Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Today is a very big day for vocational education and training in New Zealand. Today is the day we start to bring our vocational education and training systems back together, where we create a unified nationally consistent system of vocational education and training that will meet the needs of New Zealanders. It will meet the needs of New Zealand employers. It will ensure that we can plug the very serious skill shortages that we have in New Zealand and that we can rise to the challenges of the future.

This bill is about creating a new system that’s easy to understand, that’s easy to navigate, that’s responsive to the needs of learners and employers, and that’s flexible enough to keep changing and evolving as the needs of New Zealanders continue to change and evolve.

We want to ensure that every New Zealander, regardless of where they are, has access to the education and training and skill development opportunities that they need to thrive in the workplace and that they need to thrive in their lives.

It is important that we take a long-term perspective when we are considering these matters. The bill has designed a new system that will ensure the long-term skill needs of the country are identified and are planned for. This bill takes into consideration the significantly changing nature of work, both here and around the world, and it responds to the fact that many current employees—increasing numbers of employees—are going to need access to upskilling opportunities and retraining opportunities throughout their working lives.

To touch on the main things that this bill does: first, it establishes workforce development councils that will give industry greater leadership across vocational education and training. Workforce development councils will replace existing industry training organisations (ITOs). They will pick up the ITOs’ standard-setting role, but the key difference is that standard-setting role won’t be limited only to on-the-job training but will apply to off-the-job training as well. One of the persistent concerns that we have heard from industry—and it wouldn’t be just our Government; it would be every Government over the last 20 or 30 years—is that businesses are not satisfied that the training that’s delivered off the job is meeting the needs that they have on the job. This bill, through the establishment of workforce development councils, puts industry and employers in the driving seat of determining what their skill needs are and ensuring that the system delivers them.

It ensures a much more comprehensive and robust and viable and strong network of training delivery up and down the country, both on the job and off the job, by bringing together the 16 existing institutes of technology and polytechnics and the supporting on-job training functions of industry training organisations. New Zealand has been unique in the world in trying to treat those things as two completely separate systems. Most other systems have a very strong connection between the training that’s delivered off the job and the training that’s delivered on the job, and that is something that we are seeking to re-establish through these reforms.

The bill establishes a new regulatory framework for vocational education and training and has transition measures in place that start from 1 April, when this bill comes into force.

I want to focus on something that hasn’t been focused on much in this debate, and I’m going to focus on it because it answers many of the questions and concerns that members and others have raised, and that is in Schedule 3 the bill inserts a new charter into the law for the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology (NZIST). The NZIST—which is the working name—is the organisation that brings together our polytechs and the supporting functions from the existing ITOs.

The charter sets out what that institution must do and how it must operate. For example, it requires the organisation to offer in each region a mix of education and training, including on-the-job, face-to-face, and distance learning, that’s accessible to the learners of that region and that meets the needs of learners, industries, and communities. This bill is about ensuring that regions get access to the education and the training that they need. It requires them to operate in a manner that ensures that its regional representatives are empowered to make decisions about delivery and the operations that are informed by local relationships and to make decisions to meet the needs of their communities. The talk that this is taking power away from the regions is simply not true.

The bill requires in the charter for the NZIST to ensure that international learners are attracted to train and study in the regions throughout New Zealand. This is actually a stronger provision than what we have now, where the bulk of our international students are attracted into Auckland. This bill changes the law, and it requires the network of polytechs, the NZIST, to ensure that they are going other places in the country so that the regions also get their share of international students.

It requires them to ensure that there’s collaboration across the national network. It requires them to maintain a high-quality coherent network of infrastructure that meets regional skill needs. So this idea that somehow regions are going to be asset stripped is wrong. The charter protects against that.

It says that the NZIST must operate in a way that allows it to empower students and staff on academic, non-academic, and wellbeing matters and matters relating to the organisation’s practices and services. This is about ensuring that those who are affected by these reforms are empowered by the reforms. It requires them to develop meaningful partnerships, including with Māori and Pacific communities, with small employers—that’s in the law: small employers; they’ve got to have relationships with small employers—with local government, with iwi, with hapū, and so on.

It ensures that the organisation is expanding industry training, on-job training, into smaller employers, where we know that they want to train but they currently don’t feel they get enough support to train. By bringing a more supportive network together, we can give smaller employers more support to take on apprentices and industry trainees, and that is something that they have been asking for for some time, and we are going to deliver it.

It requires them to align education and training delivery to support the unique social and economic goals of local communities. This is about making sure that what’s being delivered is responsive to local communities, because, despite the best efforts of those involved in the sector at the moment, that hasn’t always been the case. You don’t have to visit too many chambers of commerce or industry or business groups to know that. Businesses are crying out for change, and the Government is delivering that.

Inclusivity and equity are core principles for the NZIST. Again, that’s set out in the charter. Equitable access to learning opportunities for all learners—again, it’s set out in the charter. Culturally responsive practices—it’s set out in the charter. A collaborative working relationship with schools, wānanga, and other tertiary education organisations—again, it is set out in the charter. But I want to focus particularly on one aspect that is so often missed when we’re talking about this, and that is the importance of the new system ensuring seamless transitions.

At the moment, if someone is engaged in off-the-job training through a polytech or an institute of technology and they get a job in that field, they often find they lose the recognition of the learning that they have already done because they don’t complete the qualificational programme that they were enrolled in, and often those providers then get penalised for that through the funding system. The system has to work around people’s lives. People will move in and out of training that’s happening on the job and training that’s happening off the job. That’s the nature of the current labour market, and the education and training system has to move seamlessly around that and adapt and evolve to that. The charter ensures that will happen. That can’t happen at the moment, because the on-job training system and the off-the-job training system are treated as if they are completely separate when, fundamentally, they are not. They are delivering the skills that are needed in the workplace, and they have to operate hand in glove.

I want to thank all those who are involved in the sector for their goodwill towards these reforms. The changes are only just starting. This change journey, as it gets under way, will gather a head of steam, and I want to particularly acknowledge many of those who were initially opposed to the reforms and who are now committed to making them happen and making them a reality.

This Government is absolutely committed to putting trade training, and vocational education and training back on the map. This bill is a huge leap forward from where we have been. It complements the work we are doing to encourage more young New Zealanders into trades and vocational education and training, to turn around the decline in that area that we have seen over the last decade, to ensure that businesses have access to the skilled workers that we know that they need to thrive, and to ensure that those workers have the skills that they need to thrive in the workplace, to earn good, healthy incomes, and to have a high standard of living. These reforms are going to deliver those things. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise today to lead the National Party opposition to this bill, a bill that heralds the biggest upheaval of the largest number of public entities in the last 30 years, and a bill that I believe and that we believe will irreparably damage the polytechnic sector, industry training, and regional communities.

In this contribution, I will speak to three parts. In the first, who says these reforms will fail, and what is the independent analysis; in the second part, what does failure look like; and in the third part, I have a proposal for Tracey Martin and New Zealand First.

To the first part, then: who says these reforms will fail? I have four independent Government entities that I’ll draw information from who all say these reforms will fail. First of all, the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) and the programme business case. Here is what their view and their summary, the Minister of Education’s own department, his own people—here’s what they say about the risks of these reforms. The risk of workforce disruption is “Almost certain”. The risk of participation in vocational education dropping is “Almost certain”. The risk that the needs of industry and employers are not being met is “almost certain”. The risk that the needs of the regions are not met is “Almost certain”. Finally, and here’s the most damning part, the likelihood that the new model does not achieve the desired outcomes is “Likely”, and the impact of all of these is “Extreme”—the Tertiary Education Commission.

At select committee last week, the chief executive of the Tertiary Education Commission said that they had advised the Minister not to proceed with the reforms initially. I think that’s a damning indictment of these reforms as well.

The second body I’d point to is the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the TEC through their regulatory impact assessment, and they assessed the likelihood of several attributes around these reforms. They said that the likelihood of achieving cost efficiencies was “Low”, the likelihood of achieving productivity gains was “Low”, the likelihood of achieving a stronger voice was “Low”—this is the regulatory impact assessment from the MOE and TEC.

The third independent body is Treasury, who led a quality assurance panel who also assessed the reforms and assessed the regulatory impact assessment (RIA). Here is their verbatim quote—their assessment—of the regulatory impact assessment: “the Panel does not find the RIA fully convincing … The costs are subject to some uncertainty and the monetised value of the benefits appear highly indicative.”—the third body saying that these reforms will fail.

The Auditor-General is the fourth independent assessor saying that this will not succeed. They also confirm that this is the largest change to public organisations, and here’s what they say. They have “concerns about the timetable for the reforms.”, and it is not clear how non-vocational education delivery will become more sustainable.

Four independent entities are all saying that these reforms will fail. Our team have looked at this, and many who have been in the political domain for many years have not seen such a damning report of a proposed programme as these reforms are putting up.

I will turn to the second part of my discussion, and that is: what will failure look like—when these reforms fail, what does that look like? Well, what it looks like, first of all, is that industry training will be less robust, with less participants. Small industry training organisations like the Hair and Beauty Industry Training Organisation (HITO)—the hairdressing industry training organisation—will be amalgamated into large workforce development councils, and their voice will be lost. Today, we place a stake in the ground for hairdressers and the industry training organisation HITO. We place a stake for them.

IT will be merged with manufacturing, and that does not seem like a natural partner. Gas distribution will be merged with manufacturing, engineering, logistics, and technology—again, not a natural partner—to go into the workforce development councils. Remote pastoral care, especially for primary production, will be less and not more. Today, we place a stake in the ground for farmers and primary production training.

There will be less learners in vocational training. We know from the TEC’s own programme business case that in the short term, there will be 18,000 less vocational learners. In the medium term—maybe it gets better in the medium term? No, it’s still bad: 23,000 less vocational learners in the medium term. There will be less learners under these reforms, and, again, this is their own information. The one mega polytechnic will have absorbed all the assets from regional polytechnics, and they will have spent it on the cost of the reform and their own ideological agenda.

Under failing reforms, out-of-region provision for polytechnics will cease, and that’ll cause a huge loss of morale and hope across the sector and, indeed, worsened financial viability. The statement was made at the second reading that the well-performing Southland Institute of Technology (SIT) was only supported by its Auckland campus. That is not true. We have it on good authority that there were a total of 46 domestic equivalent full-time students (EFTSs) in Auckland in 2019, and eight international EFTSs—hardly a large number—and outside of the mains, which the SIT took off Tai Poutini Polytechnic as a gesture, there are very few students from SIT in Auckland. They are not propping up SIT, but I think failure will also look like out-of-region provision disappearing from the purview of polytechnics.

Regional autonomy, academic freedom, and the ability for every region to determine what they will teach, where they will teach it, and how they will teach it will be at the command of the all-powerful workforce development councils. We will fight against these.

Now, I want to come to my third and final part, and I want to propose a question in the shape of a proposal. It’s a question to New Zealand First and to Tracey Martin specifically. I want to thank her for her kind words. I too can work with you, Tracey Martin, and I think you’re very thoughtful in this domain.

I have a proposal for you, and it looks like this: today, you and I—let’s purchase the whole polytechnic sector. We own it. We’ve assessed what the fixed assets are on the balance sheet. It’s $2.5 billion of assets, and I’ll go you halves. You and I—$1.25 billion each. In fact, let’s do more than that. This is the Shane Reti & Tracey Martin Buy NZ Polytechs Ltd—that’s what we’ll call it. That’s what we’ll call ourselves.

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: “Martin & Reti”.

Well, it’s too late, because I’ve already reserved the name with the Companies Office. Those of you who are online, search the Companies Office. We’re company registration No. 14800883, and I want to thank the Companies Office for their help. I said I’d give them some profile around the excellent work that they do.

So we’re now a company. We’re the Shane Reti & Tracey Martin Buy NZ Polytechs Ltd. I’m not 100 percent sure where I’m going to get $1.25 billion from, but that’s another matter. So here’s the question—we’ll talk later—that I ask you to ponder very deeply on: you and I now own the sector; if we had this skin in the game, are these the reforms, on this timetable, that we would undertake? Would this be the solution? If you and I owned the polytechnic sector, would this be our solution? I would say to you it would not be my solution. I ask you to ponder that question because even though it’s sort of an example—we don’t have skin in the game—we are the stewards of taxpayer money, so we’re speaking on their behalf.

I just do not believe—I know you’ve thought from this space—that if we were partners in a joint venture, you would say “This is the right path forward, Shane. This is what we need to do and this is the time frame we need to do it in.” I think we would take more time. I think we would come up with other solutions. There may be parts of what we see in front of us that may make sense, but what we’re signing through as a bill today I do not believe would be what you and I would come up with. I think if that statement is true, then New Zealand First has the opportunity to get this right by voting against this bill today. If that’s what your heart tells you, if that’s what your business head tells you—that, yes, there is a better way than what this bill is proposing—then vote against it.

This is not the solution, I believe, and so, in summary, we are opposing this bill. The National Party, in opposing this bill, speaks for all the regional polytechnics and industry training, and today we say no. Thank you.

Mr Speaker, thank you. I’m very excited to be standing here today in this third reading of the reform of vocational education and training—I’ve got that around the wrong way: the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill. It’s exciting because as a former educator—and yes, it wasn’t in this sector, but as a former educator—I always used to get frustrated that we would keep doing the same old, same old and expecting different results, and that’s exactly what I’ve just heard. I’ve just heard that we shouldn’t be actually looking to make any changes in this sector, because there might be a risk. That was talked about, but that mitigation has been put in place. That’s what we do when we look at risk: we mitigate that risk. If people understood the bill in its entirety, they would know that that risk has been mitigated.

Thirteen of the 16 polytechs are running in deficit. That is unsustainable, and this side of the House will not accept that any longer. That is why this bill is so exciting today. We are looking at a modern education system for our tertiary sector, for our skills sector. It is very exciting. We are creating a strong, unified, and sustainable—and that word is the most important, “sustainable”—system. We don’t currently have one. Today, we change that.

I commend the Minister of Education on his work that he has done in this space. This new system is simple. It is simple to understand and it’s easy to navigate, and that is something that I’m hearing out in the sector a lot, not only from the tertiary sector. I’m hearing it from industry—they are excited. I’m also hearing it from the secondary guidance school counsellors, who are very excited about this system and how much easier it is for them to navigate, for their pupils, in what we heard the Minister talking about: that really important transition point. I have even heard it from four, five, six sources, maybe, on Monday, of school guidance counsellors who came to me and said “Thank you. We can’t wait for this system to actually start. It will be better for our students.”

Sector and industry input was huge throughout this bill. We heard it during the select committee stage. There was plenty of opportunity. We listened hard. We worked hard in that select committee, and I know that that’s reflected in the final version of this particular bill. We’re going to see better outcomes for the regions, because we’re going to see a more consistent approach to the skills training in the regional areas. That is a very exciting part of this bill. We’re going to deliver not only better outcomes for the regions but better outcomes for Māori and Pacific learners and better outcomes for disabled learners. What more could we ask for in that bill? It is there. If only people would actually open it up and read it and understand it and actually come and say, “This does need to happen for that sustainable pathway forward.”

The current polytech and industry training system and the way that they work and are funded independently of each other is clumsy. It is clumsy not only in its legislative stature but in the way that it actually operates as well. This system and this bill today will tidy that up and make for a much better way forward. These reforms respond to the huge changes that industry and sector were crying out for. They respond to a changing world, they respond to a modern education system, and I am extremely excited to see them coming into place today. I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.

I rise, actually in a very sad way, to speak to this Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill. Can I start, though, by just acknowledging my parliamentary colleague the Dr Shane Reti—I nearly called him “the honourable”. It could be a slip of the tongue. You are doing a fantastic job. Actually, the work and the heavy lifting that Shane has had to do, given the scale of disruption and the number of people that have contacted the Opposition regarding these reforms—I just pay tribute to you.

Look, at the outset, I do want to acknowledge that in many areas, the Hon Chris Hipkins and I have been able to work together, whether it’s NCEA reform or even to pull the Tomorrow’s Schools reform to a much better place. Unfortunately, it is with absolute sadness that in this area of the education portfolio, we could not be further apart, and I’m going to walk the Parliament through some of the arguments Shane has already put up as to why we think that this is possibly one of the most devastating, destructive pieces of reform to reach this Parliament in the education area, really, in the last 20 years.

I want to start with the outset, the premise of what the problem is. It is correct on this side of the House, and it’s been acknowledged by my learned colleague Jan Tinetti, that there were issues in terms of the viability of the polytechnic sector. That is correct. It is correct that the last National Government actually did undertake some mergers in this area. We know that there are issues around standards and quality, which we have previously raised and successive Ministers have raised, but as my colleague has pointed out, the solution was not this. The reality is that the overwhelming chorus from the hairdressers of New Zealand, from when I sat in the public meeting with the people of Invercargill as they voiced their concerns to the Minister—and I do note that the Minister has not listened to the people of Invercargill—was that this is a massive overreach.

I was fortunately very privileged to be awarded a fellowship to Singapore, where I sat down with their officials and I talked to them about what is a comparable sector and the fact that they have less polytechnics than New Zealand. But to move to a single mega-merger is something that National has opposed, and for the following reasons. The first is the cost of this merger and the benefits. Shane has already worked you through that it’s not just the Opposition that have raised significant issues around process, around the costs of the merger, around the benefits versus the disadvantages; we’ve heard from Treasury, who have raised significant issues around uncertainty and costs. We’ve heard in the regulatory impact statement itself about cost-effectiveness, issues of productivity. We’ve heard that the Tertiary Education Commission themselves said to the Minister, “Don’t proceed with this.” So pretty much everybody has said to the Minister, “This is a massive overreach. You’ve gone too far. The proposals don’t stack up.”

The Government has to take responsibility. It’s not just the Hon Chris Hipkins that will wear this at the election; it will also be—unless New Zealand First at the last moment, and I’m looking at the Hon Tracey Martin here, pull the plug. They will wear the fact that these reforms are not only bad from a fiscal perspective; they are bad from a governance perspective, they are bad from a regional perspective, and at the election, people will understand that more clearly. It is not OK, and I really do respect Jan Tinetti to say that people haven’t read this legislation. Actually, we have heard from a lot of New Zealanders who have read this legislation, and that is part of the issue that they have.

National has made a number of commitments around this legislation because we are opposed. The first is around community assets, and we did hear very eloquently from the Hon Nick Smith yesterday of an example in his area: Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT)—$50 million worth of assets. These are hard-fought assets by the community. There are philanthropists who have been involved in this; there’s community groups. So we see this as large-scale theft by the New Zealand Government from the regions, and we will be making that case over the coming months, and we have committed to returning those assets to the communities, to the people who have hard fought for and built up those assets for the future.

The next issue that we are deeply concerned about—and it could never have been more prevalent, and at a timing level it could not be worse—is the issue of international students. We know with coronavirus that we are dealing with a very devastating event for New Zealand. I am fielding queries all over the country from people who have arrived here, some people who have ended up potentially having to go to campgrounds, people who have been stuck at airports, young people who are dealing with distance study. So the way that we handle ourselves through this period is crucial to be able to keep our international reputation.

I am, on a daily basis, as is Shane, trying to pedal hard for New Zealand, to ensure that they have confidence in us. So to throw this massive piece of reform—and it’s not just the Opposition who have raised these issues of our international reputation. Chris Hipkins himself has actually received advice on this, at a time when we’ve got coronavirus, but also people see massive uncertainty. They’ve got questions about their previous academic qualification and the status of that and what that means in terms of their future job prospects—it’s actually quite serious, and the Opposition are very concerned about that.

In the area of industry training—well, again, we have a very, very simple philosophy in this area: that industry training is best led by industry. Shane is absolutely right. In fact, I was with a hairdresser recently. She will be voting National, and there’ll be a whole lot of other hairdressers in New Zealand that will be voting National as a result of this. Their voice has been taken away. There are many industries for which the case has not been made for what is excessive ideological Government control, centralisation, and there are many industry training organisations who are scratching their heads and actually are getting very motivated to campaign against Labour and the other parties in this Parliament, because they feel they are losing their voice. But it’s worse than that.

You know, we believe on this side of the House that, actually, when you look at a community like Nelson, you look at NMIT, part of the innovation that has come from these institutions in the area of aviation, in the area of marine, has been because of that partnership between the institution and industry. What these reforms are doing, whether it’s industry training, whether it’s the single mega-merger, is they are paddling in a very different direction, where they are providing a greater disconnect between industry and our education institutions, and National will certainly oppose that.

I think the other thing that we really do want to point out is that at a time when we’ve got significant pressures around the education budget, we know that there is hundreds of millions—and, again, we are very sceptical around the costs of this mega-merger—that are being spent on this, given that it doesn’t have the support of industry, doesn’t have the support of a number of institutions, doesn’t have the support of many of the communities from which assets are being stripped away. But also, to be able to pay for this, we’ve seen the cancellation of things like both awards and scholarships, innovation projects, ICT graduate schools—cancelled as a result of this.

So let me be very clear: if I am the Minister of Education and I have the privilege to be the Minister of Education in September of this year—and I, hopefully, will have a couple of Cabinet colleagues alongside me, Dr Shane Reti—we will be paddling in a very different direction. We will be returning assets back to those communities, to the people of Invercargill, to the people of Nelson, who have been sold a pup by New Zealand First that they care about the regions. We will be returning those assets to those communities. We will be ensuring that at an education institutional level, there are greater partnerships between industry and those institutions. We will be stopping some of this reform, because we actually believe that there’s no way that the Government will be able to implement all of this by the election, which we know they have a longer time frame.

We will be absolutely ensuring that we lift quality and standards where possible. That might include some shared services, but that is the right thing to do. It is not just what we believe; it’s actually what multiple Government agencies told the Government around these reforms, that they were wrong, that they were not going to be cost-effective, they were not going to lead to greater productivity. It also represents the will of many people in New Zealand, from the hairdressers across the country to the people of Southland to the small businesses across New Zealand, and we will stand up for them. We will reverse what we think is ideological centralisation and madness.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the bill. First of all, it is a little confusing, the rhetoric coming from the National Party. On one hand, they say that they will not work with New Zealand First at all, that they don’t trust New Zealand First, that they cannot do any sort of working arrangement with New Zealand First, but then on the next hand, Dr Shane Reti wants me to go into a $3 billion business with him, and the Hon Nikki Kaye pleads with us to vote with them on this piece of legislation. I really, really need some clarity around the messaging, because you know, Dr Reti, that we will always work with people who are reasonable and practical and responsible when it comes to the direction of New Zealand. So as long as the National Party can get their colleagues together and decide which message they’re actually after, then come and let me know—come and let me know, Dr Reti.

The next thing, ladies and gentlemen, about this piece of legislation, and what we’ve heard so far, is, first of all, I’m not sure whether I’ve heard the National Party admit it or not yet: I heard the Hon Nikki Kaye there say that there were some challenges and so they merged some polytechs, but I’m not sure whether I’ve heard them actually admit that this Government, when it came into power, found that we had to pump a hundred million dollars in the first year to keep polytechs alive in 13 out of the 16 regions.

The other thing that’s very telling is in all of the meetings that I have been in around this topic and with the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC), not once was there a solution by the previous Government on the table. Not once was there a solution for how to make this industry sustainable, how to make sure that the regions of New Zealand and the young people and, actually, just the general population had access to vocational training.

So this Government needed to be inspirational. It needed to be visionary, because we could not keep pumping taxpayers’ dollars into a broken system. I have not heard anything from the National Party in their opposition to this bill that suggests that they have a plan. They are actually saying they’re going to keep part of this plan. They’re talking about undoing bits and pieces of it, but they’re talking about keeping some of it.

The Hair and Beauty Industry Training Organisation (HITO), the hairdressers of New Zealand—your representative group—came in to see me. We whiteboarded this up. They told us where their issues were, where the barriers were, during the discussion period. We have addressed those issues. The legislation changed between the discussion document and what is now about to pass through this House.

When we talk about the workforce development councils, we talk about industry, through the workforce development councils, having the capacity to direct 80 percent of the TEC’s funding in vocational training. Never before has industry had such an opportunity, through the workforce development councils, to direct Government funding into the skills that they need to produce the New Zealanders that can walk into their workplace and start on job, and most of that training will be delivered on job. One of the problems that the industry thought was going to happen was they thought that everybody was going to be put into a polytech classroom. That is not what is going to happen. We have combined the work that we’ve been doing around the future of work where we need to train, un-train, and retrain constantly our workforce. That includes our 40-year-olds, our 45-year-olds, our 60-year-olds, our 65-year-olds, because there is no retirement age in this country. People are allowed to, and should, keep working as long as they wish to work. It keeps them healthy and it keeps them connected. We are aware that most of that training and retraining will need to be done on job. There is a lot of scope. It’s a visionary picture that the Minister of Education has put together, and industry is excited about it. Educators are excited about it.

But I understand about patch protection, and I understand that change upsets people. I do understand that, but as we have worked through—I whiteboarded it with Māori business, I whiteboarded it with the HITO, with the electricals, with the master plumbers. We have been through these conversations, and changes were made. New Zealand First is confident that we can get our polytechs and our regional provision on to a solid footing and we will finally be able to deliver, through workforce leadership, through workforce planning, given back to industry, the right skills to New Zealanders to be able to deliver for business the skills that they need to grow their businesses.

I’m going to sit down in a minute, but I want to say one last thing around the protection of assets. The Minister had already come out prior to this legislation coming into the House and said that assets that were given to polytechs, that were raised by community funds or had been gifted and so on, there is a way to ring-fence those assets. I would say to the National Party: you are not talking about giving away assets that were purchased with taxpayers’ dollars. Surely, that is not what the National Party is saying. So the Minister has already said there is an opportunity to ring-fence those cash assets so that they are spread back into the area the polytech currently has. The Minister also gave concessions around those assets—and I mentioned the Invercargill Licensing Trust and the Auckland campus when I was talking about the Southern Institute of Technology.

💬 Sarah Dowie: Keep your hands off their money, too. Keep your hands off their money.

So if there have been—Ms Dowie, let’s have a constructive conversation rather than screeching across the House—assets that have been given by the Invercargill Licensing Trust or assets that have been gifted by other means, there is an ability to ring-fence those for that polytech. But if those assets were bought with taxpayers’ dollars, they are taxpayers’ assets, and surely—surely—the National Party is not talking about putting into private hands or into a private trust taxpayers’ assets. Surely, they are not.

So New Zealand First will support the bill. We’ll continue to work with industry, we’ll continue to work with the Minister, because something needed to be done. The National Party had absolutely no idea. They left behind a complete disaster, and this Government stepped up.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Our position on this bill hasn’t changed. I’m taking this call to say that we’ll be opposing this legislation in the third reading—this is the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill. It was really interesting to see how the Hon Tracey Martin got so excited about the company that Dr Shane Reti mentioned he is planning to set up in partnership with her. I should say that she should not get too hopeful, because, no, we have already ruled out New Zealand First and we will not be working with New Zealand First. That’s very, very clear. I thought I’d make it very clear, because she appeared so excited about that.

I’m disappointed to hear the way the Hon Tracey Martin talked about taxpayers’ money. All of a sudden, now this Government has realised that taxpayers’ money has to be valued differently. The way she talked about taxpayers’ money and control over polytechs clearly shows this Government is about control. It’s not about polytechs, it’s not about local communities, it’s not about local learners, it’s not about local businesses, but it’s all about their control.

This legislation, as we know, is to integrate vocational education and workplace training into one statute. This reform—we have been saying this from day one—is going to be really disastrous for the vocational education sector. We know this is going to bring a centralised approach, which is not going to work. We have been saying that, and there are several reasons why we believe that the centralised approach, through the setup of the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Training, will not work. We also notice that workforce development councils (WDCs) will be taking control of all 11 industry training organisations (ITOs) These 11 ITOs will be absorbed into these WDCs, and we know that small ITOs will suffer because there will be no way for them to have their voice heard in this whole process.

Talking about process, from the start we have seen that this has been a very, very rushed process. These Government parties were in Opposition for nine years, but all of a sudden, when the Government was formed after the last general election in 2017—an accidental Government; that is what people say, and I agree with them—they didn’t know what to do, so they carried on with the Order Paper that was set up by the previous National Government. For up to around 1½ years’ time, we saw Ministers rushing to the House to fill up the House time because they wanted the House, obviously, continuing and wanted to look like they had some business on the Order Paper. Then in just the last few months, we are seeing this kind of legislation coming up, and the whole process has been rushed through. We would have actually liked to see that more time was given to this kind of legislation because it is such a big reform of our vocational education sector.

In the select committee process, we had to sit in subcommittees. There’s a reason why we have a number for each select committee. These people, those who submit, they spend a lot of their time to write their submission and then appear before the select committee as well. I can imagine it must have been really disappointing for them to come to Wellington, and Dunedin as well—we had some submitters there—to see only three or four members on that select committee. It was only because we had to meet the report time line for this legislation to the House. Not just that; in the committee of the whole House yesterday, I was really disappointed to see that while members this side, members that are standing up with their local polytechnics, were taking calls, Government members were really keen to shut down the debate. We have been fighting, and we have been very clear that we will continue to fight, for these polytechnics. We want that localism maintained, and we will make sure that polytechnics continue to have that kind of localism when we come back in Government.

The other important point that my colleagues have also raised is about their assets. We had the big lecture from the Hon Tracey Martin that taxpayers’ money can be taken away any time, but what about their effort that they have put in to establish that polytechnic, according to the industry needs that are there at the local level? It’s really disappointing to see that this Government thinks that they can come and put a control like they want to through this centralised approach, which we know is not going to work for anybody at the local level. Having this head office dictating to all these polytechnics what they should be doing, we have no confidence in this model. We do not believe that this kind of model is actually going to work and will understand what local industry needs are.

I raised this before, yesterday in the committee of the whole House, that the Auckland region is a very different region compared to other regions. There might be some similarities in other regions, but Auckland definitely has some dissimilarities, and we need to take into account those dissimilarities. Putting them under that same head office is not going to deliver for the Auckland region.

The other point I mentioned was about immigration. Yes, we acknowledge some polytechnics are suffering, and it’s not because of other reasons, but one of the reasons that we know is this current Government’s policies, because as soon as this Government was formed, there was a negative signal sent out to the country’s international students. They stopped coming into our country, and that’s why so many polytechnics have been suffering. Yes, it’s easy to blame so many other reasons, but I believe that this has been one of the main reasons, because our international education sector is vital for these polytechnics. Now, of course, we have coronavirus, which we have talked about, so these polytechnics are going to suffer even more while they’re going through this reform that is being imposed on them by this Government.

The next issue that I want to raise is about job losses. The Minister, the Hon Chris Hipkins himself, has accepted that there will be substantial job losses—the “substantial” word has been used. Our tertiary education spokesperson, Dr Shane Reti, has been saying this from day one—that there’ll be at least more than a thousand jobs lost—more than a thousand jobs that we believe will be lost because of this reform.

It’s really sad that this Government takes this lightly. At the start of this year, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—this is because of their other policy—said that there will be 6,500 jobs lost because of their policies in this year, and now with this legislation, we will see more job losses. These people have been working hard in their sector, and if we see these polytechnics in our regions—cities are different—some of those people, I believe, are living there only because they have that job in that polytechnic. Now, those people, when they become jobless, what kinds of opportunities will they have? They may not have other opportunities available to them that match their skillset. But this Government thinks it’s fine for this many people to lose jobs. On this side, we care about employment; we know that employment is important for people. The economy’s already sliding into a really, really bad place under this Government, business confidence is going down, people are not employing people, and here this legislation will lead to job losses, and, as I said, more than a thousand people will be losing jobs because of this legislation.

So how can this legislation be a good thing for us? We have been hearing a lot about making the vocational education sector sustainable. Sustainable? Yes. Providing access? Of course it has been providing access to people—those who need training. We said that, yes, there are some polytechnics that are struggling, but there are polytechnics that are doing well as well. So who is going to make sure that the polytechnics that are working well will be actually provided support to do better?

Polytechnics that need support—we want to be sure that they will be lifted up. But in this legislation, we do not get that assurance. All we see is this is a big reform so it will be a centralised approach—that is what this legislation will bring, but there is no assurance that this will actually really support our polytechnic sector. And, as I said, yes, all polytechnics are not the same—there are some polytechnics that are doing really well, and we have no assurance that they will be doing better with these reforms.

Talking about assets, again, and cash reserves—it’s important that those polytechnics are able to utilise those resources for their own development, and that won’t be happening under this Government, because this Government likes to have that control. Nanny State—they are quite known for bringing nanny State, and this legislation, actually, is a very good example of that. They want to control everything from here; they want to look like they know what’s happening in different parts of a country without going out and talking to people, without giving them the opportunity to say what they have to.

So we are quite disappointed, because this legislation is going to take away the voice of local businesses, local learners, local employers. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I would like to join with other members of this Government in celebrating what is the third and final reading of this vocational education reform bill. I want to touch on and address a few of the points that have been raised by members of the Opposition. I think it makes sense primarily to, firstly, address the contribution by Dr Shane Reti. It is very much in his characteristic style to which I’ve become accustomed, which is deeply thoughtful, and very creative, actually. I think that’s the furthest that I’ve ever seen anybody in this House go for a gag—to register a company—and I think that we have seen the equivalent of the Green Party members bringing protest signs into the House; for the National Party it’s registering a company. It’s funny to see that that’s where we land in terms of how we are representing our respective demographics out there across Aotearoa New Zealand.

I also want to touch on a number of the points that are being raised by the likes of Nikki Kaye and the honourable Parmjeet Parmar. I really want to dig into these, primarily because I think it is important to address what appear to be some very deep inconsistencies, and I don’t do this for the sake of doing that typical political tit-for-tat thing.

💬 Matt King: Of course you do!

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I find it, quite frankly, Matty King—Matt King—rather distasteful and unnecessary, and a waste of everybody’s time. But, ultimately, what we’re talking about here is how much we can trust what is being put forward by the respective political parties and by their talking points.

So in talking about that kind of trust and faith, on the points that have been raised by the honourable Dr Parmjeet Parmar, there was this kind of what felt a bit like crocodile tears around job losses. The National Party was saying that they deeply care about employment. I can totally empathise with them on that point. But on the issue of what we inherited with regards to polytechnics and the state that they were in, and having to inject that $100 million when we first came into Government—the first year, in which none of our policies had yet, at that point in time, come into effect—we inherited that when we opened the books and saw what was happening in the polytech sector. To say that we should somehow keep all of what’s been going on on a lifeline while the National Party figures out what kind of solution they want to put forward is really quite confusing.

They also spoke about—and I’d like to agree with Dr Parmar that Auckland is special. I agree that Auckland is special, and this is the opportunity that’s provided by the likes of the workforce development councils: for regions around the country to no longer unnecessarily and wastefully compete with each other, but actually to specialise and to showcase why they’re special, and to attract people to their regions because of that specialisation.

So, too, I’d really like to touch on—again, as I have done in pretty much every single reading of this bill so far—and address the localism point that’s been raised by members of the Opposition. And I’d like to acknowledge my colleague across the House Lawrence Yule, who was indeed the head of Local Government New Zealand, who, I note, was opposed to many of the measures that the former National Government undertook around removing localism—the likes of, for example, the amalgamation of different regional and city councils into the Auckland super-city. So I’d just like to state upfront that I’m really excited about the newfound passion for localism within the National Party, and I look forward to their support of a number of Green Party measures when it comes to things like revenue-sharing, and otherwise, between local and central government. And I’m sure Lawrence Yule will be on board if he can’t get the rest of his party on board.

So now to address the bill itself, not just the critiques that have been levelled, which I hope I’ve kind of showcased seem to be rather baseless, not least because there isn’t any form of solution from the National Opposition. But I just want to touch on three key points. The first is to address and unpack what we’re actually doing here and why we’re doing it. The second is to note that change was inevitable, not least because this sector was run down demonstrably by the previous Government. And the third is to state that this is not going to be a static transformation. There is much more to come; it doesn’t end after we pass this piece of legislation. And as many of the local members from the National Party Opposition mentioned during their committee of the whole House contributions yesterday, this is going to be a process undertaken over the next few years, and I hope that they engage collaboratively and creatively and constructively to ensure that we get the best outcomes for our communities.

So to the first point: what are we doing here? Why are we doing this? The first point, of course, is to improve outcomes for learners. And I’ll note that I’m being heckled at the moment around that point of improving outcomes for learners. So it’s probably important to state that it was the National Party in Government, in their former term of Government, who removed the right of staff and student representatives to be on boards of tertiary and polytech institutions—and I will return to it later. This decision by the former National Government was noted by a number of submitters, not least by staff and students from the likes of Unitec, who stated that as a result of these decisions under the former National Government, we ended up with poor decisions under polytechs because their voices weren’t taken into account. So forgive me if I feel as though what we’re currently hearing from the National Party are crocodile tears.

The second important thing, following improving outcomes for learners, is greater coordination in the workforce. And surely if the National Party is going to consistently bring up the need for employment, this is a good thing. We’re talking here about providing a nationwide roadmap of the kinds of jobs that are going to be available, and where people can study in order to get those jobs. That is a practical measure which I would have thought everybody in Parliament could support.

And the third point around why we are doing this is to ensure that we have joined-up thinking that isn’t just some highfalutin kind of ambiguity but is about reducing, or actually intentionally trying to end, unnecessary competition between polytechs across the country, many of which I’m sure the National Party, as well as my colleagues in Government, have spoken to and found many challenges under the funding situation that they had to operate in prior to these proposals. That’s not to say that these proposed changes were at all met with huge celebration across the country. Change is hard, and we will happily acknowledge that as this Government.

The other important point around that joined-up thinking is to allow regional specialisation and the championing of what each region around the country does well. So to my second point: that change was inevitable. As I stated earlier, when we came into Government, opened up the books, and looked across sectors at the challenges that were being faced, I am astounded that the Nats appear to be in favour of us continuing to allow polytechs to be kept on this lifeline—the can kicked down the road—to the tune of approximately a hundred million dollars a year. It’s astounding.

We’ve also heard from polytechs—a number of whom submitted to the select committee—that they felt as though they were being run down under the former Government, to the extent that they felt as though they were perhaps being edged slowly into privatisation or into having to close down.

I’d also like to touch on the point raised by Dr Shane Reti around the olive branch that was extended, particularly to the New Zealand First Party. Throughout the committee of the whole House stage, the National Party spoke about all of the Supplementary Order Papers that they had tabled, which were to do with every single polytech that’s listed in this legislation. I’d like to remind the National Party that the Greens, too, are always happy to work across the aisle, when you are willing, as Dr Shane Reti is aware—we worked together on things like medicinal cannabis. There is much better opportunity to do so in other massive reform areas.

Just in my final minute, I think it’s important to state that this is not the end of the road; we don’t pass this legislation, and everything’s clamped down, and that’s that. This is going to be an evolving process, and relationships here are going to be critical. And I really hope that with the passage of this legislation today, at the third and final reading, after it passes Royal assent and then everything kicks into gear, the National Party are able to work constructively with their local polytechs, with their communities, to make sure that we get the best outcomes across the board. We are not going to get that from resistance for resistance’s sake. It is about trying actively and proactively to ensure that we get the best possible workforce development councils, for example, that represent the best of our regions across this country. And I’d just finally like to state that so, too, the success of this depends on the ongoing involvement of communities and their new entities; success relies on collaboration.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill. There was a brief moment a little bit earlier this afternoon when people weren’t sure whether I was actually in the House. I am here, but I may need a cushion just so that I can be seen from time to time. I do suffer from small man syndrome, but that’s OK.

It’s great to be here and great to take a call on this bill. I would like to just refute a couple of the points made by the previous speaker from the Green Party. She made a very astute point, which was that once we pass this legislation, it won’t just be a rosy road straight away. And I would like to just remind the speaker that that is dead right. There isn’t going to be a rosy road for the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand sector and vocational education and training in New Zealand under these changes, and the advice that the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) have been very clear to us about has been that this will cost taxpayers $200 million to $400 million for the cost of these reforms—to make these changes—and that there will be an additional $50 million per year needing to be put into the sector just to make these changes work. So no, there won’t be a rosy road, and, in fact, it’s going to cost an enormous amount of taxpayers’ money to make this work.

Secondly, we’ve been told by the TEC that there is a high risk that there will be thousands fewer traineeships, thousands fewer apprenticeships, and that this will see basically a slowing down of the progress which has been made in increasing apprenticeship numbers and increasing traineeship numbers across New Zealand, as our economy was going so well under the previous Government. I would also like to remind the members on the other side that when they talk about the financial state of the polytech sector, they should actually look at the Government’s financial state. They inherited surpluses as far as the eye could see, and now we see that they’ve even managed to put the Government into deficit, and they also should take a look at the district health board sector as well, while we’re talking about financial troubles.

So what does this bill do? This bill consolidates all polytechs into one under a mega polytechnic. It uses our apprenticeships and traineeships to prop up the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology (NZIST), and it grabs millions and millions of dollars from our communities to basically prop up this new machine: $12 million from Ara, $4.4 million will be stolen from the Southern Institute of Technology, $6.5 million stolen from Toi Ohomai, $3.6 million stolen from Northland. Millions of dollars and that doesn’t even go to the community assets which have been paid for, donated, by generous people in the community or paid for by ratepayers such as what’s happened in Nelson—

Chlöe Swarbrick: They can be ring-fenced.

—for the local polytech. These communities—and I hear people on the other side. I hear Chlöe Swarbrick on the other side saying they’re going to be ring-fenced. Well, what’s the threshold of what’s going to be ring-fenced and how are we going to guarantee that this money will actually stay in those communities? I can see this money being sucked up and being used elsewhere around New Zealand, and I can see that as the NZIST gets in, those commitments, those promises which have been made, will be forgotten. That is, unfortunately, what I think will happen under these reforms.

As I said earlier, the advice we’ve received has made it very clear that the cost will increase and the results will be less than what we see now. So what we see is that we’re going to see fewer apprenticeships for a higher amount of money.

Lastly, in conclusion, what is the National Party going to be doing if we’re elected in September this year? We will return polytechnic assets taken by Labour and give them back to their communities, and we will return apprenticeships back to industry. National supports apprenticeships and regional polytechnics. We will fight for their voice and their autonomy against these ideological education reforms. And if we are successful this year, we will return to regions the assets the Government has taken. We’ll give them back their autonomy. That’s what we’ll do if we’re elected back to Government, and we can’t wait to get that done from 20 September. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. In my area, in the Hutt Valley, one of the big advocates for these changes has been the Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce, because they see the clear benefits for local businesses and small employers. One of the biggest issues that I hear from those small-business owners is that the people they get employed haven’t had on-the-job training. This is why it’s a great bill. It gives young people who are learning the opportunity to learn in the workplace and to have that hands-on training alongside of the extra-curricular support. And that is the key difference. It’s addressing that disjuncture we’ve had between training and real life skills in the workplace, and that is why local businesses support it, that is why the local chamber of commerce supports it, and that is why our young people will be better off for having better learning and better job experiences as they train. I commend this most excellent bill to the House.

Thank you very much indeed. Earlier, National speakers have reiterated National’s very strong concerns over this deeply flawed bill which is unwanted in many parts of the country.

I particularly want to commend the very detailed, thorough, thoughtful analysis that we have had from Dr Shane Reti, the MP for Whangārei and our tertiary education spokesperson, this afternoon and indeed throughout the whole process of this bill. I have seldom, in my 12 years as a member of this House, seen a colleague engage so fulsomely, so intelligently, so thoughtfully in an issue and provide the leadership that he has. And I want to acknowledge that because it’s been impressive. And to those who have attacked Dr Reti through this process, I want to point out that he is a gentleman who engages—

Chlöe Swarbrick: And a scholar.

—very thoughtfully. A gentleman and scholar. Yes, I agree, Ms Swarbrick. He is a gentleman and a scholar—and he’s sitting right in front of me, so I don’t want to get him too puffed up, but he has engaged very thoughtfully with institutes of technology right around the country. And I know how much that was appreciated in my own city of Hamilton, where he met with representatives from Wintec. They have—

💬 Dr Shane Reti: A good polytechnic.

—huge confidence in him. It is a very good polytechnic, as Dr Reti is stating, and I want to thank him for that very constructive and thorough engagement. [Interruption] I’d like to write that into the record, Dr Reti—ha, ha—but that might be problematic at this point.

This is a measure that uses a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It’s a measure that tramples over property rights. It’s a measure that treats all New Zealand polytechnics as failures when many, including Wintec, have very proud records of success.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: So he’s next in line.

It’s a measure that has the potential, Mr Jackson, to do enormous damage to our tertiary education system, and to our industry training organisations, and to many communities, especially in our smaller, regional centres.

Now, last night, I was present for the whole of the committee stage debate on this bill. In fact, I had Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 443 in my name, seeking to exempt Wintec from the bill’s provisions. My reason for doing it was on the grounds that Wintec is doing well. I’m a great believer that if something ain’t broke, you don’t try to fix it. But I was only given one call in that committee stage of the debate.

It’s well established in our Standing Orders that on important measures, members might—not will, but might—enjoy up to four calls per part of a debate on a bill. Last night, I took my first call and I spoke on some of the important provisions of Part 1. In particular, I put questions to the Minister of Education that were not answered.

I signalled that I wanted to speak in my second call on the SOP, and I was not given the chance to do that. I think this is a very worrying development in this House, because it’s not the first time that members opposite haven’t spoken, and instead members have just wanted to shut down the debate with closure motions. They are doing a great disservice to our country on a measure of this magnitude when they don’t engage in the debate and they simply look to shut it down.

So let me conclude by saying this bill shouldn’t pass today. At its very least, the commencement date should be deferred until well after the people have spoken in this year’s general election and the next Parliament has a chance to consider the verdict of the people. So, therefore, I supported last night the suggestion from Dr Reti that it should be deferred at least until a date in 2022.

This is a very sad day for my region, and for all who have contributed to the proud history of Wintec, which dates back to 1924—so just four years short of our centenary—and which, last year, had 13,000 students. I want to thank the chair and council and the acting chief executive and staff of Wintec for their very fine work over many, many years. I am sorry that their fine work is being demeaned by this Government and undermined by this very poor bill. But I will continue to support and advocate for Wintec in whatever way I can in my capacity as Hamilton West’s MP.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill, and I want to record the party’s position and the reasons for it.

We have an education system at the tertiary level that centres on the student—not the institution, on the student. The reason for that is intuitive to most people, that education is about investment in students, ensuring that this country and those individuals have the skills and abilities to navigate a better tomorrow. That much should be simple.

An unfortunate thing, but a number of the institutions in the polytech and institutes of technology and polytechnic sector were failing the students. The problem was that the students, who have their whole lives ahead of them and understand what is in their best interests, were trying to send those institutions a message: we don’t want to give you our money; we think you should go broke. That’s what was happening to those institutions. They were failing because they failed the students. What a logical system.

Anybody who’s ever been in business will know that if your customers aren’t giving you their money, unfortunately they’re trying to tell you something. You either adapt and start giving your customers what they want, or you go under. That should have been the reality for these failing institutions.

What are the priorities of this Government? Is it to ensure the welfare of the student? No. We see in this legislation that this Government wants to protect the institution. This Government thinks it’s more important to save failing institutions by merging them into an even bigger bureaucracy that is just as likely to fail as the ones it replaces, instead of giving the students options.

What were the options for those students? Well, actually, they have many, because outside of this mega merged polytechnic are a range of innovative private training enterprises, of real businesses that actually have to attract a student’s dollar to make a buck, who are now going to be marginalised because when they were succeeding, when their competitors were failing, the Government has come along and tips the playing field away from them and towards the institutions that were failing the students.

So here’s what we have from this Government: in a situation where we had failure and students voting with their feet and going places that were better for their future, this Government has decided to put the institution before the student, to put centralisation before choice, and to put a much bigger bureaucracy before entrepreneurship, creativity, and the rights of New Zealanders to make a better tomorrow for themselves.

Let me finish by making a prediction. This bureaucracy that this Government is creating with the passage of this bill today—unless some members on the Government side come to their senses before the vote—will be no more successful than the bureaucracy it replaces, because it has all the same problems. Fundamentally, it will be driven by politics, rather than the individual choice of the students who know what’s best for them and their future.

When this bureaucracy fails, we, or at least some of us who are still here in this Parliament, will find ourselves back here once again trying to reform a failed bureaucratic system. What this Government should have done is say the funding for education belongs to the student. They can take it to the institution of their choice, and if the institution can’t make a buck, and it’s closing down, maybe that’s what should happen. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I’d like to talk for quite a while, but I can’t. But I will say this, I agree with part of what the previous speaker said. He was responsible for propping up a failed system; he admitted that in his speech today. He knows what a total failure it was, but he pledged his undying support, sadly, to a National Government who did not appreciate his skills and his efforts and his innovativeness. Now I’ll give him the opportunity to support a Government who knows what they’re doing—who knows what they’re doing.

We took over a $100 million debt from a Government who didn’t give a stuff about the regions, about our young people, about our students. Shame on the previous National Government. Shame on David Seymour for propping them up. I absolutely commend this bill to the House.

The previous speaker, Willie Jackson, has just said that the Government knows what they’re doing. This is how they know what they’re doing: they’re now about to implement the most damaging tertiary sector reform in 30 years. If the previous speaker thinks that that’s the definition of knowing what they’re doing, then they need some serious help.

This is nothing more than a fees-free disaster in the making. That’s what’s going to happen—another round of a fees-free disaster in the making. You’re putting billions of dollars of taxpayer money at risk, and the Government knows it.

The number one travesty—the number one travesty—of this reform that we will pass, certainly, in just moments away, is that the Government—this is their biggest blight—has failed to see the most obvious thing right in front of them, that industry understands the needs of industry best. I’ll repeat that again: industry knows the needs of industry best. And, instead, they’ve been run roughshod over, and there’s a Government that apparently knows what they’re doing, according to the previous speaker, but it is industry that knows what industry needs best.

There’s another aspect to this particular massive upheaval and reform, the most damaging reform in the last 30 years in the tertiary sector, and that’s the timing of this—the economic timing and the context of what this Government’s doing. So the economy, we know, is facing an uphill battle at the moment. We’ve got an overburdening Government and a significant skill shortage, and here they go with a massive, massive reform at this particular time. It’s not going to relieve pressure; it’s going to compound it.

We’ve got the construction sector crying out for new workers. We need workers who know how to swing a hammer and—ahem—get some KiwiBuild houses built. But, instead, we’re going to face over 2,000 fewer apprentices. And that’s what Treasury says, that’s what the business case says: 2,000 fewer apprentices. That’s what your own numbers are telling everyone.

And then there’s the international student market. We know that they’ve faced a lot of pressure with the issues in delays in visa processing of late. And now we’ve got coronavirus, where the international student sector is crying out for some certainty around, perhaps, exemptions to travel bans. Whatever it is that they need, they’re crying out for. So you’ve got this economic setting at the moment, and here we are running roughshod with massive reform—the biggest in 30 years. Does the Government really want to push through these reforms at this particular time? That’s in addition to the reforms just being fundamentally wrong anyway. These are the sorts of questions that we put to the Minister, and the Minister just ignored it at our committee stage yesterday.

And then I want to raise the Hon Tracey Martin referring to her whiteboard exercise with the hairdressing industry—worth, by the way, $580 million to the economy; that was the 2017 figure. It’s a very big industry and very big contributor to our economy. When the Hon Tracey Martin referred to her whiteboard exercise, literally, with the industry, she didn’t actually say what the outcome of that was. But I can tell you what the outcome of that was. It’s written down here from the hairdressing sector: “Our position on the reform has not changed from our original submission, which included a petition with approximately 1,000 names of hairdressers that did not support the proposed changes”. So there you go: there’s the hairdressing opinion on this particular reform.

Whiteboard exercises or not, in the Hon Tracey Martin’s office, it does not matter. They don’t support it. We don’t support it. This is damaging reform and yet another damaging reputation on this Government.

How extraordinary it is that after around 40 speeches from the Opposition over the course of this piece of legislation in the House, we have not heard a single solution for how we move forward the interests of the vocational sector in New Zealand, one of the most critical sectors for the wellbeing of our young people and the future of our economy; a sector inherited by this Government, bleeding money, $100 million a year, and with massive shortages in key sectors of vocational training. Try and find enough plumbers or electricians or carpenters or labourers out there at the moment—a legacy of failure and a legacy of that previous Government that did nothing over nine years to deal with these problems.

With this Government, and under our Minister of Education, Chris Hipkins, things are different. We are taking up the challenges, dealing with the long-term challenges presented in the sector, and we have a positive plan to make sure that this sector moves forward, that we train the young people that we need for our economy and our society, and that we give them a bit of hope and the skills that they need to develop useful careers in our society.

This is a good piece of legislation. It has wide support across the sector, across staff in the sector, across key industry organisations, and it’s going to make a real difference. It’s part of this Government’s positive plan. I’m delighted to commend it to this House on this, its final reading. Thank you, Madam Speaker.