Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I move, That the report be adopted.