National's 1975 election campaign infamously used the image of the Dancing Cossack to suggest a Labour plot to engineer a communist takeover through compulsory superannuation. More generally it positioned Labour as the command and control party that wanted to have everything run from a centralised politburo.
As we all know Labour lost that election (to the hands-off economic liberal Muldoon), so commie-takeover-crisis averted. However in certain sectors of community governance we are seeing a new kind of cossak emerge - the blue cossack. Across Auckland governance, the health sector, and the polytechnic sector, the Fifth National government is advancing the firm hand of the state across institutions that have previously operated within a statutory framework, but have been governed largely by their constituent communities.
This post focusses on the Polytechnic sector, which I have some knowlege of as a CTU representative on the Council of Manukau Institute of Technology (MIT). These comments represent my own views, and are not necessarily those of MIT.
The independence of Polytechnic governing Councils are facing an extraordinary attack through the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. The Bill has some useful features (including provision for a Tertiary High School at MIT and beefed up intervention powers for institutions in trouble), but through its changes to the composition of governing councils it will cut polytechnics off from the communities that they are supposed to serve and give Ministerial control of Polytechnic governance. Of great concern is that these proposed changes apply exclusively to Polytechnics and not other Tertiary Institutions, and that they run counter to the government’s stated principles for the sector.
There is a broad acceptance that
The government’s proposed changes will remove the ability for Polytechnics to be governed by Councils that are representative of their communities and will instead give the Minister of Tertiary Education effective control of governing Councils. Council size will be reduced from between twelve and twenty, down to just eight. Four of the eight will be appointed directly by the Minister, who will also be given the power to appoint and sack Council Chairs and Deputy Chairs (these positions are currently elected directly by Councils). The other four will be the CEO, a student rep, an academic board rep, and one community rep. While most Ministerial appointments to Councils will no doubt be dutiful and capable people, these changes decisively shift the balance on governing Councils from community representatives to political appointees.
This change to the composition of Councils means that they do start to resemble corporate boards rather than the governing bodies of public educational institutions. A number of other proposed changes underscore this point. The absence of any staff representatives removes an important voice from strategic decision making, while the removal of the restriction from serving on more than one Council, and a new ability to indefinitely re-appoint Ministerial representatives suggests the establishment of a class of semi-professional government appointees who can carry out the Ministers bidding across a range of Institutions. While this possibility remains unproven, the shift in focus from community representation to Ministerial control is clear.
These specific concerns to one side, an obvious question to arise out of the proposed reforms is why just polytechnics? The government’s policy statement declares that the changes are designed to “improve the governance capability and effectiveness of Polytechnic Councils”. One has to question why the government does not want to “improve the capability and effectiveness” of other tertiary institutions such as Universities and Wananga. Could it possibly be that they fear the strong political influence of these entities and that the Polytechnics are an easier first up target?
Finally, it is appropriate to question the mandate that the government has for pursuing these changes. While the Minister claims that “The sector has told me that governance is unwieldy at the moment”, there has been no formal consultation with Councils prior to the Bill making its appearance. Nor did the government signal any intention to review governance arrangements in its pre-election manifesto. Indeed, National’s Tertiary Education policy makes the following statement: “We favour a high-trust funding environment, with tertiary education institutions that work to clear, simple rules with minimal but effective oversight from government”, while lambasting the previous government for “heavy-handed centrally driven control”.
In introducing this Bill, the Minister has strayed from the government’s own stated principles and is seeking to control Polytechnics from the Beehive in an unprecedented and dangerous way. Polytechnic Councils need to represent the communities they serve, rather than aping a corporate model that is inappropriate for public educational institutions.
Submissions on the Bill close at the end of September - if you have an interest in our tertiary education system I urge you to get writing!
Michael Wood
Comments