Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) : I seek leave, subsequent to discussions at the Business Committee the other day and further discussion among parties, for the debates on the second and third readings of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill to be taken as one debate of no more than 12 speeches, with one question at the end.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) : I move, That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a second and third time. This bill confirms and validates 20 Orders in Council and one set of regulations made under nine separate Acts. The bill must be enacted by 31 December 2009 to avoid the subordinate legislation lapsing. The bill was introduced on 23 September 2009 and referred to the Regulations Review Committee on 20 October 2009. The select committee asked the seven relevant Government agencies responsible for administering the legislation to explain why confirmation or validation of orders was warranted. It should be self-evident. For example, we want those who are in receipt of State benefits to be able to continue to be in receipt of such. The select committee was satisfied with the responses it received, and presented its report on 20 November recommending that the bill be passed without amendment. On that basis, I thank the select committee for its expeditious consideration of this bill, and I look forward to its passage this evening.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) : Labour will be supporting the motion moved by the Leader of the House, who enthusiastically expounded to the country the virtues of this short but perfectly formed legislation. Subordinate legislation of this type confirms and validates other decisions that flow from other legislation. It is very much a procedural bill. In fact, this particular one affects very few Acts, as the Leader of the House has just outlined: the Animal Products Act, the Commodity Levies Act, the Customs and Excise Act, the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act, the Social Security Act, changes to road-user charges, the Tariff Act, the War Pensions Act, and the Wine Act. It has been fully considered by the Regulations Review Committee. Those are the only comments Labour has to make about it. The select committee has done a very credible job in its consideration of this legislation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I say to members that there is a lot of noise in the House today. Could those members who are standing up and conducting noisy conversations please depart for the lobbies. I mean all those members who are standing up and conducting noisy conversations—please depart for the lobbies. There is a lot of noise in this Chamber.

• Bill read a second and a third time.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister for Tertiary Education: This is important legislation that is designed to determine the future of polytechnics in New Zealand. I am delighted to support the bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): The member has to—

Hon Trevor Mallard: You’ve got to move it: “I move it get a second reading.”

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Order!

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I move, that the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I think it is wonderful to be able to get up and support the Minister of Education, Anne Tolley, in her moving of the second reading of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill, especially in terms of the way that she was so well supported and the depth of understanding that was apparent in the speech that she left for Minister Gerry Brownlee, who was acting on her behalf. I am not referring to the absence from the House of the Minister of Education, but I say that her lack of making a speech is, I think, indicative of her level of understanding of this particular legislation.

In fact, if we want to give credit where credit is due, this legislation is owned by one member in this House. Only one member in this House supports the bill as it has been reported back in this particular shape, and that member is the Hon Roger Douglas. The point that we got to on this legislation was one of stalemate.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I note that the Minister of Education was in the House. I am quite happy to give leave for her to take the rest of the time for her speech and to follow her when she has made it properly.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): That is not a point of order. The member will carry on with his speech.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Is it not? Oh, I am allowed to seek leave—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Can I just say that the member knows full well that he cannot seek leave for another member. If members want leave, they seek leave for themselves.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: OK, I will do it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): The member has the call, and I ask the member to continue with his speech.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I seek leave to interrupt my speech and complete it upon the completion of the speech of the Minister of Education.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Well, I will put the leave. Leave is sought for the member to discontinue his speech until the Minister of Education has completed her speech. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: We give Government members a chance, and what do they do? They run away; they are chicken, they are scared. They come into the House; they run away, they go into the lobbies. Why can we not have a Minister of Education who at least knows what day of the week it is and the fact that she should be in the House. What a dopey, dopey dope! She comes into the House looking like a wasp—

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I have called for order. The House will be silent. We will hear the point of order in silence.

Hon Paula Bennett: I am sure you understand my point of order—that we do not refer to the absence of members from the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): The member is quite correct. The member speaking was making reference to members being in the lobbies, which is not in the House.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The Minister of Education came into this Chamber. She came through that door. She is not here now—I cannot say that she is in the lobby, but I cannot see her at the moment—

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I say that the member is trifling with the Speaker. That is about the third reference, now, that we have had, and I ask you to take appropriate action.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): The member makes a fair point. The member speaking is not entitled to construct circumstances to try to circumvent the general understanding of this House that members are not to make reference to the absence of another member. I tell the member—I warn him—that this is the second time objection has been taken to that. If a third infraction occurs, I will discontinue his speech. The member is invited to continue to speak on the bill as it is before the House.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I express my disappointment at the quality of the speech that was given by the Leader of the House on behalf of the Minister of Education. I express my disappointment that when the Minister of Education came into the House, she chose not to make a speech.

It is very sad that we do not have a Minister of Education who is prepared to make a speech supporting her own legislation. But then again we should not be particularly surprised at that fact, because we know that in the end the Minister of Education had her arm broken by Sir Roger Douglas, through negotiations with Allan Peachey, who said: “Minister, you have one of two ways of doing this bill. You could do it reasonably and you could have Māori representation, as was promoted by the Labour Party in the select committee, or you could have no Māori representation and go with the ACT point of view.” That is the position we are in. ACT has taken out the chief executive, the student representative, the staff representative, and another representative—but I have forgotten which—from polytechnic councils. It has taken out four representatives.

What the Government has done is accept that there will be no Māori representation on those bodies. I know the view of the Māori Party; I will be very surprised if those members support this legislation, because all the representations made to them have made it clear that this measure is not a matter of going forward for Māori representation; it is a matter of going backwards.

Hon Tau Henare: That’s right—stand up for Māori after that sort of speech.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Frankly, I would be surprised if Tau Henare could be talked into supporting this legislation. It will be interesting to see whether Tau Henare will vote for legislation that wipes out tangata whenua representation on polytechnic councils. That is what this legislation does: it wipes out that representation. It is not a matter of not putting it in; this legislation takes it out. We want to know whether Tau Henare will support Pita Sharples, when Pita Sharples makes it clear that the Māori Party will not support this legislation because of what it does to Māori representation.

Hon Tau Henare: Oh, whatever!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, it is a question. I do not know whether Tau Henare’s oft-stated principles will override his party loyalty, or how comfortable he feels about being led along by Rodney Hide and his friends, in this particular area.

This legislation is also very bad news for regional New Zealand. By the way the bill is constructed, it means that there is a possibility that no one from a local area where an institution is based will be on its council. There is no requirement for local representation, at all.

I say to the Minister—no, I cannot say that. I ask whoever is in charge of the bill in the House at the moment—probably Allan Peachey—whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper when this bill comes back to the House next week. I am listening; there is no response, no denial. We think that even the Government members know that they have got it wrong. We think that even Allan Peachey knows that they have it wrong, and that he will promote with the Minister a Supplementary Order Paper, especially about the timing of ministerial appointments. Frankly, under this system it is weird. The old councils will nominate four people, but without any knowledge of who the four ministerial appointments will be. It is topsy-turvy, upside-down, incoherent, and illogical. To be absolutely fair, even Roger Douglas knows that the legislation is wrong. I ask Sir Roger whether he is aware that there will be a Supplementary Order Paper. No, he is not aware of it, either.

It is very, very sad that the Government is so unprepared for its legislation that it does not have a Minister of Education who is prepared to back it at the second reading. The Associate Minister of Education was sitting in the House, and he did not stand up to move the second reading motion. There is no one here with a coherent understanding of the legislation.

To be fair, there is one Government member with a good understanding of this legislation, and that is Allan Peachey. He knows what the bill is about. He does not totally agree with its shape, and he made that pretty clear in the sessions at the select committee. He could have put together something that is coherent. I think that if Allan Peachey had had his way, he would have been able to construct something that would be ongoing. A number of us accept that a reduction in the size of the councils is something that could and should have been done, and there could have been a reasonable compromise. I would trust Allan Peachey to broker that sort of compromise. He tried. He worked hard. He ran back and forth to the Minister. He took proposals up and down, but in the end, the woman was not for moving. She will stick her head in here occasionally. She will stick her head in through the door, but when it comes to serious debate, she will not front up.

I think it is particularly sad that this a case not of the Minister knowing best but of Bill English pulling a few strings. It is a case of Bill English saying: “Let us do things this way. It does not really matter that everyone objects to it.”

I will make one point from the select committee. There were two or three—and I am not absolutely sure about the third one—council chairs who are active members of the National Party and who came to the select committee and made representations. Not one of them supported the changes in the bill—not one of them. Not a single chair supported the changes. I think that is very, very sad.

I do not expect National to listen to the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, the tangata whenua representations, or the Māori students. No one expects Anne Tolley to listen to any of those representations, but I would have thought that the Government would listen when two or three National Party activists who have had a lot of experience in running polytechnics come to a select committee and say that the system the Government is promoting is wrong. They said that it will not work, it is inappropriate, it will not fit their communities, and it will reduce the quality of decision making in polytechnics. I think this bodes ill for a Minister who says: “I know best. I do not care what you National Party activists are saying. You can get stuffed. I will do what I want.”

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) : I am delighted to stand in support of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill, in the name of Minister Tolley, at its second reading. We on this side of the House recognise that education is vital to the economy of this country. That is why education was one of our major planks in an election where we were overwhelmingly supported by the country.

Polytechnics are extremely important to local communities and our national economy. This sector has indicated that the way polytechs are currently governed is inefficient. What we need as a country, in terms of making our economy stronger, is institutions that are strong, sound in terms of their financial management, and responsive to the needs of their local communities. This includes meeting the changing needs of employers, communities, iwi, and others who need high-quality vocational education.

In terms of areas of change, there are many proposals in the bill. I did not hear the member who has just resumed his seat, Trevor Mallard, speak much about them, at all. I do not know that he necessarily understood the bill, because I did not hear him talk about it very much. The bill proposes that polytech councils be reduced in size from 20 to eight members. These eight include the four ministerial appointees. There were 56 submissions, and submitters had a range of views about the members and who should make up the council. I thought it would be useful to share some of their thoughts rather than some of the ranting of the previous speaker. Waiariki Institute of Technology is in the Taupō electorate. It currently has a strong co-governance model, and it wanted to see that any ministerial appointments were balanced by an equal number of appointments by the iwi authority. The change the Education and Science Committee has come up with in terms of those four members appointed by the council would allow them to do that. It gives them the flexibility to choose a model that will work for their polytech, and that is what this bill is about. It is about improving governance and making sure that the communities are able to choose a council structure that works for them.

Ngāi Tahu also said they wanted a 50:50 model. One of their comments was that they agreed that the chief executive officer did not necessarily have to be a member of the council. In the second reading version of the bill, councils can choose for themselves. This is important, and I think the previous speaker completely ignored or perhaps did not understand that the bill gives polytechnic councils the choice of those four members. Councils, of course, are in partnership with the Crown, so there will be four ministerial appointees and four appointed by the council, and the council can choose how it is made up to best suit its needs. This Government recognises that not all polytechs are the same, so we are allowing that degree of flexibility.

I will give members a couple of other examples. Tai Poutini Polytechnic agreed that the academic board and student representative were not necessary, and that the focus should be on skill. A couple of other submitters were strongly in favour of strong governance and the need to improve governance skills on the council. Unitec was another polytechnic that was supportive of the change from a representative model, and Wintec was also supportive, not believing that—as the Opposition might try to tell us—the changes would limit academic freedom. They were supportive of these changes. We also heard about some of the other polytechs, like the Universal College of Learning, that use a governance matrix when they are recruiting and selecting members to make sure that the balance of skills is appropriate so that it makes the council as strong as possible going forward.

Another area that this bill addresses—which was not discussed at all by the previous speaker, so I wonder whether he remembers the bill at all—concerns flexible interventions. The bill proposes a gradually escalating series of responses to the risks that polytechs may face, such as financial or educational problems. I think it is important to remember that the focus of this bill is making sure that we have the best polytechs and the strongest polytechs in terms of both financial and educational outcomes. The select committee recommended some additions to the terms and conditions, and they were taken into consideration. A number of changes were incorporated as a result of the feedback that submitters gave us, which is an important part of the select committee process. That is an important point to note.

Another key change was the option for the Minister for Tertiary Education to combine the councils of two or more polytechs if they have themselves recommended that they be combined and if the Minister is satisfied that their communities have been consulted. Again, this is another level of choice for the polytech councils involved. It reinforces choice for the councils themselves, which is something members on this side of the House encourage, so that we can allow the polytechs to have a bit of flexibility to make choices for themselves.

Another key highlight, which is a significant part that was supported by all of the submitters, was the setting up of the tertiary high school in South Auckland, which basically will be up and running at the Manukau Institute of Technology by the beginning of 2010. I am delighted to speak in support of the second reading of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. Thank you.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) : The Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill represents nothing but bad news for the students of polytechnics, for the staff of polytechnics, and for the regional communities of New Zealand. It is essentially a power grab by the Minister of Education. Certainly, this bill will allow the Government to intervene more rapidly when polytechnics have issues with financial or educational performance, but the Minister will not stop there. The bill will allow the Government to intervene in the affairs of polytechnics that are performing, as well as of the ones that are not performing. In order for that to happen, local communities, staff, and students will be denied a say in the governance of their institutions, and to Labour that is unacceptable.

The bill reduces the size of polytechnic councils, ostensibly to improve their effectiveness and capability. In practice, it means that councils of 12 to 20 members will be reduced to just eight members, four of whom are ministerial appointees. Those appointees will include the chairperson and the deputy chairperson. Representatives of anyone other than the Minister are not so welcome on the proposed new councils. There will be one academic board member appointed by the council, a community member appointed by the council, one student representative, and the chief executive officer. On the proposed new councils, what the Minister says goes. We keep hearing from members on the other side of the House that this Government is about choice, about personal choice and individual responsibility, and is not about telling people what to do, and then what does it do here? It gives all the power to the Minister, and says she has the final say and is the only one who can determine what goes on.

The decisions of a polytechnic council primarily affect the staff and the students of that polytechnic. Why, then, does the Minister believe that staff and students do not deserve to have guaranteed, adequate representation on that council? We should be preserving their right to be heard in the decision-making process, rather than adopting the attitude of “this Minister knows best”. There will be some representation for staff and students, but it will not be enough. The Government claims these changes will increase the efficiency of the councils. In reality, the Government is stripping the councils of legitimacy as it denies key stakeholders the right to make their voices heard.

For many New Zealanders, community polytechnics provide a vital service. They are right in the heart of their community. Why, then, is there no guaranteed place under this bill for a community representative? Why does the community not deserve to have a say in the governance of its local polytechnic? Under the proposed new form of the councils, there is no room for community representatives should a polytechnic serve more than one community, as many polytechnics do. Which community will be represented on the council of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology? Who will miss out? I guess that is entirely up to the Minister to decide.

In this bill the Government notes that it is desirable in principle for a council to include Māori representatives and to reflect socio-economic and ethnic diversity within the community. However, it makes no effort whatsoever to guarantee either. We see in this bill, as we have seen in the Auckland super-city legislation, an example of the National Government’s attitude towards Māori representation. National shows a complete disregard for the rights of Māori to be represented and for the value that this representation would bring.

The Labour Party supports some provisions in this bill, which we believe will make a positive difference. We have consistently supported the establishment of the tertiary education high school at the Manukau Institute of Technology, and we will continue to do so. Ensuring that high school students who would otherwise be likely to leave school without qualifications will be provided with other opportunities to gain qualifications is important to us. Labour is committed to making sure that at-risk students do not fall through the gaps, and initiatives such as this one are important steps towards achieving this goal.

Having said that, I say the other provisions of this bill make it impossible for Labour to support it. We do not support restricting the right of Māori, of students, of staff, and of communities to participate in the decision-making processes of their local polytechnics. These polytechnics belong to their communities. The right of members of the community to be represented on the council of their local polytechnic should not be disregarded. Why does the Government want to restrict Māori, student, staff, and community representation? Why does it want to slash these representative bodies to half their current size? Although this bill targets only polytechnics, I cannot help but wonder what the Minister will do next. What else does she have in her sights? Will universities or wānanga be next in line to get this treatment, and for what purpose?

The provisions in this bill send a clear message to New Zealand’s regional communities, which highly value the skills and training that their local polytechnics provide. The Government obviously does not trust those communities to be decision makers when it comes to the governance of their polytechnics. The Government obviously does not respect their input. That attitude is simply wrong. In this case the Minister does not know best—I do not know whether there are any cases where she does know best—and Labour will not be supporting this bill.

Unfortunately, I am not on the Education and Science Committee, but I have heard from many of our select committee members about what went on there, and about their views regarding this legislation. The Labour members of the committee had grave concerns about the passage of this legislation, with the exception of, as I said, the provisions that will enable secondary school students to attend tertiary high school at the Manukau Institute of Technology. That is the one measure in this bill that we support. The concerns of the Labour members of the select committee were, firstly, that there has been no adequate explanation of why this legislation is necessary for the polytechnic sector alone, out of the whole tertiary education sector. Members on the Labour side of the House believe that either the Minister is operating on the basis of outdated information regarding the polytechnic sector or she has intentions for this part of the sector that she does not have for other parts of the tertiary education sector—and, quite frankly, we would find that to be rather bizarre. The purpose of such limiting provisions, which hand considerable power in respect of the running of institutions over to the Minister and restrict community representation, is ultimately unclear.

Next, I say we oppose the absolute reduction in council numbers from 14 to 20 members down to eight. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, this restricts the number of community representatives able to be appointed to polytechnic councils, and that limits the perspectives able to be brought to the education that a polytechnic might offer to its region. That potentially impoverishes the educational opportunities available in the regions, in our view. There is no clear purpose for this provision, given that the operating cost of the councils is not large or excessive. The only purpose that can be divined is for the Minister to be able to exercise more control over polytechs. The ultimate purpose for that, however, is still unclear, as I mentioned earlier.

A particular concern for us regarding the reduction in the number of council members relates to situations where a polytechnic serves more than one community—for example, the University College of Learning, which serves Palmerston North, Wanganui, and the Wairarapa district. There is no guarantee that those diverse communities, with differing educational needs, will have their needs represented at the council level. This was the subject of submissions from mayors in various areas, an unusual occurrence in itself and one that reflected the level of their concern about these provisions.

We will not be supporting this bill. Thank you.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) : Tēnā koutou katoa. I would love to get up and support a great educational bill that would advance the kaupapa of tertiary education, which is a sector dear to the hearts and minds of my party, where several of us have worked over many years, and for which we feel a strong solidarity and a desire to see improvement for the benefit of the students of Aotearoa New Zealand. But this bill is not it. The Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill is not supported by the Green Party. Throughout the select committee process Metiria and I could never discover why it was so important to the Government, for evidence that there was widespread governance failure across the country’s polytechnics was never established by anyone. This bill is thoroughly interventionist and contradicts the endless ideological bleating about the nanny State by the Government and the ACT Party, which are supporting it. It shows little faith in polytechnics, nor yet in the ability of communities to sensibly govern those institutions, which are of great importance to the educational opportunities of many communities, especially for second-chance learning and in regional areas.

With reference to the underlying drivers for the bill, as the Tertiary Education Union said to us in its submission, this is a traditional private sector model based on false crisis assumptions. As the Human Rights Commission submission said, there are serious concerns about ministerial powers. Of course, the Green Party supports the proper management and governance of polytechnics, and the good use of public money to that end, but we are not convinced those issues are seriously addressed in this bill.

We have a number of very serious concerns, which are described in our minority view in the commentary on the bill, and were outlined in the first reading speech that Metiria Turei made. Those concerns are based on listening carefully to the submitters. On the substantive issue of the reduced size and make-up of the polytechnic councils, the submitters to the select committee were many and varied, but the majority were extremely concerned about the reduction in the number of council members. Many were prepared to accept that 12 to 20 members were too many, but few of them thought that eight was by any means adequate in terms of numbers. The fact that four members will be appointed by the Minister will severely reduce councils’ ability to represent communities and to involve key groups such as tāngata whenua, staff representation, student representation, chief executive officers, as well as those diverse communities—not to mention union or employer representation, which is vital in a vibrant tertiary institution. If there are to be eight council members, with four appointed by the Minister, there is already a strong opportunity for bias and control, and we can add to that a reduction in opportunity for various community voices.

The first and fundamental issue is Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It was shameful that Ngāi Tahu and other tāngata whenua had to come and explain to the select committee that, as mana whenua of Aoraki, they were accustomed to operating effective Treaty-based relationships as of right with local learning institutions such as Aoraki Polytechnic. In this bill they are now being treated as a stakeholder in the community, and may or may not have representation on polytechnics, depending on the whim of a council as to whether it feels it is appropriate to choose such representatives. Their views were echoed by many other submitters, who thought we were past arguing about the status of the Treaty in this kind of context. The new section 222AC(1) could be seen as a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi when it states that when appointing members of a polytechnic it is “desirable in principle” to include Māori and ethnic minorities. “Desirable in principle” means if they feel like it, if it seems like a good idea—but where is the te Tiriti recognition? That is retrogressive in the extreme. It is worsened by the fact that only four positions are available to the community. Of course one of the ministerial appointments might be tangata whenua, but “desirable in principle” does not reflect in any way the obligations of kāwanatanga under te Tiriti to recognise the rangatiratanga. It is “desirable”, but then so is world peace. It will not be required under this law.

During the process, the Government apparently listened to submitters and came back with a modification of section 222AA(1), which was allegedly a response to concerns. This is when things started to get very surreal. The response to concerns was that the four members appointed by the Minister would be set in concrete, and then it would be up to councils as to who they appointed from the other sectors and community candidates. There would be no prescribed positions. Like much other ghastly and Draconian legislation, it was masquerading under the guise of more choice. Choice for whom? The “choice” mantra means that there will be no requirement for student union representation, unless it is chosen over community representation. It is all up to the councils, and the lack of representation of the key, vitally engaged parties is not seen as a problem. It will be councils’ choice, in fact, which sector they ignore.

I will quote from submitters on the issue of numbers. Whitireia Community Polytechnic said to us that academic freedom is a serious issue, and one place must be reserved for mana whenua. They said that a one-size-fits-all approach causes problems because it is not reality. They were prepared to see changes from 10 to 20 members down to 12 members, but not a cap at eight members. The Palmerston North mayor stated that to reduce the number to eight is “impossible for adequate representation”. This issue was also restated by the Eastern Institute of Technology, the Manukau Institute of Technology, the Wairarapa Rural Education Activities Programme, the National Council of Women, Waiariki Polytechnic, The Open Polytechnic, Unitec, the Waikato Institute of Technology, etc., etc. Nobody denied that we might not need 20, but most people overwhelmingly said that eight could not do the job, given the way in which the ministerial appointments had been constructed, and the way in which the community and other appointments would have to compete. The Green Party agrees with the Labour Party’s minority view in the commentary on the bill on all matters pertaining to the reduction in polytech council members and the combined boards.

We do support one part of the bill, and there was a consensus on the select committee. We support clause 17 in Part 1, which relates to enabling Manukau Institute of Technology to provide for tertiary high school students. This is a good practical idea, and it reflects the needs of the community.

But this is a bad bill. We sat there listening to submitter after submitter, wondering whether it was going to change anything, only to find that it did not. When the submitters were so clear about what they wanted out of this legislation—they were extremely clear—it is very disappointing that they were totally ignored. In fact, the position is now worse than it was originally before the first reading of the bill, because now under the mantra of “choice”, polytechnics have to choose whether they will include a student on their boards or whether they will include someone from the community. That is no choice at all for many of our communities, who desperately need to have both at the table, if they are to have an effective polytechnic that truly represents the diversity of their students. As for the issue of Māori representation, this bill is just a disgrace. Quite apart from the issue of the Treaty, if members look at the make-up of the student body at many of these polytechnics, members will see that they are Māori and Pasifika and they want to see their boards reflect their communities from a perspective of knowledge and experience.

So this is a bad bill. It was very disheartening for me as a new member to sit through a select committee process, which is supposed to be an opportunity for improving a bill, only to see it get worse. It made the process feel like token consultation as opposed to an opportunity to improve the responsibility we have for seriously making our educational institutions work for students. The Green Party will be opposing this bill all the way. Kia ora.

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) : I will be brief. The Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill is all about governance of local polytech institutions. We started with the knowledge that the sector was not functioning particularly well, and there was a desire to look at why that was occurring. The truth is that any board of 14 to 20 members will not function particularly well, and we found that basically that was why the sector was in such a mess. The question became how many people should be on a board of this nature. I think the Minister for Tertiary Education was quite right in deciding that eight members was the maximum number if the board were to function in an appropriate way.

It then became a question of who should be on that board of eight. The first issue was that the Minister, given that the Government is providing the bulk of the money, would make the decision in terms of four members, including the appointment of the chairperson and the deputy chairperson. I must say that, in terms of governance of these organisations, in my view the most important decision that will be made is the decision of the Minister as to who will be the chair and the deputy chair of each organisation. If we get right the chair and the deputy chair, then appropriate governance will follow. So we have four members appointed by the Minister.

The next question was who should occupy the other four positions. It was suggested that the chief executive officer should be on the board. I was indifferent about that, personally. I did not think it was necessary for the chief executive officer to be on the board, because if the chief executive officer cannot influence the board, then the chief executive officer probably should not be in that position. It was also suggested that one of the representatives should be a student and one should be a staff member. I actually think that is bad governance. It is not appropriate, frankly, for students or for staff to be on a board of eight members, or even a board of 20 members. I do not think that is appropriate governance. In any case, any board worth its salt will consult the academic board and the students association. I personally do not believe that staff or students should be represented on the board.

We were faced with a situation where possibly only one community member would be on the board. I think that was insufficient. We now have a position where up to four community members could be appointed. It is a question of whether we prefer four people from the community as opposed to a student, the chief executive officer, and a staff member.

It seems to me that what we have now is an appropriate balance. Four members are appointed by the Minister, and, as I said, the most important job the Minister has is to get the right chairperson and, hopefully, a competent deputy chair, possibly with skills that the chairperson does not necessarily have, so that they are complementary. If we have that, we are on our way. We also have four members drawn from the community at large. As I said, it is not particularly effective to have a staff member or student on the board, nor is it necessary to have the chief executive officer on it, because the chief executive officer will be at the board meetings anyway. Frankly, if he or she cannot influence the board, he or she is not going to make it. To me, we got the right balance.

What I am hearing from the Labour Party is that those members believe that a board of 14-20 people is appropriate. That is simply―

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, no!

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS: Yes, that member’s colleagues have been saying that they are quite happy with 14 or more members, but that is totally inappropriate.

Hon Trevor Mallard: No!

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS: I tell that member to listen to what his colleagues are saying. That is why Trevor Mallard got this sector into a mess when he was the Minister; he put too many people on the boards and he put people on them who were inappropriate. They were committed to representing a narrow, particular view rather than looking at the interests of the polytechs overall.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. Kia ora tātou katoa i tēnei ahiahi. I do not think it would be any surprise to the House that for the Māori Party the crux of the issue in the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill is the whole notion of the value of Māori representation on tertiary governance bodies, including mana whenua and Māori student representation as well. I suppose it becomes more relevant in terms of some of the discussions that have been put before the House today on, in particular, the feedback from the Education and Science Committee. It amended the bill by deleting the four positions for representatives from the academic board, the students, and the community, and for the chief executive officer. There can be no doubt that by providing for only one community member, the chance of Māori representation on any polytechnic council is pretty slim. For us, that is a real concern.

The next question is why Māori representation is such a significant issue. Well, it is pretty simple. Some members have already set it out. It is about a Treaty right. To give that some context, the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System said: “the Treaty of Waitangi marked the beginning of constitutional government in New Zealand. Under the terms of the Treaty, the Crown formally recognised the existing rights of Maori and undertook to protect them. It is in this sense that Maori people have a special constitutional status.” That is one part of the argument—a Treaty right. Although the bill has a requirement that it is “desirable” that the council of an institution should reflect, so far as is reasonably practicable, the ethnic and socio-economic diversity of the communities served by the institution, I have to say that it is a pretty toothless provision that disregards the constitutional significance of the Crown’s relationship to Māori.

I also have to say that the failure of successive Governments to recognise and give effect to the Treaty as a basis of constitutional Government in New Zealand does not grant consent for subsequent Governments to perpetuate the failure. I need to tell this Parliament that the Māori Party will continue to keep the notion of Treaty rights at the forefront of discussions about our nationhood, which are basically reflected in the relationship between Māori and Pākehā in this land. I also have to say that the Māori Party gained a lot of confidence from our relationship agreement with the National Party, which said: “Both the National Party and the Māori Party will act in accordance with te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi” That, of course, will be an ongoing discussion. All of that context simply tells us that Māori representation is a Treaty right that is appropriate in the context of our history and our understanding of tangata whenua rights.

The main concern about the bill is, as I said, the lack of Māori or iwi Treaty partnerships reflected in the arrangements, and I would expect the Minister for Tertiary Education to be working with iwi entities at least to ensure that proper representation is enabled. We spoke about this matter in the first reading. Māori representation on polytech boards stems from our status as mana whenua—the mana of the land. We have been the guardians of the land, the seas, and the harbours of the regions for centuries. To put it into context, Māori welcomed and gave a place to the settlers, expecting to live alongside them in a respectful relationship. We all need to recognise that relationship today, if we want to move into a positive future based on peaceful relationships between people and the land.

To wrap it all up, the unique status of Māori also requires that our values, norms, and ways of doing things should be reflected in all of our key institutions. It is about giving space to Māori culture, and that is what we have been asking for, not only with this bill but also with the whole question about the Auckland super-city proposal. It is important, because giving space to Māori culture is about our survival and about our ability to flourish in the only place in the world where that is possible: Aotearoa, our home.

Many would not be aware that last Friday a hui was called at Te Noho Kotahitanga Marae, at Unitec, in Auckland. It was attended by representatives of iwi, hapū, whānau, marae, and tangata Tiriti from throughout the whole country. At that hui, known as Te Hui o te Kotahitanga, the participants pledged ongoing support for dedicated seats on Auckland’s super-city council for the mana whenua. A report from that hui concluded that it had reinforced the determination of Māori to support the legitimate right of mana whenua of Tāmaki to have reserved seats, as recommended by the royal commission and as supported by 80 percent of the public’s submissions on the super-city. The report concluded that a genuine Treaty relationship would reflect equal, fifty-fifty representation of tangata whenua and tauiwi at governance level. However, as a very minimum there should be three guaranteed seats for Māori representation and, more important, mana whenua representation, as recommended by the royal commission. In that regard, this discussion is not just about polytechs; it is, in fact, about the bigger picture and the whole notion of Treaty rights.

How does all this discussion relate back to a bill on polytechnics? I am proud to speak to a bicultural partnership governance model for polytechnics put together by the Waiariki Institute of Technology—Te Whare Takiūra o te Waiariki. As the local member, I am pleased to support the proposal. The proposal has been approved and strongly supported by the Māori Party, and we have referred it to the Minister for Tertiary Education for consideration. The model proposes an equal number of council appointments for Crown and Māori, with community appointments filling the balance of the required council positions. The model has a bicultural focus and proposes an active demonstration of Treaty commitments. The paper describes those commitments as the Treaty relationship of partnership, the Crown’s duty of active protection, and the duty to act reasonably and in good faith by meaningful participation, including the obligation to consult. The special relationship would be endorsed by formal recognition of representative tertiary education iwi authorities as legislated bodies.

We are talking about allowing iwi to have space to formalise agreements with the Crown that basically allow iwi to set up their own forums and present proposals to these sorts of bodies. I suppose, in a sense, they are legitimised by a rubber stamp from the Crown, as well. Once the iwi authority is established by the iwi in the rohe, it would elect members for appointment to the polytechnic council. If members did not know, a number of polytechnics throughout the country already follow this particular model. The recommendation is that the council then would comprise a minimum of nine and a maximum of 12 members, three of whom would be appointed by the Minister after council input, three appointed by the representative tertiary education iwi authority, and up to four appointed by the people living in the community served by the polytechnic.

I was pretty impressed by the model, as was the Minister of Maori Affairs. The Māori Party will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper at the appropriate time, and I look forward to support for it from, in particular, Labour, and the other parties. I take on the words of Ranginui Walker, who commented earlier this year: “The Waiariki Institute of Technology is a surrogate of the Crown. It has accommodated the tino rangatiratanga of Te Arawa and other tribes in the institution’s catchment area by committing to a partnership with tangata whenua.” That should set the scene. It has been operating in this way since the year 2000, and, in its structure, Te Mana Mātaurangaof the Waiariki trust represents the people of Te Arawa, Mātaatua, and Tainui waka, including Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Awa, Tūwharetoa, and other iwi whose ancestral homelands lie within this area. The structure involves a joint committee of five council members and five from Te Mana Mātauranga. It is a unique bicultural model in a mainstream setting—the best of both worlds. In a practical sense, it aims to indigenise the curriculum and produce graduates who are culturally competent.

So, in conclusion, there are other models of Māori representation such as those of Tairāwhiti Polytechnic and Whitireia Community Polytechnic that reflect the quality of the relationship with local iwi, relationships that are formally recognised through direct council representation. The Tairāwhiti Polytechnic council, for instance, has four community places held by Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Porou, Te Rūnanga o Turanganui-a-Kiwa, the Wairoa Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board, and the Māori Women’s Welfare League. If the community viewpoint, including mana whenua through its representatives, is removed, the focus of governance decision-making under this bill will quite quickly become central government based rather than regionally based. It is more important for central government to respond to community needs than it is for regions to respond to centralised requests.

Māori representation is a Treaty right. It is critical for robust decision-making and institutional success over the long term. It is critical for our capacity as a Parliament to act in accordance with the Treaty of Waitangi. So we will at this point be supporting this bill. We will be introducing an Supplementary Order Paper, and we will reassess the bill at the appropriate time in the third reading.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) : I will take just a brief call on this very important Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. This bill needs to be enacted very, very quickly. On this side of the House we believe that good governance means having good polytechs. We certainly do need to have good polytechs. We were informed that, as we speak here, seven polytechs are at risk, and we do not want them to fail.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What about the universities that are at a much bigger risk?

COLIN KING: Although we can hear the noise coming from a former Minister, there is total denial from members on the Opposition side of the House. In fact, there is a legacy of waste and failure, of rorts, of soft money, and of poor governance from the previous Labour administration. That has to stop.

This bill is long overdue, and we need to have it passed. We need to have a greater, expanded, more flexible intervention process, with at least two more steps. We are also encouraging the formation of other sorts of advisory committees. What we heard around the Education and Science Committee was that people all wanted to have their feet under the table and all wanted to have their say. This legislation is about delivering quality education and quality skills training, and that is what the National Party stands for in Government. We look forward to this bill being progressed speedily, and we look forward to the Committee stage in order to be able to identify the detail and the reason for it. On that basis, I have pleasure in recommending this bill to the House. Thank you.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) : I am very pleased to follow the speech of the member from Kaikōura on the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. Once again, he is failing to acknowledge what the impacts of this bill will be on his electorate of Kaikōura, particularly in his home base in Marlborough. If he has not yet worked it out—and he should have done so by now—this bill will disenfranchise Marlborough from representation on the council of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology. That member should be defending his electorate and its rights to be represented. Instead, he gave a short speech that simply referred to this being a great bill, without acknowledging that he is seeing the disenfranchisement of his community of Marlborough from representation on the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology council. That is a disgrace. He should have the guts to defend his electorate, and not be a puppet to a bill that does away with the representation that his electorate should have.

David Garrett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Even with my limited knowledge of the Standing Orders I heard the member breach them twice there—firstly, by alleging that the previous speaker was gutless; and, secondly, by alleging that he was beholden to interests outside this House. Both of those suggestions are contrary to the Standing Orders.

BRENDON BURNS: Speaking to the point of order, I made no such reference to interests outside the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry, I was preoccupied with another matter and I did not hear what was said. But the member must know that members cannot do that.

BRENDON BURNS: I ask Mr King what the future of the Blenheim campus of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology is. Will he defend it? Will this bill be used as an attempt to downgrade the Blenheim campus of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology? We know that the financial situation of polytechnics is under some threat. I do not know how the interests of that community and of that polytechnic will be served by gutting the membership and representation of the council. I served for 8 years on that council. It was a strong and representative council. I did 8 years of service and the council served that community of Marlborough very, very well.

I pick up on the comments of Te Ururoa Flavell. I am still not sure what the Māori Party’s position will be on this bill, because it seems to me that the Supplementary Order Paper he will be tabling proposed, in fact, a continuation of the sort of representation that was available prior to the introduction and possible passage of this bill. In the case of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology there were three Māori representatives: one from the Marlborough iwi, one from the Nelson iwi, and one from Te Maata Waka. The council was well represented. Under the model proposed by this bill I think we will see Māori treated with contempt. We have to ask where the supposed agreement is with the National Government, which he has confidence in, when he is forced to table a Supplementary Order Paper in the vain hope that there might still be the guarantee of some Māori representation on polytechnic councils across the country. I suggest that Pita Sharples, as the Associate Minister of Education, might like to take a call on this bill as well and tell us where the mana-enhancing status of the Māori Party is, as represented by this bill, when this bill is doing away with the right that Māori currently have to be involved at the table for decisions around polytechnic councils.

The fact is that the Māori Party is being treated with contempt by the Government over this bill. What hope, therefore, can it really have for substantial progress on issues like foreshore and seabed? This is a repeat of what happened to the Māori Party with its proposals and wishes over the Auckland super-city. It is reduced to hoping that there might be some de facto recognition of Māori aspirations and rights and that it might be able to get a Supplementary Order Paper supported. It will not get it supported by the Government, I wager. I would like to know where Tau Henare and Georgina te Hoho are on this bill as Māori members. And I ask why Paula Bennett, if she is here to speak for Māori aspirations and rights, is not giving this bill the thumbs down that it so deserves—that it absolutely deserves. This bill is reprehensible in its impact on Māori and others.

I pick up on the comments of Sir Roger Douglas, who suggested that 14 or 20 members was too many, and eight was about right. Let us apply that to Cabinet, perhaps, and ask which Ministers we would do away with under that principle—maybe Georgina te Hoho, because they will not need her in Cabinet to put a Māori voice in place.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I first came into this House in 1993. Many of the people on the other side of the House have continued to mispronounce my name and I take great offence. I take great offence especially at the mispronunciation of the name of my colleague Georgina te Heuheu. To pronounce it as “te Hoho” is an absolute disgrace.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for that point of order. We had a case yesterday on pronunciation. I ask the member to be more careful in pronouncing names.

BRENDON BURNS: If I indeed mispronounced a member’s name, I apologise.

I go back to the point about Sir Roger Douglas. Who would he like to take out of the Cabinet? Maybe he would take out Anne Tolley, as the Minister supposedly presenting this bill, or Gerry Brownlee, who has shown his command of procedures in this House yet again this afternoon not only on this bill but on the one preceding it. I pick up also on the comments of Louise Upston, the MP for Taupō, who said this was a way to run inefficient polytechnics and to make them more responsive to communities. How on earth can they be more responsive to communities when effectively we are saying to the councils of polytechnics that they have “Sophie’s choice”? They will have four members appointed, and they will then be able to choose whether there will be the chief executive officer, a staff representative, a student representative, a Māori representative, an employer representative, a union representative, or a community representative. Those are the choices faced by polytechnic councils under this bill. It is an absolute disgrace that it has been introduced to Parliament.

The reason we need polytechnics is that they are the engine room of growth in our economy. They train the people who make our economy tick. They have always been treated as poor cousins in the tertiary sector; this bill now makes them powerless poor cousins. We have to ask the Minister in charge of the bill why she is not doing the same to university councils. Is it because they are more powerful and privileged than polytechnic councils? There is no signal or sign from the Minister that she will apply this swingeing axe to university councils, because they have some clout.

I acknowledge in this speech the contribution that Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology provides in my electorate of Christchurch Central. We have a debate currently in our city about the future of a proposal for a music school on the site of the Arts Centre of Christchurch; it would be a coalition between the university council and the city council. The debate neglects the fact that there are 300 music students at the polytechnic; the proposal is to assist 120 students of the university’s music school. Again, it rubber stamps and treats the polytechnic as the poor cousin in the relationship despite the fact that 10,000 polytechnic students filter through our city and enrich and add value to it. They do not get any real recognition whatsoever.

There is, indeed—and Sir Roger Douglas raised this question—a case for possible reductions in polytechnic councils. Twenty members is probably too many, so there is the case for some reduction. I am sure that the Labour Party would have given this consideration, if the bill had suggested some other reductions. A reduction to 12 or 14 may be feasible. Certainly, the polytechnic council that I served on had 14 members and that worked extraordinarily well. But there is one problem as far as the Minister is concerned, which is that that reduction would not give her the ministerial control that is so essential to her. That is the reason behind this bill. What is the agenda? Are we en route to the forced sale of some of our polytechnics to private tertiary education establishments?

Nicky Wagner: That’s scaremongering.

BRENDON BURNS: Just in the past week the Minister has suggested using the private sector to build our schools. So we are not that far removed from what is possible under this Government. The Minister has also put in place cuts across adult and community education.

One has to ask what is next. Will there be forced mergers between polytechnics as a result of this bill? The Minister will have control: she will appoint four of the eight, and one of the other four is likely to be an ally of those four, no matter how they are appointed by the council. So that gives the Minister effective control of the polytechnics, and that is exactly the agenda behind this bill. I again ask what this will mean for polytechnics, especially those that cover more than one community. I think of polytechnics like the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, which covers Nelson and Marlborough; and the Universal College of Learning in Palmerston North, which represents people from the Manuwatū, the Wairarapa, and Wanganui. How on earth can we expect there to be community representation when three communities are being served by appointment?

I come back to saying that this bill is reprehensible legislation. It is gutting the representation of communities in their polytechnic sector. It will gut the iwi representation on those councils. I challenge the Māori Party to find the courage to stand and take a position against this bill, rather than hoping and praying that a Supplementary Order Paper that simply maintains the status quo gets the support of the Opposition. The Māori Party has the opportunity, it is in coalition with the Government, and it should be opposing this bill fiercely and representing the people it is here to represent.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Allan Peachey.

Chris Hipkins: Here comes the ministerial speech!

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) : I think the member does jest. I want to make some largely general comments on the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. In one very, very good way it is a step back to the past. There is a provision in the bill—a bill that is widely supported around the House—that will allow the Manukau Institute of Technology to establish a technical high school.

There was a time in New Zealand when technical high schools had a proud and successful role to play. I think of my father’s own school, Wanganui Technical College; I think also of Seddon Technical College in Auckland, Hutt Valley Memorial Technical College, King Edward Technical College in Dunedin, and so on. These were fine schools that gave generations of New Zealanders a very solid grounding in a technical education. Is it not a tragedy to look back over 30 or 40 years and think about the bright sparks who decided that these schools should be closed down and that a different form of education should be available to those with a bent in technology, in the technical areas in the trades?

So we have come full circle, and I think one of the great things that this Government is doing is re-establishing the role and importance of technical education. We know that the future of this country will depend as much on the technicians and the technologists whom we have available as it will on other groups in the community.

I want to try to put the governance provisions for the polytech sector into a wider context and in a more logical context than, for example, the previous speaker, with his speculation, chose to do. It is important to acknowledge that the polytech sector plays an important role as part of one of the components that make up an effective tertiary sector. We should never ever underestimate the importance or the potential importance that the polytech sector has as part of a well-based, broad tertiary education sector. Any lack of prestige, any lack of quality, and any lack of performance in the polytech sector undermine the ability of this country to meet the demands for skilled labour. That is one area in which, in recent years, this country has not been performing as well as it needs to. We can argue about having 20, or 14, or eight members on polytech councils, but to me that is a largely irrelevant argument. The argument has to be around what governance structures will be the most favourable in terms of encouraging strategic thinking, vision, innovation, and flexibility, and will allow the polytechs to progress.

The significant aspect of this bill, which certainly the Opposition, I think, has either lost sight of or chosen not to acknowledge, is a very, very important shift away from governance arrangements that are pretty much solely based on representation, to governance arrangements that are based on expertise, on vision, and on an ability to provide a rigorous governance structure for the polytechs to develop. I endorse entirely the comments of Sir Roger Douglas about the absolute importance of the quality of the chairperson and the deputy chairperson, but I want to add another dimension and that is the quality of the chief executive. Get those appointments right and the polytechs will function to the standard and the level that the economy of this country and its future require.

In terms of chief executives, I am neutral as to whether the chief executives sit on the council. What I am not neutral about is the qualities that a chief executive needs to lead a polytech: understanding the nature of learning, understanding the nature of a technical education—an education in technology—understanding what happens and what needs to happen in the lecture theatres, the seminar rooms, the laboratories, and the workshop. That is a far greater test of whether a polytech will be successful, than who sits on the governing council. Thank you.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) : That last speech was rather telling. The member who has just resumed his seat, Allan Peachey, is the chairperson of the Education and Science Committee, whose job it is to defend to the hilt the Government’s proposal in this regard. We have all just witnessed that over half the member’s speech was dedicated to an area of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill that is not contentious at all. I believe that that is because the chairperson has considerable difficulty defending and justifying the very contentious parts of this bill, which takes community representation and the community voice out of polytechnics. I think that speech was very telling.

I am proud to stand and oppose this bill. Labour opposes this bill, unlike the Māori Party. We have heard a speech from Te Ururoa Flavell that would lead one to assume that the Māori Party opposes this bill because there is no dedicated Māori representation any more on polytechnic councils. Mr Flavell spent almost all his time telling us why the bill is wrong and why it needs a provision for dedicated Māori representation. Then, at the very end of his speech, he said that the Māori Party will vote in favour of the second reading. I think that is a disgrace, and I see that that is exactly what the Māori Party does out in the electorate.

Members of the Māori Party make speeches that lead people to believe that they opposed to what the Government is doing. They strongly criticise what the Government is doing, but then they come down to Wellington and vote in favour of the National Government. They uphold the things the Government is doing. The National Government is dumbing down Māori participation. The Māori Party upholds those things that the National Government is doing that are wrecking hard-working families’ lives. That is the Māori Party that we see today. It is a very sad shadow of its former self.

The reason I and my party strongly oppose this bill is that it is built on a false premise. The false premise is that the polytechnic sector in New Zealand is in crisis. There is no crisis in the sector. I did not hear any of the Government speakers actually outline to us the problem that needs fixing. Where is the crisis in the polytechnic sector? There is no issue to fix up.

Of course, there is a bit of strife currently in the polytechnic sector. It has nothing to do with governance, and it has nothing to do with the size of the councils or who is on those councils. But, as we speak, polytechnic staff are taking strike action, some of them for the very first time. They certainly never had to do that under the previous Labour Government. Many of those staff are, for the first time, taking strike action because the National Government has put a wage freeze on them. It is now pitching them against their employers, and their employers have no choice but to say no to a well-deserved wage increase for those staff.

If there is any crisis at all in the polytechnic sector, it is because of the decision of this Government to impose a wage freeze. It has nothing to do with bad governance, and it has nothing to do with the size of the councils. It certainly has nothing to do with specifying Māori representation on those councils—which is what the Government would have us believe. The Government would have us believe that, firstly, the polytechnic sector is in crisis; and, secondly, that the reason it is in crisis is that we currently require Māori representation on those councils. That is a disgraceful link to make. I believe that the Government is absolutely wrong in doing that.

So what is the real agenda here? It is certainly not the cost of the polytechnic councils. We asked questions at the Education and Science Committee to find out how much people on those councils get paid, and it is a tiny amount, particularly for the hours they put in. In fact, it is almost a community service. So it is certainly not cost that is driving this change in the law.

This bill is not about improving representation. It is certainly not about that, because it actually reduces community representation. It specifically sets out to decrease community representation. The real agenda is certainly not about improving governance, because, as, I think, the last Government speaker, Allan Peachey, pointed out, governance has nothing to do with whether polytechnics work well; it is actually about the quality of the chief executive officer. So by the Government’s own admission, this bill is not about improving governance.

The bill will considerably increase ministerial control, because half the council will be appointed by the Minister of Education. The other thing the bill will do is shut down the voice of students. I think that the very strong support coming from Sir Roger Douglas is very interesting. He, of course, has a member’s bill—it has been drawn from the ballot—that seeks to make student union membership voluntary. The Government, of course, supports that bill because it will dumb down the student voice.

Government members cannot wait to dumb down the student voice. They will do so with the bill for voluntary student union membership, and, insidiously, they are also doing so with this bill, because this bill does not allow for a seat at the table to be dedicated to student representation. Actually, the bill did allow for that at the first reading stage. When the bill was referred to the Education and Science Committee, it actually had a provision that allowed for student representation at the council table. But guess what? The Government members on that select committee decided to “improve” it by removing the requirement for student representation around the table.

Viewers watching this debate need to join up the dots. This bill is about dumbing down the voice of the community. It is particularly about dumbing down the voice of Māori. It is also particularly about dumbing down the voice of students. So what exactly is the Minister afraid of? Why is it that she is so desperate to shut down the student voice? I think those are very worrying signs for the future, and not just for the future of the polytechnic sector, of course, but for the future of the university sector as well. Everyone can wait and see—the university sector will be next. It had better start to get its arguments together now, because, clearly, this Government is after dumbing down the student voice and community representation.

Listening to the submissions at the select committee was very enlightening, because significant themes came through, particularly from the polytechnic sector itself. Those themes were these: polytechnics all argued that having the ability to have only four community representatives was not enough, and that they had complex and diverse communities that needed representation. Polytechnics were asking for more representatives. The other main theme was that eight representatives were too few in total. Many of the polytechnics came forward and suggested that they could live with 12 on their councils, but that eight was far too few. The third significant theme from submitters was that they did not need or want that amount of ministerial control. They were worried about the sheer amount of ministerial control that this bill will give to the Minister, to control what goes on at their polytechnics, yet, at the same time, to take away the community voice. So they were worried about more ministerial control and a dumbing down of the community voice.

I make particular reference to the very, very good submission from Wintec, the polytechnic in Hamilton. The chair, Gordon Chesterman, made a very, very good representation to the select committee, and pointed out, for example, that Wintec’s very good deputy chairperson, Clint Baddeley, had been appointed to that polytechnic council as a New Zealand Council of Trade Unions representative. That is another area of representation that this bill seeks to take away; it seeks to take away industry representation.

In my remaining minute, I will raise the issue of gender. We heard from submitters that most of the representation of women on these councils has come from staff representatives and student representatives. But, because of this bill, they will be gone. I want to know what the Minister of Women’s Affairs is doing about that. What questions has she asked about the gender implications of decreasing the representation on polytechnic councils to eight representatives? What questions has she asked about ensuring that another Minister appoints four of those representatives, and about making sure there are no dedicated positions there for staff and student representatives, who actually predominate now in relation to gender issues and balance throughout the country? I think there are very serious questions to be answered on this bill, and I feel proud to be from a party that has the courage to stand up and oppose it.

JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) : I rise to take the last call on the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill, and I do so with great pleasure because it is time we corrected the record. First of all, the Education and Science Committee did listen, and there have been significant changes to the bill that reflect the views of the submitters. I went back to my own polytech, and I asked them whether it agreed with the changes the select committee members had made. Would having four opportunities to choose local representatives from the community, from the staff, and from the students give the polytech what it wants? In fact, its representatives said to me: “Yes; you have listened.” There are significant changes in amendments to this bill, which shows we have listened.

It is very apparent that the way in which Labour conducted its affairs in the previous Government—throwing money at polytechs that were turning bad—is the way that Labour would like to continue. But those surpluses are gone, and this Government wants to get the governance of polytechs correct. They are important institutions to this Government, and good governance is what it takes. I support this bill and the amendments to it wholeheartedly. Thank you.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) : Subject to discussions that have been held across the House, I seek leave for the second and third readings on the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill to be taken simultaneously as one debate of 12 10-minute speeches, with one question to be put at the end.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : I move, That the Legal Services Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The Legal Services Amendment Bill marks an important step in the Government’s treatment of the needs of victims. From the outset, I acknowledge that the bill was originally introduced by Annette King towards the final months of the previous Government’s endeavours in what was a particularly difficult public situation. The then Minister moved as quickly as she was able in the circumstances, but the matter has now made substantial progress with the assistance of both sides of the House.

This bill will mean that victims of crime can access legal aid for coronial inquests and Parole Board hearings without facing a financial means test or the possibility of having to make any repayments. This bill improves administrative practice by enabling the Legal Services Agency to decide not to recover legal aid debt at any time during the process. This will alleviate distress for applicants with circumstances where a repayment requirement is inappropriate. The agency will now be able to let victims of crime know as early as possible that they will not be required to make repayments.

The bill also introduces a regulation-making power in the event that it is necessary to exempt particular classes of persons or proceedings from the financial eligibility tests and repayment conditions. A regulation-making power will enable a swift response to future situations, such as those that prompted this bill, when they arise. We are all aware of the dreadful circumstances that led to this bill being introduced. This bill reflects the desire of all parties to prevent unnecessarily inflexible legislation from re-victimising victims of crime. In those rare cases where victims of crime need legal representation at coronial inquests and Parole Board hearings, they should not have to deal with the stress of the possibility of repayments being required.

Submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee raised a number of other possible changes that could be made to support the needs of victims through either the legal aid system or the justice system. I am pleased to say that the Government can address these wider issues relating to the role of victims in the justice system through other pieces of work such as the legal aid review, which will continue to attract further attention by way of further reform, and the review of the Victims’ Rights Act. This bill provides a focused amendment to a specific problem in the Legal Services Act and provides the flexibility to more efficiently remedy any similar problems in the future. It reinforces the Government’s priority on rebalancing the justice system for victims of crime. I would like to thank all members of the House, and all of those who have been involved in this important legislation and the work the select committee undertook. I commend this bill to the House.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) : I am pleased to rise to speak on behalf of Labour on this important bill, the Legal Services Amendment Bill. I would like, firstly, to thank the Minister of Justice for acknowledging the work that Labour had already done on this bill prior to the election. In the same vein I acknowledge, in particular, the Hon Annette King, who was the first member of this House to progress this bill in her capacity as the then Minister. I also acknowledge the work of Chester Borrows as the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, who took the bill through the select committee phase. I acknowledge the officials who serviced the select committee and provided very good advice. I also acknowledge the submitters who choose to come forward and speak to this bill. Many of them, or their families, had been the victims of a crime. They provided heartfelt submissions not only on the substance of the bill but on the wider issue of victims’ representation in the criminal justice system. A lot of what they said to the committee resonated quite strongly with members on all sides. Of course, we were limited as to what we could address within the scope of this bill, which is reasonably narrow.

In this third reading or final stage of the bill I will cover off what this legislation attempts to do. I will highlight the changes that the committee made to the bill, and also the wider context of victims’ rights in the criminal justice system. I think we have some way to go in what is a shifting environment in terms of victims’ rights, and I will touch on that issue later.

Firstly, it is interesting to reflect on the context of the Legal Services Act, which this bill amends. The purpose of the Legal Services Agency is to promote access to justice. There are three quite key principles. The first is to provide a legal aid scheme that assists people of insufficient means to pay for legal services—to none the less have access to them. Legal aid has become a matter of great controversy recently, and it is an issue that I am sure the House will debate further in the future. The second key principle is to provide other means of legal assistance. The third is to support community legal services by funding community law centres, education, and research. The continuing instability of funding for community law centres is a fraught area, and this House has already dealt with that this year. I am pleased that there is a good working relationship on both sides of the House, via Minister Power, to make sure that community law centres continue to be well funded. But they are quite key areas that the Legal Services Agency deals with, and they have become quite politically fraught recently.

This bill is, however, one that has had support from all sides of the House, and I think that is because it responds to an issue of natural justice. Everyone will recall the outrage from the public when it dawned on people that we had a system that would allow, quite unjustly, victims to be hit with a significant bill for just taking part in legal proceedings that involved the death of a loved one. It is quite right that the amendments made in this bill have been done in such a swift way.

The purpose of the bill has already been touched on by the Minister, but I will highlight it again. The bill ensures that the victims of crime are able to attend stages of justice proceedings, such as Parole Board hearings or coronial inquests, and are not subject to financial eligibility tests—not necessarily in all cases. It enables the Legal Services Agency to write off legal debt at any time during legal proceedings, rather than only when proceedings are concluded. That is something I touched on in the Committee stage. Of course, as we are all aware in this House, going through the full process of perhaps even appeals, etc., could mean that the family of a victim would be waiting a considerable amount of time before they were aware of what kind of legal aid debt might be pursued by the Legal Services Agency. If it is clear from the outset that that is not something the Legal Services Agency is likely to do, it is best that that is known up front. Of course, as a preventive measure—and I think this is a smart move by the House—a new regulation-making power is given to the Minister to enable extra classes of people to be added in terms of the financial eligibility test and repayment conditions at any time. That means that we will not go through a full parliamentary process to add any extra categories of people; it will be done through a regulations review process. I think that is fitting.

In my speech in the Committee stage I touched on the amendments that the select committee had made, and I think they were useful amendments. They might be considered to be somewhat technical, but they clarified that our intention in this House was to allow victims to have this measure apply to them through all stages of a criminal justice process where they had the right to be a part of proceedings. That includes Parole Board hearings, and, of course, there was the discussion around coronial inquests as well.

I come back to the issue that I very briefly touched on at the beginning of my speech, which is the changing context in which we have been debating this measure over the past years—right back to, from my recollection, as early as 2002. The environment in which we now debate victims’ rights in New Zealand has changed. It was in 2003, I believe, that I had the privilege of working for the Hon Phil Goff when he was Minister of Justice, and I recall that at that time the Sensible Sentencing Trust was just beginning to emerge as an advocacy body in New Zealand. Since that body has begun to grow, it has highlighted for me an issue that I believe all of us in this House should be concerned about. All of us should be champions on behalf of victims. We should also be champions on behalf of a fair and equitable justice system. I fear that in this country at present there is exploitation going on of victims. I do think it is the role of parliamentarians to ensure that if there are concerns—and there still are, of course—in our criminal justice system about the way that victims are treated as they come through that system, then those concerns should be addressed. But I think that victims at present are being used as part of a lobby for something quite different from that, and that it will be to the detriment of this place and of our justice system. We must keep that in mind as we continue to debate additional provisions to enhance the role of victims in our criminal justice system.

I highlight again that members on both sides of this House hold these issues very dear to our hearts. I think it is unfair that sometimes we hear consideration of these issues as though there is almost a hierarchy of parties, with some regarded as being more adequate than others to deal with such issues. I think that is grossly unfair. Although this bill may have been a response to a very specific case, we have seen many pieces of legislation during the 9 years of the previous Labour Government that were proactive rather than reactive. I have named some of them before: the Sentencing Act 2002, which introduced the presumption in favour of reparation and resulted in that sentence being used much more frequently, and which was something we heard about when we discussed the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill, the Victims’ Rights Act 2002, and the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005. They were not just pieces of legislation; they were policies that were intended to give a greater footing for victims, and a greater awareness of the place of victims in our criminal justice system. We should be proud of those policies.

But I highlight again that there is always a balance to be struck, and I fear that at present a lobby is exploiting victims in this country rather than making sure that we have policies in place to genuinely assist those who find themselves in the horrid and unfortunate situation of being a victim in New Zealand.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : This is an extraordinarily apt time to be considering the affect of the legislation that governs our legal services. The Government is, of course, at this stage involved in a consultation process to improve Government agencies’ responses to victims of crime. The point of that process is to find solutions about how to enhance the rights and role of victims in criminal justice processes. This consultation process itself comes hot on the heels of the release of the legal aid review. The report Transforming the Legal Aid System states as one of its basic premises that an efficient and effective court system is central to effective access to justice, and within that, having a more satisfactory process for victims and witnesses is critical. But there is a statement in that report that is particularly relevant to this bill today. In the section on customer services, the report notes that the court system tends to focus on the perpetrators of crime and only to a lesser extent on victims. The families of perpetrators of crime, however, are generally ignored. This is part of the tragic context of a justice system that insists on defining and separating out people as victims, as perpetrators, as children, but rarely as members of a family. The shame of that approach is that the potential for families to live better lives and to wrap loving arms around an offender so as to avoid patterns of offending into the future is effectively neglected.

The Legal Services Amendment Bill introduces a new definition of victim. A victim now also includes a parent or a legal guardian of a child or young person, or a member of the immediate family of a person who has died or is rendered incapable by an offence. This is very significant in that it is moving towards a justice system that reflects and responds to the community rather than isolates out individual offenders. All of us will know someone who has had a brush with the law. Indeed, in the life of this Parliament there have been members who have had various encounters with the police, the courts, or the corrections system. And so all of us also have the potential to empathise with the families and loved ones of offenders. We understand the traumatic impact of incarceration upon a family; we know the toll taken. The Māori Party knows also the heavy burden borne by far too many of our people. Māori have a higher risk of victimisation across all offence types and this is especially so for Māori women. Māori are also far more likely to be victimised multiple times. The risk of victimisation for Māori is particularly high for serious offences, such as sexual violence and violence by partners. One of the most staggering statistics to my mind is that 18 percent of Māori women who had a partner were victimised at least once compared to 5 percent of all non-Māori. These results are too disturbing to table in this House without doing all that we can to address them.

Faced then with this situation, we are now looking at legislation that is to respond to the situation of victims facing additional stress when fronting up to the justice sector. The bill will ensure that victims of crime attending a Parole Board hearing or coronial inquest will not be subject to financial eligibility testing. It stipulates also that any grants made will not have repayment conditions attached. Another factor of this bill is that the Legal Services Agency will write off legal aid debt where the individual circumstances of persons who have received legal aid make it inequitable to seek recovery. Again, I think about the disproportionate numbers of Māori who are seeking legal aid, and who are struggling to make their way through seemingly insurmountable barriers. Māori and Pasifika persons feature strongly amongst those most likely to experience problems in accessing legal assistance. In Dame Margaret Bazley’s opinion, if the legal system fails Māori, it fails altogether. One of the key recommendations in her report is that the legal system needs to focus on the legal needs of Māori and Pasifika peoples, and the barriers they face in accessing legal aid, with a view to enhancing their access over time. I will add to that: let us in this House make sure that it is in quick time, not in time that is dragging on for decades to come. I refer again to the report I spoke about yesterday, written by my father and Dr Oliver Sutherland in 1973, which concluded that there were two standards of justice in the courts of New Zealand. It was their analysis that Māori offenders were at a disadvantage in the courts, and in the main did not receive just and fair treatment. I quote from the report: “the administrators of justice in New Zealand will have to recognise that in this regard they themselves, rather than the Māori offenders, are the problem”.

Thirty-six years later, then, what are we doing to properly address the difficulties that many Māori applicants for legal aid still face? In the Report on the 2006 National Survey of Unmet Legal Needs and Access to Services the results for Māori revealed that the perceived costs of lawyers’ fees prevented a significant number of Māori from seeking help—more so than New Zealanders on average. Over a third of Māori with problems felt that perceived costs had stopped them from approaching a lawyer to help them with their problem, or to see whether they could get legal aid. The problem area where cost was the greatest barrier to accessing such services from a lawyer was in whānau or relationship breakdowns. For consumer-related problems, a category where Māori were least likely to seek help, cost was also a relatively significant issue.

This bill in itself will not magically address longstanding issues, dating back over decades, about the inequitable treatment of Māori within the justice system. It is also a bill that is being debated in the context of considerable upheaval within the sector, and particularly in relation to the Legal Services Agency. The Māori Party will support this bill, as it is an important step in seeking a direction for the justice system. Of course, we will always support any attempt to ensure that people gain adequate access to justice. However, there are many other issues that we want to see addressed, including the aspiration of a justice system strategy, based on kaupapa Māori and within the context of Māori cultural values. These are issues that my colleague the Hon Dr Pita Sharples is pursuing in the Drivers of Crime work programme, and in the context of the future work ahead the Māori Party is delighted to support this bill as a move in the right direction.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I will take just a short call on the Legal Services Amendment Bill, and I will make just three points.

The first is a point I made during the Committee stage, which is that I hope the Government will take an early opportunity to look at the question of representation in coroners’ hearings. Such a hearing is not like a court, in the normal run of events, and not everyone is eligible to hire a lawyer to appear for them in a coroner’s hearing. As one of the lawyers who has appeared in that situation quite frequently said to me once, it is a court of understanding. That is its objective: to get to a point of understanding of what went wrong, and to gain learnings from it so that the risks are reduced in terms of those events occurring again. I was very much involved in the loss of life that occurred at Christchurch Hospital in 1996, and I attended coroners’ hearings and observed that everyone—doctors, nurses, hospitals—in the room was represented by lawyers, except the families. I have felt for a long time that this is a gap in our system, and I say to the Government that we would certainly be very happy to work with it on extending the eligibility for representation in coroners’ hearings as part of the legal aid review; I think it would fit very well with it.

That moves me on to the second point, which is that victims are not just those who are victims of serious crime. I have just come to the House from the Commerce Committee’s hearings into finance company failures. There are people out there who have lost a lot of money. They have not been the victims of crime; they have not been mugged in the street. But they certainly have been mugged in terms of the amount of money they have lost through the investments they made. So it is all a matter of degree and perspective. A lot of people would, in fact, like to see their access to justice facilitated by greater access to financial support to take on these cases—in some cases, those people are directors, trustees, or auditors—and to enable a more class action approach so that groupings can get together and drive the legal work that needs to be done in order to hold to account the people who ought to be held to account.

I acknowledge the Minister of Justice—this is my first chance to do so since question time—for agreeing to meet with the Manukau lawyers. I met with them yesterday, and what I got out of that meeting—which, I think, the Minister will too—is that most of Dame Margaret’s recommendations are really worthy and it is worthwhile getting on with them. I understand his desire to get on with them quickly, and I support him in that. But some recommendations are silly and will not work, and he needs to meet with the lawyers and understand why. One of the recommendations sounds really, really good—mind you, I laughed when it was put to me—and that is the recommendation about meeting with the duty solicitor 2 days before the hearing. It is just not possible. The summary of facts is not available from the police until the day, so there are issues around processes. We think that some focus on the processes, particularly in the Manukau District Court, might actually solve a lot of the problems that are happening there. I respectfully disagree with the Minister about the need to right the wrong of the assumptions that have been created about 80 percent of the people who work there. But I will leave the Minister to hear what they have to say, and if he is able to address that issue I think it will help everyone move on and back the changes that have to be made.

The final point I make is to back Jacinda Ardern’s comments. I believe there are groups out there who are using the victims of serious violent crime to prevent a broader debate about the drivers of crime. I make it absolutely clear that identifying drivers of crime is not a process of making excuses for criminal behaviour. It is not about excuses; it is about opportunities to intervene so that we can reduce crime. I think the Government is absolutely on the right track with this, and we want to back it on that, as well. After all that backing of the Government, I think I will call my speech to a close.

• Bill read a third time.