I do not believe it is about cost cutting. Nothing in this bill will save a nickel or a dime. It is simply about taking away the community’s voice. It is about increasing ministerial control over those councils. I think, given this Minister’s performance, New Zealanders should be very worried about what this Minister has in line for polytechnics. One of the strengths of our polytechnic sector has been its responsiveness and its understanding of the local industry. Polytechnics have done that through having representatives around the table who thoroughly understand the local job market and the local training and skill needs, and who are able to impart that knowledge around the table. I am not sure what this Minister is so frightened of, about having those voices around the table.

She also said in her second reading speech, just recently, which took about 4 minutes—or probably 3 minutes, actually—that the polytechnic council sector had been letting young people down. I see no evidence of that. What I see in the area that I am familiar with, Wintec, which is in the Hamilton and Waikato area, is that they have done a very, very good job, particularly in the area of skills. But this Minister’s response, in believing, somehow, not through any research, review, or report—

Moana Mackey: Maybe through an editorial.

SUE MORONEY: Oh, she may have read it in the newspaper. I do not know. Maybe she read it in the book about Riley the rat. She has made an assessment that the sector has been letting young people down, and her response is to take away the student voice from polytechnic councils. How concerned can the Minister be about the needs of young people in our communities when she has put forward a bill that takes away the rightful representation of students around the council table? If she is so concerned about educational standards, why has the Minister put forward this bill, and why have the National members on the select committee argued for and voted for the position of staff representative to come off the polytechnic councils? If those members were concerned about educational standards, they should have stood up for those things, and they did not.

I think we need to hear some more from the Minister. Because if that was her second reading speech, well, when the constitution of these councils is challenged, the officials will not have much to report on, will they? They will not have a second reading speech to rely on, to find out exactly what the Government intended, and what the real intention was behind these Government changes. They will have nothing to refer to, because in the House on the day of the second reading, Gerry Brownlee, I think it was, stood up and said virtually nothing.

Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) : I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I am very conscious, members, that Part 1 is the largest part of this bill, and I am prepared to have the debate carry on a little longer, as long as members understand that the debate on the second part, which is much smaller and more process-oriented, will be considerably shorter.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) : It is great to have an opportunity to speak on the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. I was absolutely aghast at the end of a day’s debate, 2 weeks ago, when the Māori Party supported both the Government’s legislation on the emissions trading scheme and the second reading of this bill. When we went home to Rotorua and the rohe of Waiariki, people said they were aghast that that support had been the Māori Party’s response to this education bill. I am pleased to hear Te Ururoa Flavell putting forward an amendment that addresses, or re-addresses, the issue of Māori representation on polytechnic councils. I am pleased to see that amendment, because I wondered whether the Māori Party had seriously lost its way 2 weeks ago, and had rolled over and had its belly tickled just a little too much.

This is a very sad day, with this bill going through its Committee stage today. It reminds me very much of the days that Chris Hipkins talked about of Max Bradford and the green paper and white paper on tertiary education. Members may remember back to when I won the Rotorua electorate from Max Bradford, when one of the largest community concerns was about the future direction of the then National Government regarding the future of polytechs. The previous Labour Government spent 9 years investing in a Skills Strategy that was critically important to the unemployed in our region and the wider region, which included Taupō, Murupara, Rotorua, and Whakatāne. We worked with industry and union representatives on what we expected to see in educational institutions like our polytech in Waiariki, the Waiariki Institute of Technology, which was hard-won for us in Rotorua. With this bill, the Minister is single-handedly wielding ministerial power to take away that community voice. I think this is a sad day for the communities of Rotorua and other regions of New Zealand.

I am also very aware, because I have been lobbied and informed on this matter, that the Minister’s office called for the Waiariki Institute of Technology’s submission on the bill. In that submission, the institute proposed another model in terms of Māori representation on polytechs. That has not been listened to. It was great, and we were all very heartened that the Minister had called for that submission, but we expected to see changes made to the bill.

The situation is quite the opposite to what the Minister said in her “second reading” speech. Our institute is not in deficit. It has turned itself round to match the skills needs of the community in our wider region, and it has done so within budget. It is seen as a great leader. The people involved will be hugely insulted at the comments of the Minister in the chair, the Hon Anne Tolley, today that the previous Government let down the young people of our region. They did not feel let down. They took to second-chance education with great relish, because that is what they were inspired to undertake by the previous Government.

I will mention here the sort of representation that we saw from the Māori and student representatives on the polytech council. I was very close to this issue, because I met the chief executive officer of the institute every 3 months, as well as the polytech council. We had problems with the management of different faculties. One of them was the early childhood education faculty, and we had real concerns about its robustness as we trained those who would go into the early childhood education sector. Do members know that it was the Māori and student representatives who brought that issue to the council table, and who had the council face the issue and turn that faculty around? And the council did. Without those voices, that would not have happened. As well, we heard from the student representative that the student health centre would close down, and also that there was no access around the faculty for students with a disability. Do members think that ministerially appointed representatives to the councils of regional polytechs will bother about student health, about access to the campus and back to where these students have to stay, or about the safety of students when they are leaving faculties late at night? No. Those issues came squarely from the student representative, and that representation has now been taken away by this cruel Government.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I said before that I think I will take a couple more calls. I hope that they will be solid contributions.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) : I shall go to the amendments that are in front of the Committee of the whole House at the moment, because they go to the heart of some of the concerns we have about this legislation. I listened carefully to the Minister of Tertiary Education’s contribution earlier, and still I was not able to divine the purpose of this legislation from her comments. It is completely untrue to say that the previous Government ran the polytechs into the ground; in fact, it is this Government that has axed the quality reinvestment fund, which was one of those sources of funding that polytechs could apply to in order to ensure that they were able to continue delivering the offerings that their regions required. So that is one of the things that has been cut, and, of course, there are adult and community education cuts yet to come in the polytech sector—but we will save that issue for another day.

I am particularly concerned that every National member opposite clearly has been bludgeoned into submission by the Minister and feels unable to contribute to this discussion. I have a great deal of respect for Allan Peachey, who is the chair of the Education and Science Committee. I know that he will feel very strongly about this legislation, because there is not a piece of the education sector about which he does not feel strongly and about which he is not informed. I regret that those members have been silenced by the incompetence of the Minister and prevented from saying anything in the Chamber. The debate lacks rejoinder because of their silence, and the lack of rejoinder means that they know that this is shonky legislation and will make life for the polytechs worse, not better.

I have tabled a number of amendments, and I am very pleased with the amendment tabled by the Māori Party and I want to speak to that. We will support it; in fact, the Government could have silenced many of our criticisms if it had indicated whether it would support it. If the Government supports the Māori Party, which is, after all, its confidence and supply partner and its best mate when it comes to flying flags, then that might have silenced a lot of our criticism, because my amendments go to the representative nature of the polytech councils. So in the omnibus amendment, which the members opposite may wish to take note of—although I doubt it—I suggest that five members be appointed by the Minister and that those five include a staff member, a student, a member of the community served by the polytech, a member of the iwi served by the polytech, and the polytech’s chief executive. So there would be some guaranteed positions on the polytechnic council.

Secondly, the amendment then says that six members would be appointed by the council according to its statute. That would let the polytech decide in accordance with its own statutes the composition of the dominant membership on the polytech council. That is the omnibus amendment, which is trying to avoid the Minister having control of the polytech councils; that is a dangerous precedent. If the members opposite cannot see that—I am sure Mr Peachey can—then more fool them, because this legislation is the thin end of a wedge for the tertiary education sector. Couple this with the fact that the Minister has not given one iota of a reason but reverts, retreats, into that obstinacy about which I spoke earlier, which is no position for a Minister of Tertiary Education. If, however, the Māori Party amendment should fail, I would seek the support of the Māori Party for our amendment, our omnibus amendment, which achieves similar things in slightly different terms. We are prepared to support the amendment that the Māori Party has put up.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries) : I move, That the question be now put.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) : I will make a contribution on Part 2 of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. Of course, Labour also opposes it because it brings transitional matters to bear on the newly constituted councils. In particular, it brings in the concept of “reconstitution day” for polytechnic councils. Yet we still have not heard one single reason why there is a need for reconstitution of these polytechnic councils.

But we know that, as a result of Part 2 of this bill, there is a narrow window of opportunity for the current councils to have at least some say over what the constitution of those polytechnic councils will look like going forward. They have a small window of opportunity between 1 March 2010 and 1 May 2010 to say the types of people who will be filling the four positions that this Government is allowing councils to have some say over. Of course, of the eight positions in total, the Minister will have complete say over the appointment of four of them—that is, half of the council will be under the direct control of the Minister. Current councils will have that small window of opportunity next year to determine that they think it is important that student representatives be on their committees. They have an opportunity to say so, but it is only a small window of opportunity.

That means that, come reconstitution day, we could find that we have some very differently constituted polytechnic councils right throughout the country. Although all of us on this side of the Chamber embrace diversity, we also think it is important to have some consistency within the sector. But this Government, on reconstitution day, will bring about absolutely no consistency in the membership of those councils up and down the country. Sadly, we have seen that the Government has voted against the Māori Party amendment to Part 1, so no doubt we will see some polytechnic councils with no representation of Māori. On reconstitution day, then, it will be very interesting to see exactly which councils have gone for what type of representation.

This bill is so badly written and has been so badly debated that I am almost ashamed to say I am a member of the Education and Science Committee, which deliberated on it and made it worse. The only thing that makes me very proud is that the Labour members on the select committee produced a very good minority report, because we did not agree with the majority view of the select committee, which brought the bill back from the committee in a worse state than it had arrived in. We face the situation where if those councils do not, or cannot, decide themselves by 1 May next year, then the Minister will appoint every single position—all eight—to the polytechnic council in a particular region. The Minister will appoint them, should a council not be able to agree in that narrow window of opportunity who its community representatives should be.

It is also entirely possible under this bill that a polytechnic could end up with no one from its actual community on the council, because nowhere in this bill is there a requirement, at all, for anyone from the geographical area in which that polytechnic council resides to be appointed or elected to any of those eight positions. We could find that situation on reconstitution day.

Furthermore, on reconstitution day we could find polytechnic councils where there are no women, where there is no gender representation, or where there is no ethnic representation. It became very apparent during the select committee process, as the submitters came in to see us, that far and away the way in which most polytechnic councils get women on to their councils is primarily through staff representation and—we can guess this one—also through student representation. Now that those positions have been removed from being dedicated positions around the council table, if this bill goes through in its entirety, I think that on reconstitution day, 1 May, we will see fewer women on polytechnic sector councils. I think that that is a great shame.

My colleague Steve Chadwick, speaking before, talked about the importance of training early childhood educators, for example, in polytechnics, and I say that we certainly need that voice.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) : I rise to take a call on Part 2 of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. Part 2 is a short part of the bill, which covers transitional matters, yet as my colleague Sue Moroney has pointed out, if one looks at the detail of these clauses and at what might happen, then one can see that it is entirely possible that the Minister could appoint all members of a polytechnic council if the polytechs were not geared up to do what they need to do for the purpose of these transitional clauses.

I need to reiterate comments I have made before, because they pertain to this part of the bill as much as they did to the earlier part. This is ill-thought-through; it is a part of the legislation that provides a window for polytechs to do the best they can to ensure that community representation remains on polytech councils. This is the only thing that can spur polytechs into achieving at least some modicum of community representation on their councils, because the Minister cannot be guaranteed to do so. The Minister may say in the legislation that it is desirable to have Māori on polytech councils, but nothing in the legislation requires that to happen, or even acknowledges the purpose of polytechs and the kinds of students who look to polytechs for upskilling, retraining, and qualification acquisition.

This is the technical part of this legislation, which is as offensive as the substantive part in Part 1, because it simply points out that polytechs now have to ensure that the people they are now allowed to have on their councils do represent their communities, so that the polytechs can have at least some semblance of remaining in touch with their communities and representing and addressing the learning needs of their communities. That is so, even if it be through the Universal College of Learning, which, as my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway said earlier, has to serve the quite different communities of Wanganui, Palmerston North, and Masterton. That polytechnic now has to make sure that it has a broad enough representation in only four members, so that it can guarantee there is some voice for the community in the running of a major tertiary institution in its region.

It is not good enough to have no speeches from Government members, regardless of whether or not they were on the select committee. It is not good enough to have no contribution from any of those members, and to have only a fatuous one from the Minister. As well as being factually incorrect, it was a disgrace on every other level. The speech did not give any rationale, and it did not explain the need for this legislation. So National caucus members are going like sheep to the slaughter and are simply following without demur, because they have not been allowed to say anything. They are voting for legislation that is a disgrace—

Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: Argh!

Hon MARYAN STREET: —and that does not serve tertiary educational opportunities well, I tell Dr Mapp. It does not serve skills acquisition for the future of this country well. I thought that, for somebody who used to teach in the tertiary education sector, that member might have had at least a passing acquaintance with skill needs and educational offerings. The transitional matters in Part 2 of this legislation are the only prompt to polytechs to get community representatives on councils, quick and fast.

• The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 106 in the name of the Hon Anne Tolley to Part 2 be agreed to.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : The debate on the title clause is an important one, because the current title is a very anodyne one: the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. I do not think that the title in any way reflects what the National Government is doing tonight in terms of polytechnics. I think the bill should be called the “Education Polytechnics (Ministerial Control) Amendment Bill”, because that is, quite clearly, what is taking place here this evening. The Minister is taking control of polytechnic councils by giving herself the ability to appoint four of the eight members, and inevitably one of those members will be the chair and one will be the deputy chair. But at least there is concern about ministerial control, and the view that the title should refer to that control is a view held not only by Labour.

I would like to put on record parts of the submission of the Human Rights Commission on this bill. The commission has raised a number of concerns about ministerial control. It says in its submission: “The balance of power is tilted in favour of Ministerial appointees,” and it goes on to explain why it has concerns about that. It states: “As the regulatory impact statement provided with the Bill notes, … there is a risk that the proposals will create a perception that the Minister will have more control over polytechnic councils.” In fact, I would say that it is not a perception but a reality. The commission goes on to say that it notes that a comprehensive 2003 independent review of governance across New Zealand’s tertiary education institutions recommended reducing, rather than increasing, ministerial powers of appointment.

That review was comprehensive and independent, and it said we should reduce ministerial powers of appointment. But instead we stand here tonight debating a bill that should be entitled the “Ministerial Control of Polytechnics Bill”, because it is going the opposite way. It is, in fact, increasing ministerial control. It is taking away academic freedom and taking away the ability of communities to be represented on those councils.

The Human Rights Commission finished its submission by saying: “While the legislation retains references to both concepts, a number of proposals increase the level of Ministerial control over appointment and removal of council members. As a result, the Bill potentially reduces academic and other staff members’ involvement in governance and institutions’ autonomy.” That is the nub of this issue. This bill is moving control of polytechnics away from the communities they serve and into the hands of the Minister.

Another title that would accurately reflect this bill would be the “Education Polytechnics (Exclude the Community) Amendment Bill”, because that is actually what it does. It takes away the representation of the community. If members on the other side of the Chamber are concerned—although we would not know because they have not actually said anything—that that is just Labour’s view, I will read to them from the submission of Jono Naylor, the Mayor of Palmerston North. This is what he said: “The stated public policy objectives of this bill include to improve the governance capability and effectiveness of polytechnic councils. Yet this bill seeks to reduce local governance and create the potential for majority power on all polytechnic councils to reside with ministerial appointees. This will have the consequence of reducing the perception of academic freedom and reducing the long-term resilience and capabilities of local communities to be significant parts of local service decision making.” That is the point. This bill is reducing the ability of communities to have a say in how their polytechnics are run.

During the last Parliament under the previous Government, we tried to move towards communities being more closely involved in polytechnics, because they are so important to the regional labour markets in those communities. This bill means that employers, the people who most benefit from those people who graduate from regional polytechnics, have no guarantee of representation whatsoever. They are part of the community that will be excluded from being part of that governing role, as a result of this bill. Equally, organisations representing workers will not be included, let alone students, staff, iwi, and all the people who make up the communities that are part of their polytechnics. Those people, who feel a sense of ownership of polytechnics and want to support them, will be excluded by this bill.

Perhaps, in the end, what this bill should be called is the “Education Polytechnics (Tolley’s Folly) Bill”, because the Minister has today given the most appalling performance. We have heard only one intervention from the Minister today, and it was an intervention that was full of mistruths about the last Government’s record on polytechnics. She did not in any way attempt to justify the bill. On the other side of the Chamber there are experienced members who have not spoken once today to defend this bill, and that is a great shame.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) : It is a little difficult to debate the title and commencement clauses of this bill, given that we still have had very little information from the Minister in the chair, Anne Tolley, about the reasons why we are even debating this bill to start with. Certainly, the short contribution she made—which was, I presume, in place of the second reading speech, which she arrived in the House too late to deliver at the time—did not give us any clues, and neither does the title. The title, as my colleague Grant Robertson has said, is the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. New Zealanders might see that title and think the bill was going to do something to improve skills development in our country. They might think it will do something for our young people, who are, in large numbers under this Government, going on to the unemployment benefit. They might think it is something positive. Little would that title give away that the thing this bill does do is dumb down the voice of communities in the running of their polytechnics. It also dumbs down the voice of the people in local industries.

If there is one criticism we sometimes hear in New Zealand about tertiary institutions and their responsiveness to communities, it is that sometimes they are not close enough to what is going on in industry. It is said sometimes that they take more of an academic view than actually listening to what is happening in industry. Yet here we are debating a bill that takes away the industry voice around the polytechnic councils—the very voice that was able to directly say what the needs of the local community were and what the local labour market needs were, and make sure that the training was absolutely responsive and relevant to young people, and sometimes mature students, in those communities of interest. Here we are with a title that gives us no clues about what is about to be carried out under this bill.

It is Draconian legislation. It reminds me of what a National Government did back in the 1990s to the health system. Do members remember? National took away elected community representatives from our district boards and then called them Crown health enterprises. It took away elected community representatives and replaced them all with ministerial appointees. All of them were replaced with ministerial appointees, and guess what? We saw user-pays come into the health system as quick as one could blink, quite frankly. The community lost its ability to influence any decision-making about what was happening in our public hospitals or our broader public health system. I see exactly the same mistake being repeated here, again by a National Government. We have a bill that sounds like it might be quite positive—the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill—but it is in fact repeating the mistakes of the past.

We have heard that the bill gives the Minister the ability to appoint the entire polytechnic council, and we could end up—as we did in the 1990s in the health system—with the entire polytechnic council meeting behind closed doors, not reporting to any community representatives, and not having any accountability. They may not even live in the area, because there is no requirement under this bill for that to happen.

The date on which this legislation commences, and that is another part of this debate, is 1 March 2010. That is a very important date for the polytechnic councils to take note of, as it is the date on which they really have to start making some firm decisions, unless they want complete ministerial control of their council, come 1 May. It is on 1 March that councils first get the window of opportunity to say that, yes, they do require a student representative on their council going forward, that they will require a staff representative on their councils going forward, and that they do think it is important that Māori are required to be around the council decision-making table.

If the current councils do not start carefully considering those provisions on 1 March, then they will lose that window of opportunity. If they have not constituted by 1 May four of the positions that they are allowed to constitute for the new council going forward, then they will face the prospect of having their entire council appointed by the Minister. That is something we should be very concerned about. I do not know that the polytechnic councils understand how important that window of opportunity is. From 1 March the councils must make their statements, because otherwise the Minister will do it for them.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I move, That the report be adopted.