David Lillis: The Tertiary Education Union and Political Activism

About the Tertiary Education Union

According to its own website, the Tertiary Education Union (TEU) was established in 2009 through amalgamation of the Association of University Staff (AUS) and the Association of Staff in Tertiary Education (ASTE). The TEU is a registered trade union, in accordance with the Employment Relations Act 2000. Its national office is located in Wellington and its other offices are based in Auckland, Hamilton, Palmerston North, Christchurch and Dunedin. These offices are intended to provide assistance and advice to members (TEU, 2024).
The relevant Collective Employment Agreements are the agreements between the TEU and tertiary employers and, in negotiating collective employment agreements and advocating on behalf of union members, the TEU serves a most valuable function.

The TEU describes itself as a movement of people working collectively to defend and promote quality public tertiary education that is accessible to all. These people work together to address a wide range of issues that affect staff because their conditions of work are students’ conditions of learning. All of this is to be expected of a union and we see nothing to disagree with here.

TEU’s Desired Outcomes

On its website the TEU says that it wants the following outcomes:

1. A tertiary education system that is founded on an active Te Tiriti o Waitangi relationship; and is publicly-valued, funded and owned; collegially-governed and equitable
2. Access to tertiary education for all New Zealanders through a range of delivery options that meet the need of communities and learners
3. Equitable access to quality lifelong learning opportunities for all New Zealanders, no matter where they live or what their starting point is
4. Students, staff and the community voice in all decisions about how institutions are run
5. Working conditions and pay that reflect the time, energy and skills we put into our jobs.

The last four outcomes are very appropriate but the first is problematic. We ask why the education system should be based on The Treaty of Waitangi and why this particular objective is placed first – ahead of all other objectives. Further, what is meant by an education system that is founded on an active Te Tiriti o Waitangi relationship and what does such a relationship mean for non-Māori? For that matter – what does it mean for Māori?

On a personal level, we have no objection to the Treaty of Waitangi, nor its invocation in issues of equity and justice, provided that it is invoked equally in order to empower all persons, families and communities in need and provided that we remember that other constitutional documents have been agreed since the signing of the Treaty. Thus, the Constitution Act 1986 is a formal statement of New Zealand's system of government that includes the executive, legislature and the judiciary. The Constitution Act recognises the King as the Head of State of New Zealand and the Governor-General as his representative (Governor-General, 2024).

Other laws that describe the powers and functions of the three branches of government include the State Sector Act 1988, the Electoral Act 1993, the Judicature Act 1908, the Senior Courts Act 2016 and the District Court Act 2016 (Governor-General, 2024).

While political activism is not unknown among trade unions, they are not usually thought of as all-purpose political action committees. Their primary purpose is to represent employees in negotiations with their employers, a purpose which is embedded in law, the same law that accords unions and union members rights and responsibilities beyond what would be expected of a political party or lobby group.

In any case, an education system based in some way on the Treaty does not guarantee to confer equality to all and, in practice, tends to impart a degree of primacy to a single ethnic and cultural group - most certainly so if that group’s world view and traditional knowledge are imposed systemically, as is the case in New Zealand today.

None of the TEU's stated outcomes involve any form of standards for the work that is carried out in universities, and we see no mention of academic freedom. Many tertiary staff want to see evidence that TEU cares about the product, rather than simply that process is "equitable" according to their world view. I am aware of university staff who have resigned from the TEU when it abandoned any pretence that social justice is not its main objective. Several university staff have expressed the view that the TEU displays little professional commitment to universities in terms of scholarly standards or international standing, but that these things are what attract staff and students in the first place and then generate income.

In a previous article I said that at Massey University several staff are on the receiving end of serious misconduct cases for speaking out against university policies that are intended to indigenize the university (Lillis, 2024). In addition, some outspoken critics have been forced into early retirement and the university places a confidentiality clause on every case without the permission of the person involved. In addition, several staff have reported constant harassment from management. If asked, would the TEU become involved in this issue and would it advocate on behalf of the affected staff or indeed staff of any New Zealand university who speak out against enforced indigenization? In fact, they have indeed been asked and the dominant feedback is that they have not been particularly helpful.

Support for Matariki

The TEU is giving its support to Mānawa maiea te putanga o Matariki, which means Celebrate the rising of Matariki. And, in my view, all New Zealanders have good reason to celebrate and enjoy the holiday of 28 June. I certainly will. It is a lovely idea that recognises the culture and world view of the first settlers in New Zealand.

Lucy Fowler is the Regional Administrator, Te Hautū Kahurangi Ngāti Hine. On Lucy’s page on the TEU site we read:

Matariki, known as the Māori new year is a time when communities come together to acknowledge the past, celebrate the present, and envision the future.

We are fully supportive. Lucy emphasises the need for gender equality, pay equity and equal opportunities for women in education. Again, very laudable, and are we nearly there in New Zealand? Maybe. Maybe not?!

We are told that on Friday 28 June, Aotearoa will celebrate Matariki as a public holiday for the third time in our history. I intend to celebrate along with everyone else but, while we have no objection to the use of alternative names for New Zealand, there has been a great deal of unsanctioned use of the name “Aotearoa”, which at no time was ever the Māori name for this country.

What the TEU National Secretary Says

TEU National Secretary, Sandra Grey, has a webpage on the TEU website. She says:

Every day I learn something new, this week it was that there is a star in the Matariki constellation called Hiwa-i-te-Rangi. She’s the wishing star – oh that idea just brings me such joy. I’ve always loved the idea of wishing on stars.

Admittedly, this is not quite what we might expect to read on a union web-page but perhaps we can accept a degree of innocence on Sandra’s part and assume positive intent. Possibly, many other people like the idea of wishing upon a star but stop short of taking any of it literally. Like others, Sandra also refers to New Zealand as “Aotearoa”. Fair enough, and we can see why such a name might be popular. However, for the time being, many New Zealanders prefer to use the current legal name for this country.

Other TEU Staff

Philip Alexander-Crawford, Chief Executive, Hanga-Aro-Rau Te Whiu, Ngāti Hine, Ngāti Rēhia, Ngāpuhi, talks about a strong workforce and a strong and connected vocational education system. His TEU webpage is very positive and instructive and is very much worth reading.

Several other members of TEU staff have written pages for the TEU website. One of them is Rauhina Scott-Fyfe, the TEU’s Māori Archivist - Ōtākou Whakaihu Waka Kāi Tahu, Kāti Māmoe. What she writes is quite appealing:

I grew up with a thousand dreams. My mātua and kaiako nourished these dreams in me, encouraged me to believe in the power of words under the fiery autumn leaves falling on the union lawn...

Rauhina stands for safety and radical acceptance for the rainbow, takatāpui, queer, trans, plural, ace and intersex communities; more accessible bathrooms; the living wage for everyone in Aotearoa; ceasefire everywhere; more compassion and kindness and humane action from everyone in positions of power, and successful pay equity claims for all the library assistants and administrative staff. We are supportive of such objectives.

She also stands for tino rangatiratanga (self-determination), presumably for Māori only, though possibly for all ethnic groups – but the distinction is not clear. However, many New Zealanders are not convinced about self-determination or, if they are, whether it should extend to one ethnic group only or to each and every ethnic, cultural or identity group.

Rauhina goes on to say that we should keep decolonising our minds, our ngākau, our institutions, together, friends and comrades. Again, we support social justice in general terms but are unclear on what is intended by decolonising minds, ngākau, institutions, together, friends and comrades. Indeed, we support equality for all, but not all of current social justice theory, which often goes to indoctrinating our young people.

Rauwhina expresses her personal view here but, whether we agree with decolonization or not, is it appropriate to articulate such a position on a union website? Is it the role of the TEU to support movements such as decolonization and, if so, what does decolonization entail from TEU’s perspective? What of TEU staff who do not agree with either the Treaty as a basis for the future of New Zealand or with decolonization?

Miriama Postlethwaite, Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi, says:

Our Minister of Finance said, “Education is the great liberator, the great equaliser and the most enduring gift we can bestow on our children.” This perspective continues to speak oppression to Māori as the Tangata Whenua partner and is reflected in the lack of Budget towards ensuring equitable outcomes for Māori.

We agree that education is a great liberator and equaliser, but we do not see a direct connection or indeed the expected chain of logic from those words of the Minister of Finance to the corollary that such a perspective continues to speak oppression to Māori. If it does, then does it speak oppression to other ethnic and cultural groups as well? To Pacific and Asian people? Does it speak oppression to people of European ancestry? In any case, it seems that the TEU has declared a position on what is essentially a political matter, rather than to maintain a position of neutrality. The statement should have no place on a union website.

The TEU Constitution

The TEU Constitution, readily available on the TEU website, articulates six purposes, the first of which is as follows:

The Union will advance a shared kaupapa and a collective tikanga to ensure strong relationships between Māori and Tāngata Tiriti members. This Constitution will be interpreted and applied having regard to this tikanga/culture and the articles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi which will be implemented in the policies and practices of the Union.

The fourth purpose includes the following text:

The Union will advocate for a tertiary education system that is accessible to all; acknowledges, values, and validates Mātauranga Māori and cultural provision; and which advances life-long learning for Māori and Tāngata Tiriti.

So this is the TEU perspective, but what about the 25% of New Zealanders who are non-Māori/non-European? On what basis will the TEU validate any form of traditional knowledge and why only one form, when hundreds of them remain in the world of today and when many of them are dear to our diverse immigrant populations?

Unfortunately, these stated purposes demonstrate capture of the TEU by activism. Thus, their interpretation of the Treaty and resulting motives and agendas sit above all other objectives. Now we see that the TEU has lost its core purpose – that of advocating for staff, a process that should be absolutely blind to identity.

Representation on TEU Councils

Within the TEU Constitution we read that the TEU Council comprises equal representation of Tāngata Māori and Tāngata Tiriti, as follows:

Tāngata Māori – Te Toi Ahurangi	Tāngata Tiriti
President Māori	President Tiriti
Vice President (NWC) Māori	Vice President (NWC) Tiriti
Vice President (IPC) Māori	Vice President (IPC) Tiriti
U35 Māori	U35 Tiriti
University academic Māori	University academic Tiriti
University general staff Māori	University general staff Tiriti
Te Pūkenga academic Māori	Te Pūkenga academic Tiriti
Te Pūkenga allied staff Māori	Te Pūkenga allied staff Tiriti
Wānanga Māori	Wānanga Tiriti
Te Tumu Āwhina	Pasifika Tiriti
Te Tumu Āwhina	Pasifika Tiriti
Private, REAP, Research, Independent, Statutory, Miscellaneous (PRRISM) Māori	Private, REAP, Research, Independent, Statutory, Miscellaneous (PRRISM) Tiriti

The TEU Industrial and Professional Committee is composed similarly and the two Vice Presidents, one Tāngata Māori and one Tāngata Tiriti, chair all meetings of the Industrial and Professional Committee. We see the same thing with the TEU National Women’s Committee. All of them embody 50% representation from people who self-identify as Māori.

Given that approximately 25% of New Zealanders are non-Māori/non-European, is there not a case for increasing the representation of those groups on TEU Council, and on the Industrial and Professional Committee or the National Women’s Committee? Exactly why is a demographic group that comprises about 15% of the population of New Zealand represented equally with all other demographic groups who collectively comprise 85% of New Zealanders? Does the TEU not value our Pacific, Asian, Islamic and other immigrant people to the extent that they value Māori?

More importantly, when one ethnic group represent a small proportion of tertiary education employees, no credible case exists for memberships of TEU Councils to be 50% derived from that group.

Initiatives in our Universities

Many of our universities are employing staff on the basis of ethnicity. For example, currently the Auckland University of Technology is advertising for Mātanga Matua Kimi Tangata (Māori)/Senior Recruitment Consultant (Māori) (AUT, 2024). It says:

Ka pū te ruha, ka hao te rangatahi - when the old net is cast aside, the new net goes fishing

The appointee is expected to source exceptional talent and support AUT's recruitment Te Tiriti journey. We are told:

The University's leadership is genuine in its commitment to Te Tiriti and Tiriti honouring action. People and Culture are working together to embed and enact Te Aronui (AUT's Te Tiriti Framework) in all our activities, and in the workforce priorities of Te Kete (AUT's new strategy to 2030).

We are told that AUT seeks a 'new net' - AUT's inaugural Mātanga Matua Kimi Tangata (Māori)/Senior Recruitment Consultant (Māori) to join its hard-working and successful internal recruitment team. The advertisement states:

Your Te ao Māori lived experience, working knowledge of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and proficiency in te reo Māori, along with an understanding of equity and diversity issues, especially in relation to Māori staff, will be key. You will naturally enable 'safe spaces' for our team and hiring managers to explore, learn, make mistakes and ask questions as staff embark on their Te Tiriti journeys. You will have a strong respect for others coupled with an open and engaging attitude that is flexible to changing requirements. A resolute, robust and positive attitude is essential.

Unfortunately, we see no equivalent initiatives for our Pacific and Asian people, nor for our growing Middle Eastern, Latin American and African populations. Of course, we see no special treatment for our European students either. In a previous article I expressed the view that all of us should wish for equality of opportunity and, where possible and without undue distortion of legal systems or policy frameworks, positive equality of outcomes. We want the best for all ethnic and cultural communities, but we are experiencing an avalanche of transformations that are highly unbalanced, skewed almost exclusively towards one ethnic group, and in the end will not prove to be positive for education (Lillis, 2024).

A colleague, Emeritus Professor John Raine, has given the following feedback:

The problem is that the universities are charging ahead with this movement towards becoming Māori-culture-dominated institutions. They seem oblivious to the fact that this is leading to a requirement for staff and students to accept an environment that demands obedience and where indoctrination is the norm. This situation is running up against and diminishing the position of modern science already in our universities. Most seriously, it will diminish their credibility, standing and international appeal and relevance.

Several months ago I joined a TEU discussion webinar. Several TEU staff spoke during that session and co-governance featured very prominently on the agenda. More than that – what was very striking was that co-governance had become almost a mania for some of those people. Given that our universities and other tertiary institutions are in the process of indigenization, it seems that those who disagree have little or no voice and, worse, are at great risk if they dare to speak out.

Here I quote a very well-known professor at a large North Island university:

They are basically turning our universities into halfway houses where students are fed far left ideology.

Today, debate about the Treaty of Waitangi focuses almost exclusively on the empowerment and status of one ethnic and cultural group. In the ongoing conversations, others do appear, especially our Pacific people, but almost as an afterthought. Surely, within the Treaty of Waitangi framework other ethnic and cultural groups, such as Asian, Pacific and Muslim and other immigrant populations, deserve similar treatment to Māori. If not, then why not?

The TEU and Co-Governance

TEU’s co-governance structure was proposed in early 2023, in the dying months of the Labour government. At that time consultation was weak. At the first consultation in February 2023, attended by less than ten people, the issue of the co-presidency was not mentioned until a lone sceptic raised it.

How the co-presidency was supposed to be funded was apparently not thought of at the time of proposal, nor in the first consultation. When asked, it was stated there was no budget to fund two full-time positions. It was only months later that an announcement was made that the co-presidency would involve two half-time positions.

The TEU's argument for co-governance was based on historic claims that were disputed by historian Professor Paul Moon. Professor Moon requested, but never received, a reply to his critique. No poll was conducted of members, no election of union representatives was held where the new constitution was debated, and no rationale for the abandonment of proportional representation was provided.

The constitutional change was passed in May 2023 at the annual meeting. In the entire process up to that point, there was very little advertisement that the union was considering a move towards co-governance, let alone any kind of debate or open discussion. Many union members were quite unaware that the change had occurred.

Concluding Remarks

Many of us are concerned about far-right extremism in the world of today but we are also worried about the attitudes and actions of the so-called progressive left. In addition, we fear post-modern ideology that sees racism everywhere; refuses to accept that there was both positive and negative within all communities in the historic past; cannot see that formerly colonized nations are prospering today and have rule of law, improved health and wellbeing and excellent education; explains every disparity as resulting from systemic bias in the present, and that seeks to force the traditional knowledge and language of one or other minority on absolutely everyone.

The Employment Relations Act 2020 has little to say about the responsibilities of unions towards members, other than that unions are entitled to represent members in relation to matters involving their collective interests once members give assent. It also says that employment contracts must not require a person to become or remain a member of a union or to cease being a member.

Surely, any union is an association of employees that exists to protect and improve its members’ conditions of work and to represent their interests. The role of a union should include:

1. Representing members on issues involving members’ collective employment interests
2. Representing members in relation to their individual rights as employees
3. Providing advice and assistance on the rights and obligations of employers and employees,
4. Representing members if they have a dispute or legal claim or personal grievance (Communitylaw, 2024).

A very senior member of staff of Massey University has given the following feedback on the TEU:

A number of members stepped out of the TEU because of their wokeism and ideology. What Sandra Grey writes is utter nonsense. They did not do much when Massey laid off staff. They did not help much in my case against the university. They are not serving their members!

In relation to the obligations of a union to its members, has the TEU met those obligations? Many tertiary staff feel that it has not. Perhaps, if it is to regain the trust of university and other tertiary staff, the TEU must prove that it is more than a political platform that pushes social justice ideology.

Why has the TEU not done more to protect university staff? Is it because they like the Te Tiriti mission of the universities? One very highly-regarded professor informs me that he has tried to discuss the Te Tiriti orientation of our universities with the TEU but was told that it is not interested in discussing the issue.

Either directly or indirectly, the TEU is funded by New Zealand taxpayers and its staff are paid from the public purse. As such, we have a right to expect it to engage in the job it was set up to do - to negotiate collective employment agreements and advocate on behalf of union members, but not to engage in race-based politics, however justified those politics may appear to be.

References

AUT (2024). Mātanga Matua Kimi Tangata (Māori)/Senior Recruitment Consultant (Māori)
https://careers.aut.ac.nz/jobdetails?ajid=fbfQc

Communitylaw (2024). What is a union?
https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-20-starting-and-leaving-a-job/union-rights/

Governor General (2024).
https://gg.govt.nz/office-governor-general/roles-and-functions-governor-general/constitutional-role/constitution/constitution

Lillis, David (2024). New Initiatives at Massey University
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/06/david-lillis-new-initiatives-at-massey.html#more

Tertiary Education Union (2024)
https://teu.ac.nz/

The Platform (2024)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qytak5-JUuE&ab_channel=ThePlatformNZ

Dr David Lillis trained in physics and mathematics at Victoria University and Curtin University in Perth, working as a teacher, researcher, statistician and lecturer for most of his career. He has published many articles and scientific papers, as well as a book on graphing and statistics.