Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Today, we are opposing the reform of vocational education bill as we believe it will irreparably damage the sector and it is not the solution to the challenges that we acknowledge in the sector. The committee of the whole House is the one opportunity many polytechnics will have to place their views on record in this House. The effects of reforms are unique to each polytechnic and to each region. Today, we will place on record how the reforms will impact every polytechnic and every region. Every polytechnic made a submission to the reforms, or nearly every one, and we will draw on that information to show that unique impact.

I’m looking forward to hearing from Maureen Pugh at Tai Poutini on the West Coast. I’m looking forward to hearing from Jonathan Young—the Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki in New Plymouth; from Lawrence Yule—the Eastern Institute of Technology in Hastings; and from Hamish Walker in the deep South—the Southern Institute of Technology, Invercargill. I want to hear their views. Their constituents, their people, legitimately and rightly, would like to have their views recorded in the House.

I want to turn now to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name, SOP 436, an SOP seeking for NorthTec to be exempted from the reforms. Today, we are fighting for NorthTec to be able to decide what they will teach, where they will teach, and how they will teach it. Today, we are fighting for local decision-making to remain with NorthTec and not with the mega polytechnic, or even further removed with the workforce development councils. NorthTec is particularly good at forestry. If NorthTec decides that they are able to teach a forestry course in Kaikohe, maybe with blended learning, then that should be their decision. Matt King is fighting for NorthTec in Kaikohe. Matt King is fighting for NorthTec in the Far North. He’s fighting for learning across all of the Far North because he believes Northland knows best, which drives to some of the crux of this bill and why we are arguing against it.

NorthTec told the Education and Workforce Committee that the bill is flawed. Their representative view of the region is that the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology is “a creature of the [Ministry] of Education.”—that’s a direct quote from NorthTec. They’re of a view and they’re concerned that there are possibilities in this bill for political interference in tertiary education, and they raised that by saying the way the bill overturns the limitation in the Education Act that the Minister may not identify a specified organisation to which funding may be provided or denied runs the risk of significant political interference. NorthTec has assets of about $13 million. These have been hard accrued. It is also fair to say they’ve been running a deficit of several million dollars, and I believe and have faith in their plan to correct that and redress it over a strategic plan over the next two to three years. I’ve seen that plan. I know the staff. I have faith in them. These reforms will completely turn upside down the ability for NorthTec to redress those concerns and to reach a balanced budget.

So today, we fight for the survival of NorthTec. We fight for their students; we actually also fight for their staff, and this SOP in my name seeks an exemption for NorthTec from this bill so that we can decide what is best for Northland. I come to the point—and I’m sure other regions will say the same, that their regions are the best at fighting for their regions, at deciding what the tertiary sector offering in their regions should be, and that’s what I’m expecting to hear. I’m indicating to you that we hold ourselves as being quite good at forestry, and I think NorthTec would be well accepted as being good in that space. We must be able, surely, to decide where, when, and how we’re going to teach forestry. That must be local decision-making. We know that is best.

So we’ve put on the Table an SOP in my name that seeks to exempt NorthTec from the reforms, and I’m looking to the wide and varied discussion of the impact across all of New Zealand. The Office of the Auditor-General said this was the widest range of public reforms of public entities in the past 30 years. That shows the potential disruption that this could be. We have great concerns for that. Again, we respect and honour the privilege that is the committee of the whole House, that for the first time, and maybe the only time, will give those regions a voice. So we’re concerned. We respect this privilege and we’ll honour it, and I’m looking forward to my colleagues informing me, informing the House, informing Hansard, and all those who are watching as to what the impact of these reforms will be in their regions. I stand by the SOP in my name in the committee. Thank you, Mr Chair.

I rise to speak in support of Sarah Dowie’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), SOP 438, which seeks to exclude the Southern Institute of Technology (SIT) from this bill, the transitional arrangements that convert existing polytechs into this mega polytech. This bill is absolutely going to gut the province of Southland, not only cost jobs at SIT but it’s going to cost the province a lot in the long run. SIT is the heartbeat of Southland. The negative consequences of this bill come from the centralisation of assets and the centralisation from the decision-making powers. My colleague Sarah Dowie, who’s currently travelling to Parliament in a plane at the moment, and I have been fighting this for well over one year. This will send the Southland community back to the days of the 1980s-1990s, when we had a declining population.

SIT and the Southland community have a proud history of innovation, and you only need to go back a couple of decades, when a group of innovative Southlanders got together and they came up with the idea of free fees at SIT, the only institute in the country to offer this. SIT was able to do this due to the fact that decisions could be made locally on the ground. If we go to this one mega model where all decisions have to go through head office, you will stifle that innovation. The bill currently presents a centralised New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology that will be slow to adapt, lack that innovation I just spoke about, and be risk-averse. Losing those local decision-making powers from the locals who know the area, who live in the area, is a step backwards.

I want to talk about SIT’s innovative approach to recruiting international students. These students don’t have just a financial impact into the community but they benefit the entire community, as they often stay in Southland. They keep our churches open. They keep our schools going. They provided much-needed work on farms for farmers. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country in Southland. We’re short of workers. We need these students, who often become much-valued members of a community.

We also have a huge skills shortage in Southland. We need Southland to push forward, which is why, five years ago, we came up with the regional development strategy to attract 10,000 new people to Southland by 2025. The fact that a wonderful lady by the name of Penny Simmonds, who’s been at the helm for 22 years, has probably the most innovative approach to attracting international students—because of SIT’s small nature, she can go overseas, they can move quickly with the times and the market, they can recruit these international students, and the only assurance they’ve had from the Minister of Education over the past 12 months is “We’re not going to put that at risk.”, but there’s no detail in the bill.

You only need to look at the TAFE model overseas in Australia, and recent surveys on that model from international recruitment agents show that it’s very hard to follow. It’s unresponsive, because most students, the one-size-fits-all model—students go to the larger centres. SIT has 13,000 students, therefore will no doubt miss out.

The other area I have significant concerns about is the ring-fencing of the assets at SIT. You need to look at the last financial year. It had $38.5 million in assets; $7.5 million was raised by the local community to get SIT off the ground. The cash reserves have been built up and invested back into capital projects and into areas like accommodation blocks, into programme development equipment and facilities for students’ general wellbeing. Taking away those decision-making powers from a local level, you lose that connection from the province, from the local decision makers who know where to put that money. What the Government’s basically saying is that the head office decision makers in Wellington know better than the people in Southland.

This is probably the biggest reform that’ll send Southland back, definitely in my generation. I acknowledge Minister Hipkins for fronting up to a public meeting in Southland where several hundred people turned up in orange T-shirts: “Stand Up for SIT.” I just hope the Minister will listen to those concerns and seriously consider having a carve-out for SIT. It’s the most innovative and best-performing polytech in the country.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak to new Part 9 in Schedule 1 of the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill. I am speaking on behalf of the Auckland region. I believe that the Auckland region is a very different region compared to other regions in our country, so the polytechnics that are in the Auckland region should not be put under the same umbrella as the Minister of Education is proposing through this legislation.

I’m based in Auckland. I’m based in Mt Roskill and, of course, I travel around not just in Auckland but outside of Auckland too, and I have seen there are clear differences between Auckland and other regions. The demographics are different. We know that Auckland makes up a significant part of our population, and out of that population a big proportion is made up of people that have come from other countries and have settled here, but they call New Zealand their home. So when people come from other countries, they bring different skills, different educational backgrounds, and, based on those skills and educational backgrounds, they start up their businesses, and then they are looking for local skills, skilled people that are available locally to fill up those jobs that they create through the creation of their business.

So these polytechnics are mainly seen to be providing for that skill gap that exists in different regions. I fear that the proposal that the Minister has put through this legislation will fail that industry that is looking for that local skill, local skilled people, to fill up those gaps that are created by them creating more and more jobs. So it’s actually a good thing when businesses have more and more vacancies coming up, but they should be able to fill up those vacancies by seeing that our youth or other people—those who go through refresher courses, through polytechnics—are able to fill up those positions.

In Auckland, as I said, demographics are different. It’s made up of a lot of migrant people. They bring new ideas and we should actually support them to bring those ideas and to establish those ideas into businesses. So for people that go through polytechnics, what they are looking for is some courses or diplomas that will prepare them to fulfil the requirements that they have to fill up those vacancies that come up. For people to expect those people to move from one region to the other region to attain those skills, that is something that is not going to be practical because it can be quite expensive when somebody is doing a diploma or a short course, expecting that person to move from one region to the other region if the centralised approach doesn’t work for their region. Moreover, for businesses to rely on people coming from other regions to be employed in their business is also not a practical idea. So it’s really important that localism is maintained, especially in the Auckland region.

So I would like the Minister to actually take a call and tell us how the Minister is going to address this issue of Auckland being such a different region compared to other regions when it comes to the requirement of skilled people and also the training requirements that exist for our young people and also people—those who want to go to refresher courses to take up newer jobs or just to grow themselves in their existing jobs.

This legislation brings a centralised approach and that is my concern. Auckland, I believe, should not be part of that centralised approach. There should be a special approach for Auckland. We know some polytechnics are suffering; some polytechnics are doing really well. We don’t want to see those polytechnics struggling even more because of this centralised approach, because if they will not be able to provide for that skill gap that exists in Auckland, they will not be getting new people coming and joining courses in those polytechnics. So this will result, in my view, in a bigger failure for polytechnics, so this needs to be definitely looked at, seriously looked at, and I will look forward to the Minister’s response to this concern that I have raised.

The other issue I would like to raise is that we know that polytechnics rely on not just local students, they also rely on students coming from overseas as international students. We have heard this again and again that so many polytechnics are suffering because there are students that are enrolled in these polytechnics but are not able to come to New Zealand because they are not getting that immigration clearance that they should be in a timely manner. That’s why so many polytechnics are suffering. I think the Minister needs to take that into consideration as well, because these polytechnics, ultimately, will need students. As we have seen, the purpose of this sector is to provide for the local skills gaps that come up from time to time, and if our polytechnics are not able to get people, to train them to take up those positions, then this will be a complete failure. We do not want to see failure after failure in the education sector.

The polytechnic sector is important, as we have heard just now from my other colleagues from this side, from North to South, and they have a different stance.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill at this committee of the whole House stage. I intend to take a few calls on this part, being the substantive part in this bill. In the first call, I’d like to focus on the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology (NZIST) council. In my second contribution I’d like to come back to talk about the Manukau Institute of Technology and concerns which had been raised in the south-east Auckland community.

So firstly, I’d like to take a call regarding the NZIST council, and I think it’s important that we as a committee of the whole House understand the mega change that this bill is making to create what will, essentially, be a mega polytech to take away the regional decision-making from our local polytechs. If we look through the bill, what we see is that this bill, essentially, takes away power from local polytechs to be able to make decisions around courses—where, and how they can be—the regional skills mix, academic freedom, polytechnic governance, community involvement, cash reserves, capital projects. All of these key decision-making roles, which are currently made at a local level, will be wrapped up into the mega polytech and given decision making by one central body, which is the mega polytechnic NZIST council.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Read the new bill.

I have read the bill because I was on the Education and Workforce Committee, Mr Kieran McAnulty, the list MP from where—nobody actually knows where he comes from because he doesn’t really get round—

💬 Hon Member: Australia, I think.

He’s from Australia from that accent, that’s right.

One of the key one of the key issues that I’d like to raise and I’d like the Minister of Education to be able to provide some clarity over is around what seems to be a conflict in the power that the NZIST council has to appoint members to its student and staff advisory committees. Now this power comes under sections 222L and 222M of new Part 15A, set out in clause 49. They have the ability under those sections to be able to, essentially, appoint the members who will then be the membership of the advisory committee. So it says there that when appointing the members, they’ve got the power to do so. Under section 222L, they must establish these advisory council committees.

Now, if the Minister looks earlier when it comes under section 222G of new Part 15A, set out in clause 49, the membership of the NZIST council is made up of at least eight, but not more than 12 members, one person must be a person who is elected by its staff committee, and one person is a member who must be elected by its student committee. The question I have is whether the Minister sees any level of conflict over this appointment process, seeing as the Minister will have the power to appoint the remaining members other than the one appointed by the Māori advisory committee. The Minister will have the power to appoint the remaining members of the NZIST council. The NZIST council then has the power to appoint who will sit on the staff committee or the student committee.

So, essentially, what you have is you have a circle of power, which all involves the Minister appointing people who will then appoint people whom he wants appointed to the NZIST council. So not only does he have a majority on the NZIST council but he has the ability to appoint people to the staff committee and the student committee who will then appoint representatives who will be in line with what he’s after. I want to ask the Minister whether he has any concerns about what seems to be an apparent conflict and whether he has looked at other options at which the staff and the students are able to have their voices heard rather than having what seems to be a very tightly controlled process whereby the Minister, essentially, retains control.

I guess that raises the question over whether that is what the Minister wants. Is the Minister, essentially, wanting full control over the NZIST council, where there is no delegation down to students, down to staff, down to regions, and where he is trying to suck all that power into his office here in Wellington? I think the only thing the Minister said is, “We won’t be having the head office of this NZIST council in Auckland or Wellington.” Well, I can tell the Minister where the head office will be, and it sounds like it’s going to be in his Beehive office here in Wellington, regardless of where the NZIST council might meet or where the chief executive might go for his daily meetings with his NZIST council. So I’d like the Minister to answer those questions, because that’s what the regions of New Zealand are worried about. That’s the concern they’re raising up and down our country—the control that the Minister is having.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I hope perhaps to be able to take a couple of calls on this bill this afternoon, not necessarily consecutively, but in one I’d like to focus on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 443 that is in my name and is on the Table at the moment. It naturally refers to the Waikato Institute of Technology, more commonly known as Wintec.

So I have the great privilege of being, effectively, the member for Wintec in this House. Wintec has two campuses in my electorate—the city campus and the Rotokauri campus, both of which have been performing extraordinarily well and meeting considerable demand for many years now. I’m very proud of all they are achieving. I’m very proud to be associated with them. So I want to say, as the member for Wintec, I am deeply concerned that a model that is working very well in the Waikato region, and that caters for many from outside our region and for many international students, is, effectively, at great threat of being undermined when they have not requested that at all. As previous speakers in this debate have noted, the reforms threaten to bring major losses there and elsewhere around the country, and, in particular, effectively the seizure of assets in a way that I find absolutely inexplicable and indefensible.

We have, as others have already noted, the potential here for another fees-free disaster, and I think that will become apparent as people dig down into the specific points of this bill. I do want to commend the huge body of work that Dr Shane Reti, the National Party’s tertiary education spokesperson, has done, because he is a very details-focused individual, very analytical, and he really has not only done the work of unpicking what this bill is all about but he’s been around the country meeting with councils and staff from all of the polytechnics and talking at length with them about how they are affected by it. So I hope that he, in particular, will be listened to with considerable respect.

I want to acknowledge the Minister of Education is in the chair, and I thank him for being here this afternoon. I don’t criticise him for the fact that he hasn’t taken a call yet, because I believe that he’s probably been showing other members some respect and hearing some of the concerns. But I hope he will take a call fairly soon and frequently during the afternoon, because a number of different matters have been raised with him. I in particular would like to put a few questions to him at the outset, because I focused in the second reading debate last week on some of the major concerns that we’ve heard, particularly from the Tertiary Education Commission and from Treasury, and I do believe that the Minister needs to respond to them.

I asked the Minister if he’s concerned that the Tertiary Education Commission has warned that the reforms will cause workforce disruption, a decrease in student numbers, potentially of 18,000 students and 2,310 apprentices, and will not meet the needs of industry and the regions. That is a pretty damning assessment, and so I hope that the Minister is going to give us his response to those concerns and, in particular, to be able to find some way of allaying them.

The second thing is that I was deeply alarmed—and so I know are many other members, particularly on this side of the House—to hear Treasury’s risk analysis of the Government’s review into vocational education, describing the review’s potential impact as ranging from extreme to major. That, again, is a very damning assessment. I think the Minister must answer the question of how he responds to that dire warning and why, apparently, he seems to be ignoring it or at least taking an “I know best” approach, because this is the assessment of Treasury, and when added to the assessment of the Tertiary Education Commission, it sends out two very strong red flags, and those issues must be addressed this afternoon.

The third question that I want to put to the Minister relates to the fact that, effectively, the Government’s reforms will dissolve local polytechnics into a hollow and meaningless legacy campus. Now, as I’ve said, the Waikato region is very proud, and rightly so, of the success and the significance in our economy and in our community of Wintec. But this bill is pulling down a very successful high performing institution to create a much less effective, a far more mediocre, model. So I ask the Minister, what message is he sending to the Wintec council, its staff, and its students—who I have the privilege of representing in this House—who have been doing so well for so long and who have not asked for these changes and who stand to lose considerably from their implementation, without any rational explanation or compensation for the loss of those assets?

I’ve come to the end of my first call. I hope the Minister will deal with those, and I’ll talk to my SOP later.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill. I am going to speak to my colleague Nick Smith’s Supplementary Order Paper, 435, which really seeks to take the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT) out of this bill. My colleague can’t be here today, so I’m going to try and take the lead for Te Tau Ihu.

There are two campuses from Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, one in Nelson and one in Blenheim, so they cover both of our electorates. They are significant entities, particularly in Nelson but also in Marlborough, and they reflect the unique characteristics of that area. In Nelson there’s quite a close link to the Cawthron Institute and a lot of the research that goes on in aquaculture and marine biology, and there’s a good business campus there in Marlborough. There is the aviation component of NMIT. There is also the very important viticultural course that’s run there, and the facilities that are there are quite unique really in the country, with micro vinifications, so where wines can be made in very small batches so that the students are able to follow their progress right through.

Now, why that is important, and why I raise that, is because NMIT is able to be nimble. It’s able to respond to the needs of their community, and what that community needs, and the fear is—and I think it’s quite well-founded—that if this is all rolled up into one entity, whether it’s run out of the Minister’s office or wherever that happens to be doesn’t actually matter. What we know is that when things become large and are centralised in such a way, they lose nimbleness and an ability to actually react to what’s in front of them. I would argue that there will be very few people in New Zealand in the tertiary sector that would have any understanding of a viticultural course and a winemaking course. I think that is beyond doubt. And to have that ability on the ground to react to what is needed—and what we’ve seen in Marlborough is the school of wine is linking in with that. So that’s a secondary component reaching into tertiary, and I think that that is really important. That’s where I think education will go in the future, and good on it, particularly with boys and education and getting them to see the point of education. That’s half the problem and why so many boys are failing. They don’t actually get what the point of it is. They don’t see it linking to what their future is.

But going back to the facilities—so these have been very successful entities. NMIT has cash reserves of $15 million or just over, and that’s going to be subsumed into this body, and I don’t think that’s fair at all. It certainly isn’t fair. Because an entity has been successful, they’re going to be punished, and they’re going to help the entities that are not well run and have lost a lot of money. I think that shouldn’t be all put in together. But I think the really important point I want to make, when in 1902 the Nelson technology unit was put together, the community, the ratepayers of Nelson, paid for and gifted that land that the entity went on. Now we have assets of $100 million. So those assets that the ratepayers paid for are going to be stolen by the Government—no say from them—and that is just beyond belief. How can an entity like that come in over top, take the assets? Who knows? In the future they might wind it up. We’ll just say we’re going to do it all online now—we don’t need that campus; we’re going to sell that land. We’ll take the money, put it back in the consolidated fund. Having done that, the ratepayers of Nelson that paid for that land and that asset in the first place just get that taken away from them, and I think that’s absolutely appalling.

It all goes back to the unsuccessful entities around the country that have failed. We are now using the successful ones, like NMIT, like Southern Institute of Technology, and we’re going to take those assets, take that money, and prop up the unsuccessful ones. Rather than focusing on the problem, we’re punishing the successful. That is not a good way to deal with anything, and particularly the education and the future of young New Zealanders. I think that this is a huge mistake and it’s run by ideology and not good sense.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll just take a short call just to point out a couple of things, one of which is that when we became the Government, there were significant issues in the vocational education sector. In 2017 alone, the losses were $53 million. Since the coalition has been in Government, we’ve had to put $100 million into this sector.

I sat around a select committee table with members of the Opposition who agreed that there were problems in the vocational education sector and who said, “Oh, we’ve got to do something.” What I’ve heard today is a whole lot of individuals get up and ask for carve-outs for their particular region, without one real acceptance and acknowledgment of the significant issues for vocational education to fill the major skills gaps that we have in this country.

This is a reform bill. It’s a significant piece of legislation, and we had submitter after submitter—particularly the industry training organisations—come before the Education and Workforce Committee and beg for change in order to be able to fill the skills gaps that we have in this country and to be able to provide a coherent system across the country. That’s what this legislation does.

I’ll just give the example—and there were plenty of examples—from the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation, from the Primary Industry Training Organisation, from the electricians, and from the master plumbers and gasfitters, who all said the same thing. I think the Primary Industry Training Organisation gave the example of the SPCA, which offers graduations for animal care courses. It offers 13 different courses across the country, with no consistency.

That’s a really small example, but the guts of this bill is reform and to ensure that there is a consistent system across the country. Individual carve-outs aren’t going to deliver that. I haven’t been able to see one cohesive, consistent argument coming from the Opposition on this.

Mr Chair, thank you for the opportunity to take a call. Clare Curran, the last member that spoke, spoke of a holistic sense of what’s happening in New Zealand, but I rise to speak on behalf of my own institution, the Eastern Institute of Technology (EIT). I ask for a carve-out under Supplementary Order Paper 433, in my name, principally because the Eastern Institute of Technology has never run a deficit; every year, it has had increasing numbers attending its courses; it has $30 million worth of reserves in the bank; and the land on which it sits was gifted by the Hetley family in Hawke’s Bay. That’s why I ask for a carve-out, because all this is is nationalisation of a regional asset—a highly successful regional asset—to serve the political ideology of the day and to actually help solve the mismanagement of other institutions, principally in large urban centres of New Zealand. I am strongly opposed to this change.

This time—this very time—last week, I sat at the Eastern Institute of Technology with the establishment unit as they did some of their consultation, and I asked this specific question: what will happen to the $30 million of reserves that the Eastern Institute of Technology has, and what will happen to the land? I was strongly assured by the head of that unit that the Minister assures us that that land and those reserves will be made available for the people of Hawke’s Bay and its wider area. Minister, I acknowledge you shaking your head. Maybe—

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: No, I’m nodding.

—you would take a call—maybe you are agreeing. Maybe you would take a call and tell me where in the legislation it says that, because in my reading, I can’t see it. It was asked for in the submission from EIT. It seemed very sensible and practical to me, but I actually can’t find the specific clause.

Equally, in the submissions that were made by EIT to the Education and Workforce Committee, they raised this point: in the make-up of the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Training council, there is no guarantee of any form of regional representation. It is all controlled by the Minister.

Minister, you might think that that’s a small deal, but I will give you an example of what has happened recently in Hawke’s Bay. The district health board in Hawke’s Bay now has not one single representative from the city of Napier, despite that fact that it has 75,000 people living there, and that is because the Minister of Health chose to ignore that city. EIT is actually in Napier. EIT and other regional centres need to be assured that they’re not going to be left out of the mix in the representation for regional centres.

I also note some of the comments from the union—the Tertiary Education Union—who represent EIT. They made this comment—and, Minister, I draw it to your attention—“The loss of morale at The Eastern Institute of Technology is palpable and if the power imbalance is not addressed a lot of good people will leave the profession.” Minister, that is because EIT, who I speak on behalf of, is one of the best-run institutions in New Zealand. Yes, you have some problems to fix across the sector, but you don’t have many problems to fix at the Eastern Institute of Technology, and all the metrics say it is doing a great job.

So, Minister, I ask you to answer the questions I have given—particularly about the reserves and the land—because, like a previous speaker has said, if they are somehow nationalised, even in the future, I would regard that as theft from the people of Hawke’s Bay, and I would rally and fight against that at any time in the future. I am opposed to this bill, but I would at least ask that some of my questions are answered.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak in the committee stage of this bill. I come from Taranaki, from the city of New Plymouth, where we have the Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki (WITT) as our polytechnic that serves our region. It has a campus in New Plymouth and one in Hāwera, and it serves 3,500 students. It has recently had a new chief executive, who is leading that organisation with great energy and vision, and it has what I consider a particularly high-class board of councils that are all local people who have a great passion for our region and who are professional, experienced, and connected to our community.

There are many aspects of this bill which I think do not assist with the ongoing development of a centre of excellence that we wish and know WITT can become for our region. I think that is, in particular, around losing independence or losing the ability to actually determine their future by becoming a subsidiary of the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology. The kind of homogenisation of the tertiary sector training for skills and trades in technical areas does not actually befit, I think, New Zealand particularly well, because Hawke’s Bay is different from Taranaki, it’s different from Northland, and it’s different from Waikato, and we have different needs.

The Minister will full well know the decisions that his Government made that affect one of the significant industries, or perhaps two or three industries, in our region. So I want to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 429, which I have lodged, and that’s regarding independence by our local polytech to be able to manage and control its assets. We need to have that flexibility, that nimbleness that I don’t believe a national organisation will afford.

In our particular region, the Government has sought to transition our very effective and professional workforce away from the oil and gas sector. Yes, they will have transferable skills; unfortunately many of those transferable skills take them out of the country to other countries around the South Pacific, and Asia-Pacific in particular. The sort of skill base that we need in our region is unique, and it needs to have, I believe, management and decision making around that and, particularly, the assets that support the training that is needed for our region for, I think, regional control around those assets—I think it’s very, very important.

I’m sure that the Minister has been to our site in Bell Street where WITT operates from, and I’m sure he will understand that it’s down a residential street; there’s virtually no parking as you approach WITT. So the council and the community of New Plymouth may, at some point in time, wish to relocate and have different areas in which they can do their training from. I think that the nimbleness around this is best left for local people.

The previous speaker, my colleague Lawrence Yule, mentioned that the polytech in the Hawke’s Bay received a bequeath—the benefit of a considerable piece of land. Look, I doubt very, very much that we’re going to see those sorts of bequeaths come, which are a huge benefit to local communities in terms of their training facilities, if the concern is that those donations—and often in the millions and tens of millions of dollars—just end up in Crown ownership. I think that when people make an investment into a local community, they want those local communities to have control and management of their local assets.

So my SOP is requesting a carve-out that WITT and its council—a very professional, dedicated group of people who I trust implicitly for the future of WITT’s ongoing success—would, in fact, have the ability to control and manage their assets, and that it wouldn’t just be absorbed into some national pool. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I, too, am grateful for the opportunity to stand and speak to the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill today in the committee of the whole House. I’m going to speak in support of Tai Poutini Polytechnic, on the West Coast, and probably in a different position to that of some of my colleagues who have spoken today. It’s not particularly well-endowed with asset or cash reserves, but it’s certainly a very integral part of the needs of training and education on the West Coast.

The main concern that I have about this particular bill is the way that it strips the autonomy from our local decision makers around skills, trade, and learning opportunities. For instance, we know that the proposal is that there will be an advisory group set up, that there will be some advisory role there, but I would argue that we need that advisory position to be regional—so a regional advisory group or committee that involves the stakeholders from that local community, including the employers, maybe local government, and local iwi, because they are the ones that know the needs best. At the moment this bill does not appear to have an advisory role that can be initiated locally so that we can actually initiate some suggestions and advice that are local, because, as we all know, centralisation of ideas is not always applicable as a blanket across this country. We need to take note of the specific needs of rural communities across this country.

It’s not just the centralisation of the polytech. We see that at Tai Poutini, along the West Coast, where it’s not just the one thing that is being taken and being centralised but it is actually the cumulative effect of a whole lot of stuff that is being centralised and taken away from local communities.

When I was listening to my colleagues speaking earlier—my colleagues Stuart Smith and Jonathan Young—talking about the valuable assets that have been accumulated by the various polytechnic institutes around New Zealand, and the way that their assets were actually bequeathed to those communities is very much like the same scenario that we’re seeing with the racing reforms, where those assets which are gifted and supplied and maintained and fundraised by local—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Over generations.

—over many generations, thank you, Scott Simpson—that these have been accumulated and built and owned by those communities for many generations, and, then, in one fell swoop of a reform bill, can be seized by the Government.

Now, I’ve seen the same thing happen in smaller communities, even with our local playcentres, where a central body comes in and seizes assets that have been built and funded by local communities. I argue that this is totally immoral, and I think that the Government needs to rethink how it seizes these assets out of these communities.

But as I talked before about the cumulative effect, we’re seeing the same thing happen with local racing clubs, we’re now seeing it with our polytechnic, and in my area we’ve seen it with the removal of our ability to do small things—I’ll use whitebaiting as an example. It’s not just the one thing that happens to us; it is the cumulative effect of a whole lot of policy coming down on us.

Before I finish my contribution, I would just like to ask the Minister in the chair about the likely cost of this, because we know it is a sector that is particularly under some financial stress and this is definitely going to impose more cost on that sector. I need some reassurance from the Government that it is going to be well-funded if it is going to be implemented and that it is going to deliver for the people in the regions. We are totally reliant on these training organisations to deliver the pipeline of skills that we are going to need to maintain our local industry. If it’s not funded well, it won’t be delivered well and that pipeline gets a kink in it—and we can’t afford to have that happen in this country. Thank you very much, Mr Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair. One of the more, I think, measured submissions to the Education and Workforce Committee was from the Otago Polytechnic, who probably didn’t display quite the tub-thumping outrage that our near neighbours in the southern region did, with Southern Institute of Technology’s protest meeting that the Minister of Education very bravely attended. The subsequent week was much more measured, as was the submission, and I want to talk to it in relation to my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 437 regarding Otago Polytech’s role as a future subsidiary.

Now, what the Otago Polytechnic said in its submission was that—it pointed out, actually, that when Cabinet originally agreed to the provisions, it was for the continuation of the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology subsidiaries unless there were good reasons not to do so. It pointed out that the bill, when it came through to the select committee, provided for the automatic dissolution of subsidiaries on a given date. It recommended that that not be the case, and that, actually, what they described as the “earned autonomy” of polytechnics should be able to be maintained. That wasn’t followed; my SOP will enable that to occur. There are very good reasons for that. I think the southern South Island polytechnics are the exemplar of good vocational academic and financial performance.

It doesn’t just happen, actually—it wasn’t like that 15-odd years ago—but through good management, good academic excellence, and a high level of pass rate that came out, Otago has a very, very good reputation. It has a global reputation, particularly in health sciences. Both the University of Otago and Otago Polytech with its nursing, midwifery, and occupational therapy programmes are qualifications that can be taken anywhere in the world, and a prospective employer will know where Otago is.

They have a significant concern about the loss of autonomy that could have been protected if Otago is allowed to remain a subsidiary of New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology. Cabinet looked at that at the start and decided against it, which I think is a reflection of the centralised ethos, the collectivist, centralist ethos of this Government, actually, that it knows best. Well, I can tell the Minister that the Otago Polytechnic staff, students, and stakeholders know that that isn’t the case. They know that a good polytechnic does require that level of autonomy, it does rely on that level of employer and stakeholder engagement.

I have been an employer that relies on the product that comes out of the Otago Polytechnic and I was super impressed with the willingness that they had to listen to me as the employer of their product and say, “Look, I think it can be improved in this way.” or “I can help by enabling students to come, whether they’re arboriculture students, or mechanical engineering students, or nursing students, and work in my organisation as undergraduates.” Now, the reality is that level of autonomy is going to be lost if the bill as it remains in the committee of the whole House is passed in to law, I have no doubt. That was the concern that the Otago Polytechnic had; it’s the concern that my SOP seeks to address.

The last thing I want to touch on is the SOP—I think it’s in Mr Falloon’s name—regarding the management and control of the assets, and other colleagues have talked about this. I don’t think Otago has quite the asset base, particularly cash and physical assets, that other organisations around the country have. But the reality is, they did not come to pass purely because of Government fiat and investment. They came about because of the community’s involvement in this polytechnic. The community is going to have quite a bit to say about the Government by fiat, by law, appropriating those assets for central use, particularly if they are liquid assets—cash assets—without any guarantee that they are going to be hypothecated back to this region. So I remain concerned at the loss of autonomy, the loss of identity, and the loss of control over the academic programmes. These two SOPs seek to remedy that, and I commend them.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m delighted to stand up this afternoon and speak to the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill, and particularly here in the committee of the whole House. I would like to build on the very good contribution that we have just heard from Michael Woodhouse reflecting on the perspectives that he brings from his community to this issue.

In fact, listening to the debate, as I have now over the last 10 minutes or so, what I am struck by is how very different the performance and approach and scale of each of our polytechnics are in this country. What we’re pushing hard against this afternoon is a one-size-fits-all, centralised, cookie cutter approach, when actually the lived experience of the communities of New Zealand with respect to their engagement with the polytechs, their local polytechs, talks to the fact that our polytechs are incredibly varied in terms of scale and approach and journey and experience. The idea that they all have to be subsumed to the centre, I think, is very much a retrograde step.

I’d like to talk specifically about the issues of Toi Ohomai in my area in the Bay of Plenty, which over the last five years has seen two substantive polytechs reflect on their structure, reflect on their capability and competence to be able to deliver to the communities of the wider Bay of Plenty, and agree that they should join forces and collaborate and actually merge to become Toi Ohomai. At the very time that they have merged and become this new entity, with huge community engagement and stakeholder support, they are subsumed back to a centre and have no ability to be able to be a subsidiary of the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology.

I have a specific question here for the Minister. It’s all very well to look at the spectrum of performance of polytechs, which I think all of us in this House would agree has not always been first-rate, but then why do you assume that the best model is to take all of those polytechs, regardless of financial performance, regardless of the fact whether over the last 12 months to two or three years they have confronted themselves their own sustainability and have found a solution, which means they are strong, they’re economic, they’ve got a great capital base, they have the support of the community—yet you think what is best for Bay of Plenty is to subsume it back into the centre? It is as if you are driven by an ideology that is because there are some that are weak we are going to subsume those that are strong and force them into a model which is not fit for purpose, in our view, and is not actually going to deliver against the community expectation.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: But it is ideology.

My colleague says it’s ideology, and it is, because you are not looking at the individual circumstances of each one of the polytechs. No one argues that those that are poor performers should not look to improve and have the necessary structural improvements to enable it, but surely not at the expense of those that have already done this journey and have landed an outcome which I think, certainly from a Bay of Plenty perspective, from a Tauranga perspective, Toi Ohomai has done remarkably successfully.

So when I look at this particular legislation, I think Supplementary Order Paper 440 that I have put in place, which asks essentially for Toi Ohomai Institute of Technology to be excluded from the transitional arrangements in the bill, converting those resources that the community have worked so hard to reflect on, to focus, to refine, to get to the point where you’ve got a strong capital structure—and it’s interesting. I look across the House to a colleague who is clearly of a different political philosophy and comes from that area, and it’d be fascinating to hear her contribution when she knows the journey that Waiariki polytech and Bay of Plenty polytech, in particular, have been on and the connection those two institutions have now created as Toi Ohomai with the community of the Bay of Plenty, with the community of Zespri, and with the employers who look to that institution and see it as local, relevant, and delivering skills that the community and the business people of Tauranga want. This is a retrograde step and I find it quite remarkable that Kiri Allan would be able to put her signature on something which is going to take our community backwards. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I wish to speak in support of the Hon Michael Woodhouse’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 437 as it relates to the Otago Polytechnic campus. The SOP seeks to exclude the Otago Polytechnic from the transitional arrangements in the bill that convert existing polytechs into the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology subsidiaries.

In particular, I wish to add my voice to that of Mike Woodhouse, but also add in words in defence of the Cromwell campus of the Otago Polytechnic. It is not hard to do. I have, with the assistance of Google, had a brief refresh of the courses offered at the Cromwell Polytechnic, which, I have to say, in the years that I have known and been a little bit associated with the polytech through visits and taking a general interest, have evolved over time to meet the needs of that particular community, and meet the needs they do. I will go through some of the courses very briefly. But just to say that around the Upper Clutha, Central Otago region and particularly around Cromwell, the Cromwell campus of the Otago Polytechnic is held fiercely and loyally and in high regard by employers, by secondary schools, by primary schools, by orchardists, by viticulturists, by builders—you name it. The Cromwell campus has well and truly an identity of its own, and that identity is fiercely held. I’m assuming I do have some time left on the clock, Mr Chair, so I will just keep going. [Interruption]

Oh, thank you, 10 minutes; that’s excellent. I can certainly keep going for 10 minutes, because I feel so strongly that the embodiment of this SOP 437 speaks exactly to what is very wrong with this Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill, in that it strips and challenges that community pride and buy-in to the Cromwell campus of the Otago Polytechnic—for why?

Could the Minister in the chair please explain to not only this member but other members of the Opposition, but, more importantly, to those lecturers; to the management; to the supporters of the Cromwell campus of the Otago Polytechnic; to the students; to the past students, who are now working in and around the Upper Clutha and far further beyond, beyond these shores, who have taken with them the excellence which is the hallmark of the Cromwell campus of the Otago Polytechnic.

I’m just going to go through a few of the courses and explain to the Minister in the chair, and I ask for her comment on the importance or not. She may not think that the courses offered by the Cromwell campus of Otago Polytechnic are important. Well, I believe they are. So I’m going to run through them.

There is a course for bike mechanics. Why would that be important? Because, of course, the New Zealand Cycle Trail is a very important feature of Central Otago. Thank you, John Key, and your vision and funding support for the New Zealand Cycle Trail, which has rebooted the tourism industry in and around Central Otago, and will do into the future.

Outdoor adventure—Cromwell, of course, is circled by a range of mountains, some outstanding scenery, and also not only opportunities for adventure tourism but, again, opportunities for employment within that outdoor adventure - adventure tourism space, once again, adding to the economic sustainability and future of Central Otago, with its burgeoning population and high birth rate and extremely high growth rate, the fastest growing region in New Zealand for some years.

Early childhood now features as a course offered at the Cromwell campus. If there is a sector of professionals that is sorely needed, I would say that that is one now and into the future. How wonderful it is that local secondary students can move from Dunstan High School, they can come from any of the high schools around the region, go to Otago Polytechnic, and commence their training.

Brewing—of course, craft breweries are very strong. Again, very strong tourism application, very strong for employment around the region. If you can’t find a craft brewery, then you’re not looking very hard in and around Central Otago. There is cookery, of course. Once again, a high tourism area, and medals get won every year at national culinary competitions. Farming—there is a partnership with the Tinwald Farm around high country farming. That is a very special niche function of the Cromwell campus of the Otago Polytechnic.

Now, the Minister—and I do hope she has greater insights than this—may stand up and say, “Don’t worry. It can all still happen.” But will it have its heart? Will it have that fierce, fierce loyalty from the manager all the way to the student on their very first day of Cromwell campus, Otago Polytechnic? Because it is theirs. Now the proposal is that not only does the Cromwell campus become a subsidiary but it becomes a subsidiary of a subsidiary. How can that be good for the Cromwell campus of the Otago Polytechnic? I think not.

Thank you, Mr Chair. You must have known that I was going to speak about an entity that is very close to where you live. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill in the committee of the whole House.

It’s an unusual place for me to be because education is not something that I’ve specialised in in my time, and didn’t in my time at school either, but, none the less, I have been the beneficiary of many people who have had the benefit of spending some time at the Universal College of Learning (UCOL), and moving on, often, to greater things as a result of that.

So I want to speak in support of the Supplementary Order Paper in my name, 442, which effectively excludes UCOL from the parameters of this bill. But in doing so, I want to raise a few issues that I think are so important when it comes to talking about entities in our communities that are different and specialise in their regional and local entity, and the place that they come from. In UCOL’s case, it was formed in 1902, so it’s been around for very close to 120 years—118 years, to be exact. That’s a pretty amazing performance. So you have to think that when we’re thinking of making dramatic changes to an entity that’s been around that long, there’s got to be a very good reason for doing so. I want to enlarge a little bit on that in due course.

But UCOL also has branches in Whanganui and Wairarapa and Horowhenua. As you well know yourself, the Whanganui one is a very valuable asset to that community. I’m sure that Harete Hipango might speak on that a little later. But I wanted to emphasise the Whanganui thing for a couple of reasons, really, and one is to emphasise the specialist nature of regional entities. In Whanganui’s case—and you might think is a little odd—they had a course in glass-blowing for many years at the Whanganui branch of UCOL. Interestingly, there’s a very big business in Whanganui, founded on the basis of the training that came out of that.

There are also businesses in Shannon and in Ōtaki, very close to where I come from, that have been founded on the basis or on the back of, effectively, the courses that were provided in Whanganui to specialise in something that was particular to the local area. There are many other examples of that, but I want to use another example, and it relates to Taumarunui. It really also, I think, emphasises the fear that I have about the centralisation of anything, actually, in New Zealand, because I don’t think that—having been an amalgamation proponent myself of many things in my younger days, as you get older, you realise it’s not the answer to everything.

I want to just talk about Taumarunui for a moment, because UCOL provides courses into Taumarunui which specialise in training young people in the building industry. That course has trained at least five different batches of young people—or it would be more than that—who have gone through the course in Taumarunui. In the beginning of the Christchurch rebuild, they then went on to Christchurch and got jobs very quickly. They would have struggled to get jobs had it not been for that training. That was specialist training provided by a regional provider on the back of demands from a local community.

Ironically, at the other end of Taumarunui, provided by Unitec, is a course in catering. Catering, of course, is hugely important to the central North Island, which relies very heavily on the tourist industry and, again, struggles to get people to work in that sector.

So the provision of those courses by either UCOL or Unitec, in Taumarunui’s case, is hugely valuable to local areas. Without the local input into those sort of things, I don’t think we would ever get them put together. So it’s very strong, the community need for this. I think it’s very important that we have a local input into this.

In my experience of centralised organisations, they struggle to grasp or comprehend the need that small, regional, and provincial communities have. So I’m very strongly opposed to the parameters of this bill. I know that UCOL has been in a number of positions on this bill, in recent times, but none the less, I think, at the end of the day, we need to make sure that we provide something that works locally, something that’s effective and efficient for our local community, and provides, particularly for the young people in our communities, but also gives those people in need of retraining an opportunity to do it easily and close to home. Centralising any of this stuff does not achieve that. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak. It has been worthwhile listening to my colleagues talk about some of the monumental reforms that this bill represents and the, quite frankly, disastrous effects on local communities and the regions that they represent. While those economic impacts are extremely important to consider, I’d like to consider this afternoon the timing of the bill and the wider economic context.

We know that our economy is facing an uphill battle at the moment. We’ve got an overburdening Government, that’s for sure, and there’s a significant skills shortage, and what we have here is a bill that actually doesn’t relieve those pressures—you could argue it compounds them. The building and construction sector is crying out for new workers. That is a fact; we all know that. And we also know that, if the Government wants to build any KiwiBuild homes, they should look to get people who know how to use a hammer. But what the business case shows for this particular bill is that there will actually be over 2,000 fewer apprentices. That, when we get down to raw impact, should speak for itself, that particular number.

The other thing that we should consider is the impact of these reforms on the international student market. What we know now: it’s worth over $500 million to our economy. Unfortunately, the Cabinet paper barely mentions it, and it seems to have been somewhat overlooked when developing this policy. But then we’ve also got delays in visa processing that was limiting the growth in this area. Now, just getting back to the economic context, we’ve seen the impact of coronavirus on the international student market. Economists are forecasting that potential negative growth in quarterly GDP, and we’ve got the tertiary sector pleading for exemptions on travel bans that have stopped Chinese students coming to New Zealand.

So we’ve got a context here that needs to be understood for this particular bill and the timing of it, and I do have a question for the Minister around—or, quite simply, this represents massive upheaval in the sector, and we’re facing this context that I’ve just tried to outline. Is this a good time to be doing this? Has the Minister thought through and has he quantified the full impact, especially after knowing how, I’ll just call it, dark Treasury was on the full impact of this bill.

Now I want to switch over to an amendment in my name, and it is asking for the deletion of clause 43(a)(vii) from Schedule 1—and that’s on page 68, lines 20 and 21, just to be very specific—and what it does is remove the New Zealand Hair and Beauty Industry Training Organisation from being recognised as a transitional Industry Training Organisation (ITO) for the purposes of transitional arrangements for this bill, to take them out, and here’s why: they were very clear in their submission. And for those that were able to hear what they said in person, they were very clear, and the numbers, again, speak for themselves. This is an ITO that has had to work very hard to get where they’re at. So they’re obviously registered. The industry is not regulated, so their qualifications aren’t compulsory. They’ve celebrated 50 years of apprenticeships, not 15—50 years—and they’ve got a very long, successful history of on-the-job training. They’re well respected; they represent $579 million to the economy, 11,500 people employed. So there’s context for why we think that this amendment should pass and remove their particular industry.

What they’ve also said is that they know that the industry ownership of workforce development councils should be in the hands of industry. This is some of the feedback that they were giving on the bill. They’ve also said that they need further clarification of roles within the system. So they were being constructive with what they were saying. And when you come down to the final sum of things, they should have that deletion clause work, we think, in their favour. They know that the bill is a massive risk to apprenticeships and to trainee numbers. We also know, again, that Treasury backs them up with that and that providers don’t have—[Time expired]

I’m happy to take a call to respond to some of the issues that have been raised by the members opposite. There is a relatively consistent theme running through them—around regional autonomy, regionalisation, regional skill needs—and so I’ll address those issues as a group, but first a little bit of context.

It is important to note that the polytech sector has been struggling for some time. This is not a new problem; this is a problem that has developed over many, many years. We’re at the point now where 13 of the 16 polytechs around the country are currently running a deficit. So they are in financial difficulty. Many members have spoken about the cash reserves that X polytech here or there has accumulated. Many of them are blowing through those cash reserves pretty damned quickly at the moment, and if the situation is allowed to continue, they won’t be debating the cash reserves, because there won’t be any left because those polytechs are eating into the reserves that they have accumulated because of the situation they find themselves in. Enrolments have been in decline for quite some time now. If anything, they’ve plateaued under this Government, but they were in decline for several years prior to that, and that’s in the context of businesses crying out for skilled labour and decrying the fact that we are not training people up appropriately to do the jobs that they have on offer.

So why are we doing these reforms? To provide more nationally consistent qualifications. Dr Reti made the observation in his contribution: why shouldn’t NorthTec determine what skills someone working in the forestry sector needs? Well, actually, we want the forestry sector—the forestry industry—to be specifying what the skills are that they want, and we want them to have the reassurance that, regardless of where around the country people are trained with those skills, they’re going to be getting a nationally consistent product, because if you’re working in forestry in Northland or you’re working in forestry in Rotorua or in Gisborne or in Nelson, actually the forestry companies want to know that you’ve been trained to a high standard that meets their needs. So these reforms are about making sure that the training available throughout the country is consistent. It’s not going to result in a reduction in training around the country—in fact, quite the opposite; it’s designed to ensure there is more training around the country—but it’s actually putting industry and businesses and employers into the driving seat of determining what their skill needs are and making sure that the standards that are set are the ones that meet their needs.

With regard to ring-fenced assets, the Government has been very clear that our cash reserves that have been accumulated by Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics (ITPs) will be ring-fenced for spending in the region that has accumulated those. That is the policy decision of the Government. That’s recorded in the Cabinet papers and in the Cabinet minute. That is very clear.

Parmjeet Parmar raised concerns about international students and the Government stopping international students starting their enrolments. I can only assume that she was talking about the travel restrictions put in place as a result of the novel coronavirus. That is something that the Opposition themselves have called for. So, if that was the point she was making, I’m not entirely sure exactly what her line of argument was with regards to that.

Simeon Brown, I think, raised the concern about the Minister being responsible for appointing all of the polytech council members. Actually, in fact, that was a decision made by the last National Government to change the make-up of the polytech council so that the Minister was the person responsible for appointing them. He also raised concern about the lack of democracy in staff and student representation. In fact, I’d point out to him that, under the last Government, staff and student representatives were removed altogether from the governance of the polytech sector, and we’re putting it back into place, and I make no apology for that. I think that’s, in fact, very important.

The members opposite have constantly talked about their local polytechs and have said it’s all working very well. In fact, it isn’t. If it was, their polytechs wouldn’t be in deficit; their polytechs wouldn’t be cutting courses and laying off staff as they are now. The biggest risk we face here is actually the risk of no action at all. If the Government did not do something, in fact many of these polytechs would continue to drift to next to nothing. We put $100 million into the polytech sector in bailouts in our first year because that’s not something—

💬 Jonathan Young: In Auckland—in Auckland.

No, it’s not just in Auckland, actually. It’s not just in Auckland. The member’s local polytech, Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki, is one of those that’s in the “high risk” category in terms of ITPs.

They have some financial challenges themselves, and the local community, I think, is well aware of the difficulties that the Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki faces. So I think members should be quite careful in arguing that we shouldn’t do anything, when, in fact, what’s that likely to result in is a decline in the level of training that’s available all the way around the country. The other arguments put forward by members are all a variance on the same theme and I think I’ve already addressed those.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to take a quick moment to respond to a couple of things the Minister said. He said in his speech that the biggest risk was doing nothing at all. I’d like to just remind him of the Tertiary Education Commission, which said that the risk of workforce disruption by these changes was almost certain and the impact would be extreme. The risk of participation in vocational education reducing would be almost certain and the impact major, and the risk of needs of industry and employers not being met would be almost certain and the impact extreme. So, I don’t think it’s fair to say that the biggest risk is doing nothing; the biggest risk is what the Minister is doing right here, today.

I’d like to take a few moments to talk about my local polytech, which is the Manukau Institute of Technology, and I have Supplementary Order Paper 434 to remove it and exempt from these changes. I do, firstly, want to acknowledge that, yes, the Manukau Institute of Technology has faced some financial challenges, but if you look at this submission, which they made in regards to this bill, they highlight the impact that there has been over the past year due to the reduction in international students as a direct result of this Government’s changes to immigration policy and visa processing delays. That has been a significant contributor to some of their financial challenges.

I think the Minister needs to reflect on the changes which have been made and the impact that they have had on this sick sector, plus also the visa processing delays, which this Government has caused and the cost that that has had on the sector. As they said, that has limited their ability to respond to the needs of the community that we serve. The Minister can stand there and talk about how the sector may be struggling and failing, but he also needs to take some responsibility for the Government’s changes, and policy changes that his Government has brought in, as well.

One of the key points that the Manukau Institute of Technology makes is that they currently serve 14,000 students studying and training at the institute. Of these, 38 percent of them identify as Pasifika. If you look across South Auckland, we all know that it has a large proportion of Pasifika people living in South Auckland. Now, the key question that they have raised and asked in their submission is, where is the voice of Pasifika people in this new mega polytechnic? We’ve got the student body, the student representatives, we’ve got the staff body, we’ve got the Māori advisory panel; where is the voice of Pasifika in this establishment?

They asked for the establishment of a statutory Pasifika advisory council, set up to represent the voices of Pasifika peoples. So my question to the Minister is to challenge him and ask him to take a call and explain to the communities of South Auckland what he has done in response to that request by the Manukau Institute of Technology and the voice of the Pacific community that they represent in South Auckland.

The second question I’d like to ask the Minister is how is he going to ensure that South Auckland’s voice is not lost in these changes? He said that the head office won’t be in Auckland or Wellington. So how is he going to ensure that South Auckland’s voice is going to be represented? South Auckland has one of the youngest populations in New Zealand. South Auckland has some of the biggest infrastructure challenges over the next 20 to 30 years. You just need to look at Mill Road, which they cancelled then started again, or the development at the airport, which is going through the roof. There is an enormous amount of work being done. There is going to be a huge need for skills across South Auckland, and the Manukau Institute of Technology is a crucial part of delivering those skills for the future.

So I want the Minister to stand up and to tell the people in South Auckland, the people in my electorate, the people in east Auckland, that he can guarantee that there’ll be no reduction in traineeships and student participation in South Auckland and there will be no reduction in those roles for the future jobs that are coming on stream over the years to come. Because that’s what matters in South Auckland—it is that we have the skills and the people, we have people willing to fill those jobs; they need the skills. The Manukau Institute of Technology does a great job helping to task them to do that, and he needs to stand up and guarantee that there’ll be no reduction. Because if you read the Tertiary Education Commission’s report, they said there is an extreme likelihood of an extreme impact of a reduction in those traineeships across New Zealand.

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to just respond. There was a point that a member raised earlier, which I didn’t respond to in my first contribution, and that was issues around the risk assessment put forward by officials. I think it’s important to note that the quoting that he was doing in that was from the unmitigated risk assessment, and, in fact, the point of doing an unmitigated risk assessment, as you say—if you don’t put any mitigations in place, what could go wrong? The risk assessment did that and it did it fairly, and it pointed out all of the risks. Of course, mitigations have been put in place that deal with many of those issues—in fact, they deal with all of the risks. There are mitigations in place for all of the risks. No reform of this nature has no risks. The question is how you manage it. I’m confident—and it’s all spelled out there—in the business case and in the Cabinet papers that were released and how those risks are being managed.

One of those is very considered in the risk of declining demands—so in declining participation, declining employer support. One of those is a very real risk; it’s a real risk of continuing with the current system as well because we’re already seeing that declining participation. There are mitigations in place to stop that and probably one of the key ones is that the processes are being done over a period of time. It’s being done very carefully and very considerately. It’s not being rushed and it’s being done in a very collaborative way so that those who are involved in the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics sector and in the industry training organisations sector, those who are involved in workplace training, do have the opportunity to have their voices heard and be involved in designing the future. I think that’s very important. That’s the way the reforms have been designed and that is a big part of how we mitigate those risks.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa in this committee of the whole House stage of the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill. I just need to respond to a few of the points that have been put forward by members of the Opposition and also to add my support or tautoko to what the Minister of Education, the Hon Chris Hipkins, has put forward.

The first thing that I think is just really important to raise is that during the second reading of this bill and, actually, indeed, during the parts that I contributed or participated in at the select committee stage of this bill when we were hearing from stakeholders and from members of the community who will be impacted by these reforms, I spoke across the aisle to members of the National Party because I am really keen on all of us working together for something that is going to be transformational and therefore a massive opportunity in vocational education for this country. I’m therefore quite gutted that they seem to have acted outside of that opportunity for good faith collaboration, particularly because during the second reading, only last week, I asked for them to share their Supplementary Order Papers that they alluded they were going to put up this time around in this committee of the whole House stage. What they have done is kept them secret—keep all the cards close to their chest until they could table them just before this reading now, which has meant that they have presented the opportunity for themselves to, essentially, filibuster and not contribute, and it feels like the opportunity for meaningful collaboration and creative collaboration has been squandered. So I’d just like to say it’s gutting—it’s gutting.

The previous National Governments and the reason that we have ended up in this situation with this need for reform and for transformation, is that polytechs were left to flounder. That is immediately demonstrable if you look at the bill that we had to pick up when we came into Government, and the fact that the vast majority of these polytechs were in a situation where we had to come, as Government, to their financial rescue. That’s not at all to say that everything was going wrong but it is to say that the party which often holds themselves out to be that of financial sustainability or good planning when it comes to the economy really left us in a bad place here.

I’d state as well, with regard to that, that I’ve heard from a number of those inside the polytech sector—inside Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics and Industry Training Organisations—that it appears as though that could arguably have been a conscious decision by former Ministers of Education within the National Party Governments because they wanted to see that transition into privatisation.

If that’s the case, to bring some good faith to this argument, they’re more than welcome to put that explicitly on the table, because I feel that would be a much more constructive contribution than what they’re currently offering with attempting to slowly remove, on an ad hoc basis, through every single individual Supplementary Order Paper, every single one of the polytechs that are named in this bill.

I also think, just in my final minute and a half—because this will be the only contribution from the Greens in this committee of the whole House stage, because I think that we have had a thorough debate so far—that I’d like to reiterate—

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: This is the place for the detailed consideration.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —that it’s important—I understand, Tim Macindoe, that you’d like to filibuster, but I’d really like to see some good legislation passed—when it comes to the average age of entry for those in the polytech sector. The average age in which one comes to study in a polytech is around 27 years old. I mentioned this in the second reading of this bill. The reason that that is important is because it highlights the lived experience of those who are in the polytech sector. They are often those who have left school, who have potentially tried a little bit of tertiary education, have decided to maybe try some form of occupation, but then have decided to ultimately retrain.

This is important because it indicates the ongoing changes that we are going to see in our economy, as there is less predictability for those who are working people. It is really critical that we consider the potential that we have to build on a positive future when it comes to vocational education because of the opportunities that it presents in terms of minimising people’s exposure to the precariousness of the gig economy but also to the challenges that we are going to face in a just transition to a climate neutral Aotearoa come 2050. The Green Party of Aotearoa is proud to add support to this bill.

Look, I intend to talk about a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) for a local issue, Minister, not regional—all politics is local—and I want to talk about the Minister of Education’s prior contribution, not the most immediate but the one before that. But before I get to that, I can’t help but comment on something that Ms Swarbrick just said in her contribution, where she said she was gutted, sought to chastise members on this side of the House for not sharing SOPs prior to the committee stage. Well, not only is it completely common but, quite frankly, I would argue it’s the norm for the Government, which she and her colleagues prop up, to pass in SOPs just hours before the debate begins. So she might want to take a wee look in the mirror and have a chat to her colleagues on that side of the Chamber before worrying too much about what Opposition members do with their proposed amendments to bills.

But the bill as a whole fundamentally holds a window up to the ideologies of the Government and the parties, with their socialist leanings, that comprise it. Fundamentally, this Government is of a view that any problem, real or perceived, can only be resolved with more Government, and that means more centralised control and centralised planning. They don’t tend to think too much about the fact that nowhere else in the world has centralised planning ever worked, but that’s their fundamental ideology and what they do. It reminds me of the wisdom of Winston Churchill, who remarked that the inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings, and the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. That is precisely what this so-called transformation—and it’s big, but it’s exactly what this so-called transformation will achieve.

The Minister has said that there are some polytechs that aren’t doing so well. No one is arguing that that is not the case. But his solution, instead of actually fixing the problem, will see those issues and those miseries spread across the entire country, to include those institutions that do quite well or very well through top-down, centralised planning. It is fundamentally a solution for a Government that only has a hammer in the tool box and sees every problem as a nail that needs beating. The Minister strongly alluded to this himself when he talked about the balance sheets or the operating expenditure of polytechs and going into deficit.

What he’s sought to do to address that is take industry training off those very organisations, who are so close to the private sector organisations that the training is there to deliver for and benefit, and place it into the polytechs. Well, quite frankly, I just call that out as deliberately switching some money around to try to prop up organisations that should be looking themselves to better structure their services, their courses, to meet the needs of their student bodies or potential student bodies, employers, and New Zealand. He is simply shifting something that’s working well, mostly, somewhere else to prop up some polytechs, in this case, elsewhere. It’s not going to add anything. It’s not going to improve anything. It’s going to pretend that he’s solving a problem. It won’t do that.

But I’d like to turn now to the actual SOP, SOP 444, which reflects and responds to the failure that is inherent in a central planning, centralised control environment, where everything is decided upon high and is completely divorced from the local facts and situation, not in a region necessarily but right down at a local level. I want to speak about Whitireia. Now, Whitireia themselves did not submit on the bill, to my knowledge, but the Tertiary Education Union did, and they expressed in their submission the very problem that this bill brings about, which is the divorcing of the planning from the needs on the ground. They raised several points, worrying that the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology (NZIST) would fail to be able to understand the local needs of the students, the potential students, and, in fact, even the teaching body as well.

So what I’m seeking to do and seeking to get support from this House to achieve is to divorce or remove the assets of Whitireia from the centralised control under NZIST that this bill puts in place. By retaining that control locally—[Time expired]

I move, That the question be now put.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Madam Chair? Madam Chair?

It’s OK; I did hear you. Hold the line please, caller.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to talk to something completely different in this bill, which hasn’t been raised to date. We’ve been able to understand the polytechnic positions, and some of our colleagues have been able to express the industry position. I want to talk to a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name. Well, first of all, I want to address what Chlöe Swarbrick was saying about collaboration. I’m more than happy to collaborate, but she also could have picked up the phone and reached out. We heard nothing. I heard nothing. So this is a two-way path in the first instance.

Secondly, nothing’s secret here. We’ve been working on the committee of the whole House for several weeks and communicated with the clerks weeks ago to get some guidance as to how this might look. In fact, just yesterday, we flagged with the Clerk exactly what our plan was. His initial response was, “You don’t need to tell me your plan.” My response was, “Well, it’s a good thing. Surely, the more shared knowledge is good for all of us and the committee of the whole House will go well.” So from a collaboration perspective, how much more clear can we be? Nothing’s secret here at all.

I want to talk to the part of the bill that talks about the reporting period, which hasn’t been discussed to date—the reporting period for the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology (NZIST). SOP 436, in my name, makes the recommendation that the NZIST produce a report every six months, and I say that taking on board advice from the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG), who have been very concerned with the time frames, very concerned that this is hurried. This is such a tumultuous sort of transition, with all these entities, that I’m not convinced that the reporting as it’s stated in the bill is enough. I think that there needs to be shorter periods so that we can look at what’s happening here, so that we can monitor things more closely and make changes if we’re going to. So this presumes that we’re going down this path to destruction, if you like—call it what you may—but at least let’s give ourselves the opportunity to fix it or pull it back if we see that things aren’t going as we’d planned.

So what I’m proposing here is that the NZIST produce a report every six months, because I am concerned that the monitoring is not enough. I think this will also talk to, even though this SOP doesn’t specifically, reporting of the subsidiaries. We’re concerned—certainly, I’m concerned—with the subsidiaries. I will allude to it in other parts of this discussion, but very concerned with the three months—January, February, March—of reporting and then the nine months. That is that we revalue all polytechnics at the end of March, and then we start a new financial year. Everyone has been concerned with that.

The polytechnics are concerned. How do you do a mid-year—it’s not quite mid-year, but a third of the year—revaluation? That is hard. That takes time. There is a cost to doing that. That is going to be very complex and very hard, so we have concerns with that. Then you’re going to add in, or we’re anticipating adding in, the other nine months of the reporting year. What a mess. How challenging is that going to be? And we already put into the second reading the words of the OAG that if we talk about a conversion to a subsidiary, it will be much harder under the Public Finance Act to do this amalgamation across reporting periods. We understand that if you use the words “transfer”, it’s much more likely to be able to be consistent with the Public Finance Act, but I see nothing in here or in the new SOP 428, which the Government has tabled, that addresses that concern. So we’re just going to find out when it happens, when we find out that, in fact, we can’t do—we’ll call it mid-year—this mid-year amalgamation of financial reporting.

So while I’m talking specifically about improving the reporting period for when the NZIST is established, these same arguments could equally apply for when the subsidiaries are established. It’s going to be a substantial upheaval. Why would we not want to look closer so we can fix things if they look like they’re broken on the way? I think that’s the question I’d like the Minister of Education to address: how much harm can there be? If he has concerns—he’s mentioned the risks that are put up in the programme business case and how he’s mitigated them. Surely, this would seem to be a sensible mitigation as well, to look more closely at the reporting period. I’m suggesting for the NZIST, but I’d also suggest for the subsidiaries.

So this is a new piece of thinking in this part of the bill. I’m also interested to know if the Minister is anticipating speaking to the SOP that the Government’s putting forward, which we’ve seen for the first time today, or is there nothing there that’s going to be talked to? We’d be interested if you do that. We’d like to talk to that as well. That will certainly be new information. I challenge the Minister to give some thinking on that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move, That the question be now put.