Education Tertiary Reforms

A policy back flip; a reversal of position, a change of heart in this House is usually occasion to make great political capital.

But tonight I was eagerly looking forward to such an announcement and was fully intending to give my support for yet another flip-flop.

The flip-flop I was looking forward to hearing tonight, was of course, about Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I found out that Remit 45 on the Labour Party conference floor a fortnight ago was going to challenge the party hierarchy to put back the Treaty into policy, into legislation, and to ensure its enshrinement in a written or supreme constitution of Aotearoa.

The party faithful were going to be heard, and today would be the day in which Te Tiriti o Waitangi was truly honoured as our founding document.

But sorry to say, unless the announcement is being saved up for the grand finale in this debate, it appears that the Treaty being omitted from the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill is being continued regardless.

Regardless of the Association of University Staff’s submission that the goals and aspirations of Maori should be included as a Govenrment responsibility to Maori under the Treaty.

Regardless of the four hundred and more submissions received relating to the omission of the Treaty from the latest Tertiary Education Strategy and the Statement of Tertiary Education Priorities.

Regardless of the submission from the Combined Trade Unions that the Bill gives such scant recognition to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Regardless of the disappointment of ASTE Te Hau Takitini o Aotearoa about the lack of reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Regardless of the specific recommendation from Te Tauihu o Nga Wananga that the Bill should be deferred until such a time as there is specific reference to the principles of the Treaty for the Tertiary Education Commission and the Minister, as there is for Tertiary Education Institutions.

It would have been awesome if the Government listened to its own party membership; to key education agencies and stakeholders groups.

I would ask, whose interests are being served by failing to protect the unique relationship between Crown and Maori as authorised by the Treaty?

Who will be answerable for the fact that while section 181 of the Education Act requires recognition of the principles of the Treaty by institutional councils, there is no reciprocal requirement on the Tertiary Education Commission or the Minister in this Bill?

As Te Tauihu o Nga Wananga concluded, the Bill erodes genuine partnerships – a damning indictment on the status and functioning of tertiary education. Now while I did ask some questions about this in the Select Committee, I have had time to reflect on the response and still have concerns.

Mr Speaker, according to some of the policy spin around this Bill, the idea is that the previous Maori strategy chapter in the Tertiary Education Strategy, and the long invisible Maori Tertiary Education Framework is improved upon by a sharper focus in Ka Hikitia – by encompassing a few specific, measurable things.

Well let’s test the waters here.

The Tertiary Education Strategy 2002-2007, and it's Maori strategy chapter, "Te Rautaki Mätauranga Mäori" established six broad objectives for Mäori tertiary education with the first one being that tertiary education leadership is effectively accountable to Mäori communities.

Well consultation with Maori is about as visible as the Treaty of Waitangi in this second reading. NOT!

There is no requirement in this Bill for the Minister, the Tertiary Education Commission or Tertiary Education Organisations to consult with Maori in the plan of the Tertiary Education Strategy.

ASTE Te Hau Takitini o Aotearoa recommended that this Bill, along with the accompanying strategic documents, needs to explicitly confirm that both the Tertiary Education Commission and Tertiary Education Organisations must fulfil their commitments to Maori as Tangata whenua under Te Tiriti.

The Combined Trade Unions went even further and expressed their concern about how real consultation and engagement with tertiary education stakeholders in tertiary education could take place, without there being formalised provision for it in this Bill.

Mr Speaker, one of the issues around this is the poor institutional performances that characterises most tertiary education sector consultation processes.

Under the Charters and Profiles process, there was a requirement to consult with stakeholders in development of them – but, unfortunately, this was not adequately monitored by the Tertiary Education Commission and sometimes did not occur or was very flawed.

So why is this such an issue? At its heart, the Treaty is about a relationship with Māori - a commitment to a constructive and mutually respectful relationship.

We have been given guidance from the Courts as to how a constructive and mutually respectful relationship develops, namely:

the relationship should be built on mutual co-operation and trust

there are basic principles of reasonableness and good faith

the Crown has to make informed decisions.

All aspects of the Treaty relationship, therefore, point to consultation.

In the process of preparing for this Bill tonight, I came across a statement from the Vice President Maori of the Combined Trade Unions, Te Kauae Kaimahi. Sharon Clair had this to say:

“The Treaty or more specifically Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a living covenant to be proud of. What we did with it and what we want to do with it is where the shame or pride lies, not in the document”.

And that, Mr Speaker, is the crunch issue in this Bill.

For while Councils of Tertiary Education Organisations are required to ‘acknowledge the principles of the Treaty’, as specified in section 181 of the Education Act, the challenge will lie in taking this out of the good will category, and making it mean something.

Meaning something so that the Treaty relationship is given life in the work programme and organisational structures of the organisation.

Meaning something so that the development aspirations of Maori are known, are identified, and targets developed.

Mr Speaker, the disappointing feature of all the Treaty talk without action, is seen in the fact that the goals and aspirations of Maori specified in sections 159 should be included as a government responsibility to Maori under the Treaty.

But in this Bill, Maori goals and aspirations are not connected to the Treaty.

So when we come down to the vital issue of system compliance, it will be anyone’s guess as to how well the Tertiary Education Commission will act to ensure Tertiary Education Organisations do actually consult with Maori in developing plans.

What we have seen occur through the Select Committee process, was that amendments to clause 10 and 17 were introduced to provide that Tertiary Education Organisations only need to consult with such stakeholders as they deem appropriate.

Appropriate is another one of those great buzz words for doing nothing. In effect, in enabling Tertiary Education Organisations to determine who their stakeholders are, there is great risk involved that key groups – such as iwi, hapu, tangata whenua – will be taken off the list, to keep the numbers down.

Mr Speaker, what we know, through evidence reported from Te Mana Akonga, the National Maori Tertiary Students Association, is that in many instances, Tertiary Education Organisations are failing to adequately consult with whanau, hapu, iwi, tangata whenua staff and students.

In some instances, consultation has consisted of a letter to Maori students, telling them what has been already decided. In other instances the concerns from submissions and hui have been inadequately reflected in charters and profiles – if at all.

The Association of University Staff in their submission were clearly of the view that the requirements to consult do not go far enough. They described the term ‘stakeholders’ as indefinite, stating that it is problematic to not give it specific clarity in the Bill, and leaving it to the Minister and Tertiary Education Organisations to decide.

Finally, Mr Speaker, we came to the view that there could be a way around what was otherwise appearing to be an impasse.

ASTE, Te Hau Takitini o Aotearoa, recommended that this Bill, as well as the Tertiary Education Strategy and the Statement of Tertiary Education Priorities, could include a statement that Government – through the Tertiary Education Commission and the Tertiary Education Organisations – could fulfil their commitments to tangata whenua under the Treaty.

We would expect the Crown to be explicit in its capacity to express kawanatanga while at the same time making it possible for wananga to express rangatiratanga - and for Treaty principles to be given specific reference in respect of the Tertiary Education Commission and the Minister, as it does for institutional councils.

We will, therefore, support this Bill at this second reading, in the hope that during the committee stage of proceedings, the appropriate adjustments can be made to ensure that the Treaty actually means something.