Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

💬 Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: Argh!

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

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