Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill

te-pati-maori

Thu May 10 2007 12:00:00 GMT+1200 (New Zealand Standard Time)

Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill

Thursday, 10 May 2007, 9:54 am
Speech: The Maori Party

Te Ururoa Flavell; Education Spokesperson, Maori Party

Wednesday 9 May 2007

If there is one concept that any party would like to support in tertiary education it would be that of ‘strategic relevancy’.

Today we are encountering systems upon systems of arrangements to plan, fund and monitor the tertiary education sector.

• We have a Tertiary Education Commission (TEC), the lead agency to steer the system.
•

• We have the Tertiary Education Strategy (TES) and the Statement of Tertiary Education Priorities (STEP) – two documents which this will be cut down to one new single document, The Tertiary Education Strategy, by this Bill.
•

• We have Tertiary Education Organisations (TEO) which currently submit two documents to the TEC – charters and profiles - which this Bill proposes to whittle down to a single document called a plan.
•
A person could get really confused with all the acronyms alone– TEC, TEO, TES, STEP and the like, let me add another few to the mix: EMRG, MTEF and the Maori TES

• For Maori, we have TEC’s External Mâori Reference Group (EMRG) whose purpose is to provide the TEC with a collective Maori view of all streams of tertiary education at a strategic level.
•
Mr Speaker, in the midst of all these arrangements, the proposal to simplify and streamline the system is indeed welcome. But simplicity is one thing; cultural competency quite another.

The Maori Party’s key concern in relation to the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill is how tangata whenua will fare within the staged system of reforms of the tertiary system instigated by the Tertiary Education Commission. We come to this Bill knowing that only a society that knows where it comes from, and the forces that shaped, it is in any position to understand itself and know where it is going.

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading

Mr Speaker, a key point this would make is that there is a huge difference between what Maori see as strategically relevant to the survival of Maori as a people, and what the Crown may see as strategically relevant to the economic growth of the nation.

An analysis by Russell Bishop and Ted Glynn in 1998 said:

“If one lesson is clear from the history of our country it is that imposition of a model [of change] from outside of the experiences, understandings and aspirations of the community group is doomed to failure. Failure that is, if the objectives is other than assimilation or the perpetuation of a situation of dominance and subjection”.

So, when we turn to the previous Tertiary Education Strategy 2002/07, Maori are positioned first as national citizens rather than as tangata whenua.

While the strategy sought to articulate a vision of a"prosperous and confident nation" supported by a unified and "connected tertiary education system"; it minimised or relegated the relevancy of tangata whenua to sideline roles, as players in the marketplace.

In another reversal of strategic relevance, Treaty partnerships were not defined as parties to the Treaty but were instead fashioned as merely one of a number of 'stakeholder' groups - and probably last in line after partnerships with business and industry.

Looking deeper into the detail of what has gone before, we find that in the Maori Chapter “Te Rautaki Mâtauranga Maori – Contribution to the Achievement of Maori Development Aspirations”, there were a raft of statements about being accountable to Maori communities, about governance structures and processes which will meet the expectations of Maori communities.

But where does it say these things have been achieved, or that they've even been monitored? Nowhere, because these things have not been actioned. Out of sight but not out of mind.

Where does this leave the Treaty? Does that mean if it is not written in, it will somehow be included, sort of like the references to the Treaty being deleted from the New Zealand Curriculum in the first instance mistakes made, and whoops back in it goes.

These are the questions I've asked when considering the proposal to consolidate the four tertiary education steerage documents into two, because what I've found missing on closer reading of the Bill, is any requirement for tertiary providers to demonstrate a commitment to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as was required in the predecessor documents, charters and profiles.

Under the Education Act, Sec 181 (b) this is still a requirement.

The Maori Party cannot believe that yet again, the Maori MPs of Labour, have sat quietly while the Treaty is cut out of policy.

Here again, is another point to add to the report card of Treaty deletions this Government is clocking up:

* Treaty taken out of draft school curriculum – DONE

* Treaty diluted from health specifications – DONE

* Treaty deleted from legislation – IN PROGRESS

* Treaty taken out of Charters and Profiles – IN PROGRESS.

Fortunately, the public do not support the slash and silence approach of this Government and have acted in ways which seek to restore optimism for a Treaty based future.

So just as health providers have reacted angrily, and school teachers flooded the Ministry of Education with their objections, we will be looking to the select committee process for the voice of New Zealanders to once again be heard, in upholding the mana of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Yet again, however, it shows up the weakness of the Maori caucus in Labour, in even allowing such suppression to occur. And it makes us also suspicious of course, of the nature of the consultation process that the Ministry of Education and the Tertiary Education Commission has or more likely hasn’t gone through, in order to get to this point.

Have they fulfilled their obligations to consult with Maori hapu, iwi, staff, students, communities, about how best to support and advance the development aspirations of Maori; and is this consultation actually apparent in this Bill, or in the new Tertiary Education Strategy, or even in the promised but yet-to-be-seen Maori Strategy?

Or have they succumbed to what renown educationalist Paulo Freire called “domestication” – being trained to obey - rather than what he believed education should be doing which was to liberate, to be able to explore and think freely and to think for one’s self.

Mr Speaker, our consultation as the Maori Party, with Te Mana Akonga, the National Maori Tertiary Students’ Association, tells us that in far too many instances, Tertiary Education Organisations are failing to adequately consult with Maori in developing up charters and profiles, despite the legal requirements to do so.

In some instances, consultation with Maori students has consisted of a letter informing them of what has already been determined. In other instances, the content and concerns raised in submissions and hui have been inadequately reflected in charters and profiles – or not reflected at all. But when this lack of consultation has been raised with the Tertiary Education Commission, there has been no evidence of any action having been taken.

Mr Speaker, I have taken the time to outline some of the important background to this Bill, because, whilst we support the moves to clarify and simplify procedures, the over-riding concern is that the new iterations will be beset by the same problems as their parent documents.

The key limitation with this new set of reforms is that until there is a clearly outlined and specified relationship between both the new Tertiary Education Strategy and the yet-to-be-released Maori Tertiary Education Strategy, and particularly in relation to provider compliance and government monitoring; there is always the risk of disconnection.

We, in the Maori Party, have particular reason for concern when I think back to some of the answers I got to a basic series of questions put to the Tertiary Education Commission at the Education and Science Select Committee.

I asked questions about how would one judge whether courses are relevant, and received the answer: “TEC does not judge cultural relevance”. More they have no criteria, no system to assess cultural relevance. Under these conditions, is it likely that those courses Maori see as relevant to the survival of our language and culture are accepted. That is questionable.

And yet the TEC is charged with the role of planning, monitoring and funding the tertiary sector specifically in relation to relevance.

The Maori Party has far more questions than it has answers about this Bill. Questions such as:

• Whether without a specific Maori focus or Maori chapter in the new Tertiary Education Strategy, that Maori issues will fall off the table;
•

• when can we expect to see the proposed separate Maori strategy document, which was meant to be released at the end of April 2007;
•

• what will the level of connection be between the Maori Tertiary Education Strategy and the Tertiary Education Strategy;
•

• how willing with the Tertiary Education Commission be to ensure that Tertiary Education Organisations consult with Maori in the development of their plans, particularly given they don’t have a good record of doing so.
•
We will support this Bill, because we support the general concept of simplifying and streamlining an overly complex system. However we will be keenly watching out at the select committee stage to assess how well this Bill responds to the imperative of delivering what Maori see as strategically relevant to the survival and flourishing of Maori as a people.

Ends

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading

a.supporter:hover {background:#EC4438!important;} @media screen and (max-width: 480px) { #byline-block div.byline-block {padding-right:16px;}}

Using Scoop for work?

Scoop is free for personal use, but you’ll need a licence for work use. This is part of our Ethical Paywall and how we fund Scoop. Join today with plans starting from less than $3 per week, plus gain access to exclusive Pro features.

Join Pro Individual Find out more

Find more from The Maori Party on InfoPages.