Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill

Members, we come to the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill. We start with Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 39—“Main amendments”—and Schedules 1 to 5. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Point of order, Mr Chair. I’m looking for guidance on when we can ask specific questions about specific polytechs in this section of this debate. This is a really big, meaty bill. It’s about 106 pages long, and I know that members here in the Chamber will have specific questions on how the passage of this bill might affect their specific polytechs. I’ve got, to the left of me, my colleague Hūhana Lyndon, who will probably be asking specific questions about NorthTec. I see Labour colleagues to my right—I see Arena Williams, who will probably be asking questions about the Manukau Institute of Technology, and so on and so forth. What is the appropriate stage of this debate where they will be able to ask specific questions about their specific polytechnics and the impacts of this legislation on their polytechnics?

A second part of that question, which is related, is that there is a quite big regulatory impact statement around this bill; it’s 67 pages long. There’s also another one, so there are several regulatory impact statements on this bill. There’s also the departmental disclosure statement. When is the appropriate time, at this stage of the debate, to be asking questions around it, because my colleagues and I do intend to go clause by clause on this bill after we’ve asked those, I would say, procedural questions and specific questions about local polytechs? I’m just seeking guidance from you.

Thank you for that point of order. My understanding is that Part 1 is the substantial part, so it is in this debate. Part 2 is consequential amendments. When those amendments flow through, that is when those discussions can be brought up. My understanding is it will be Part 1, and just to note that we are debating clauses 4 to 39, the main amendments, and Schedules 1 to 5. I hope that clarifies it. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to take a call on this Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill. While the Opposition does intend to take things clause by clause, and we do intend to start asking questions about specific polytechnics at this stage, I do want to take the opportunity now to highlight, in good faith, what I believe to be a drafting error in this legislation.

Of course, all Opposition amendments to this bill have been, and are, made in good faith, but I just wanted to highlight my Amendment Paper now, at the start of the debate, to give the Minister for Vocational Education time to seek advice from her advisers and consider adopting my amendment or incorporating the principles behind it into the legislation.

It’s no secret that the Greens have been opposed to the bill. Our opposition to it has been vigorous and has played out not only in the halls of Parliament and in the parliamentary written questions but also in the broadsheets of New Zealand’s most trusted paper, the Otago Daily Times, the New Zealand Herald, Stuff and TradeMe’s various methods, The Post, The Press, The Northern Advocate, of course, and also on the airwaves of radio and television. I understand why the Minister might be sceptical of my amendment and the good faith behind that amendment. While we do not support this bill, we do support legislation functioning as intended, and, at the moment, I do believe that there is a glaring omission at the heart of the Minister’s bill—the omission is, as drafted, that there is currently no way for an institution that has been established as an anchor polytechnic to be removed out of its designation; nor is there, arguably, a way for anchor polytechnics to be designated as an anchor polytechnic outside of being established as one from its inception.

Let me elaborate: new section 315, inserted by clause 22, which replaces Subpart 4 of Part 4, stipulates the conditions for establishing a polytech and establishes in new section 315, under clause 22, that a polytech that gets established may be established as an anchor polytechnic. If you scroll back earlier in the legislation, it does define that as being an Order in Council. There’s a section in clause 22, new section 337, which defines the role of anchor polytechnics, and another section, new section 338, that gives polytechs powers to charge fees. However, there is currently no clause that enables anchor polytechnics to be removed from the designation as an anchor polytechnic in this amendment legislation.

Now, one could argue that new section 315, inserted by clause 22, which replaces Subpart 4 of Part 4, gives the powers to designate the polytechnic by Orders in Council. But that is under the heading of “Establishment of polytechnics”. I would argue that the section is clearly for newly established polytechnics—so if you’re starting a polytech at the start, not intending to designate polytechs that already exist and are currently in existence and have been established.

Even if you could argue that, you couldn’t argue that there is a remotely similar clause that exists for anchor polytechnics. There is a section under clause 22, new section 337, that refers to “the anchor polytechnic ceases to be an anchor polytechnic;”. But if you contrast this to the wording around “federation polytechnics”, which does have a specific section around how they might be designated and how a federation polytechnic may cease to be designated under section 339—now, I know that this cannot be the Minister’s intention. The Minister has publicly stated and pledged to my local polytechnic, the Otago Polytechnic, and also to the Otago Daily Times, that if they meet the road to viability, which they’re on track to do, they will be able to exit the federation and exit their anchor polytechnic status.

What I have done is I have drafted an Amendment Paper, Amendment Paper 388, explicitly modelled after new section 339—the same section around federation polytechnics—that will enable anchor polytechnics to be designated and removed from the designation of anchor polytechnics, using the exact same language and the exact same processes that the Minister has outlined for federations. I understand there are several ways to slice a pizza; I’m not wedded to my specific way of doing it. I know that the anchor federations are established by an Order in Council, so I would be happy if there was similar language around that section of the Minister being able to remove anchor polytechnic status via Order in Council as well. I just want it explicitly stated in the legislation, and I would like the Minister to have a look at the legislation and instruct her officials to provide a clear way to designate and remove the designation of anchor polytechnics. That’s my contribution; I will be taking many more.

I wanted to ask a question of the Minister for Vocational Education, on something that we looked at as part of the select committee process, specifically around the appointment of the institute of technology and polytechnic (ITP) councils. I’m interested, Minister, in understanding how Māori will be represented on the ITP councils. I’ll give the Minister an opportunity to answer that question, and I’ve got another one should I get the opportunity afterwards.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and thank you for those two questions. I thank the Green Party member for the Amendment Paper 388 that has been put forward. I have had a look at that and I have discussed it with the officials. There’s no need for us to have that explicit in the legislation; it would be via an Order in Council.

I think, perhaps, looking at the anchor polytechnic and the federation polytechnics would be quite different in that the expectation is that federation polytechnics may well move in and out as their ability to provide academic programmes and to be financially sustainable—that they would then be considered for moving out or moving into a federation. However, the anchor polytechnic is exactly that: the anchor polytechnic; the one that is going to generally provide the services and programmes for the other federation polytechnic. The anticipation is that there would be a lot more movement of federation polytechnics than there would be of anchor polytechnics. But I thank the member for considering that. I thank him for his Amendment Paper, which I have looked at, but consider that there’s no need to have that, given that an Order in Council would be the way in which that would occur. As the member has noted, the ability is there for federation polytechnics to move out; it’s quite explicit.

In terms of Māori representation on councils of Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand (ITP), this is a matter that I think is incredibly important for the ITPs in that they must reflect the make-up of their community—making that as broad as possible. To ensure that a polytechnic is successful, it must be very engaged with their community, must be very integrated with their community, and must understand their community. Therefore, if a polytechnic was operating in a community which was predominantly Māori, you would expect that polytechnic’s council to be predominantly Māori.

What I don’t want to see happening, and which I feel has happened, is tick-box exercises where there’s been a “must have a Māori representative on council” and “Tick, we’ve done that.” That is not what should occur for polytechnics. They should be well integrated, well engaged with their community, and should reflect the make-up of their community.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s my intention to make some opening remarks, but just to signal that across this debate, we will be working through polytech by polytech, and then, given the industry concerns outlined in submissions, I will be encouraging my colleagues to be speaking to particular submissions and pieces of feedback in relation to this bill from industry partners. Buckle in, everyone, because I think we’re in for a long ride on this one: 106 pages.

This bill really sets out to achieve three things, and it’s outlined in the legislative statement. It aims to restore regional decision-making in vocational education and training; to increase industry leadership in vocational education and training, particularly in the areas of standards setting and work-based training; and, thirdly, to support vocational education and training to reflect local and regional education, training, and workforce needs.

I’m a pretty fair guy that will give the Minister for Vocational Education a pretty fair go. But when we reflect on those three goals or targets—whatever this Government wants to call them—this piece of legislation falls well short of achieving any of those three particular items that the Minister has pushed through this piece of legislation for. I go back to the point that that is because at a particular time the politics was hot around Te Pūkenga, we went through an election, the background of the Minister—she knew the subject matter area well—and there was an attraction politically to the merger of the polytechs across the country coming together.

The one part that I did expect the Minister to address in this legislation is that the problem that any Government or the sector has been trying to solve for decades is the financial viability piece. Throughout this process—and this is my first concern right up front—throughout the select committee process and in every reading, I have shared my concerns both with the Minister, with Government members that sit around the Education and Workforce Committee table, saying there is inadequate financial information that can give us the confidence that even if this was a good piece of legislation, a good structure and set-up, there’s no evidence or information to support us, to give confidence to us that this stacks up. I’ve come to the conclusion that this doesn’t stack up.

It’s not financially viable. I haven’t seen any information, nor has anyone ever told me that this puts the sector in a more financially viable position than it was prior to Te Pūkenga, and I still encourage the Minister to share that information with the House. Show us the money, Minister, that tells us that you are able to achieve these three things that you’ve outlined and we will scrutinise them clause by clause tonight. I’ll be asking the money question all along the way, because I don’t think it’s there, but if it’s there, then I’m also happy to eat my words.

I think the challenges across this—and coming back to the financial viability piece—is that stability is not achieved by cutting hundreds of jobs, stability is not achieved by closing down campuses, and it’s certainly not achieved by shutting and cancelling courses from across the country that meet the needs of learners, particularly those more vulnerable than others, but particularly those that sit in our regional communities. In fact, the sector is worse off, but if we’re having a real education conversation, learners are worse off under this piece of legislation.

With the remaining time tonight, since our chair of the Education and Workforce Committee opened up speaking to the Māori issues that we have with the bill, I’d like to traverse those first, if I may.

Hon Member: Is that the most important one?

SHANAN HALBERT: Well, it’s been a day of it, really. We’ve had the takutai moana bill that shafted Māoris, and so here we are doing it again. I look at Government members from across the House that at the eighth hour submitted amendments to the select committee report, obviously to accommodate the Government’s wishes and this Minister.

If I turn to clause 4(2), in “Section 9 amended (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)”, which replaces section 9(2)(e) with section 314(d), the question for the Minister is: in her view, why has this wording been changed? What advice did she receive from her officials on that? What are the other characteristics of polytechnics that she’s referring to in that particular section? Does this reduce the priority for polytechnics to improve Māori outcomes—yes or no? If they don’t, how will they be achieved and what advice has the Minister received on the outcomes for Māori at polytechnics? I’ll pause there.

I thank the member Shanan Halbert for his many questions. I’m delighted that we’re going to spend hours and hours talking about vocational education. I couldn’t be more pleased, and if we’re going to talk about each individual polytechnic, I will be absolutely delighted to shine a light on each of our polytechnics. So thank you for that opportunity. Thank you also for the opportunity to shine a light on our workplace training, our valuable apprentices and trainees and industries. I couldn’t be more pleased that we’re going to spend hours in this Chamber talking about vocational education.

In terms of the financial information, I’m very, very pleased to tell the member that, for the last 18 months, the Tertiary Education Commission has assigned financial advisers to each individual polytechnic to go through a pathway to financial sustainability—work that should have happened the day Te Pūkenga came into being. I reflect back on 2018 when $20 million had to be injected into Whitireia and WelTec to keep the lights on so that they could continue to pay their staff and their bills. The fact that no work was done in five years to address their financial situation was absolutely appalling. So I’m very pleased—

Shanan Halbert: Point of order. I just want to clarify the comment from the Minister—because we’ll tidy this up now—who commented that no work was done on the financial viability of the polytechnics across five years. I don’t understand that to be correct. She may like to correct her statement.

With points of order, please direct us to the Standing Order, which would help the committee. There will be opportunities for you to put an alternative view or a different perspective on what the Minister is saying. That opportunity will be made available to the committee.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m happy to correct my statement and say that insufficient work was done to ensure the financial sustainability of the polytechnics. It was incredibly heartbreaking to see that that sort of work was not done. I can also assure the member that we won’t face what the previous Government faced when setting up Te Pūkenga, which was a report, then a Budget bid, that went to the then Government saying, “Oh, we’ve set Te Pūkenga up but we haven’t got enough money to be able to make it operational. We have to do a whole reset of our digital systems and that is going to take hundreds of millions of dollars.” I understand from the first Budget bid that was leaked in October 2022 that that was to be $940 million - odd over 10 years. It was scaled back and scaled back and eventually got to a $200 million loan.

I’m happy with the work we have done over the last 18 months to ensure that individual polytechnics have got a pathway to sustainability, and I’m happy with the work that has been done in securing additional funding off $20 million a year over the next two years to ensure that strategically important areas, regions—geographic areas—are not put in jeopardy, and that strategically important disciplines such as agriculture or forestry are not going to be put in jeopardy while we work through what sort of funding changes might be needed in a long-term perspective of that.

I am confident that the work that has been done on individual polytechnics over the last 18 months has put them in a much better place. I acknowledge that had that work been done earlier, had the polytechnics been able to get back to their pre-COVID international student numbers, they may have not required so many redundancies. That is a factor of being part of Te Pūkenga. I’m hoping that they will be able to grow that again, and I consider that we are not going to be faced with the sort of question of an additional $930 million - odd being needed over the following nine years.

If I may bring the voice of Tai Tokerau into the Whare in terms of Tai Tokerau Wānanga. Tai Tokerau Wānanga—46 years of delivery as the pou whirinaki of vocational education for the people of Northland; a place where there has been significant commitment over generations from iwi Māori and community to a beautiful place we call home. As a graduate, as a former tutor and director, it has been wonderful to come together as community, as leaders, and as iwi Māori to reflect on student voice and concerns, who have continued to say NorthTec is important. NorthTec Tai Tokerau Wānanga requires investment; Tai Tokerau requires resourcing. It’s not always about financial viability; it can actually be for public good, because what’s good for Northland is good for all of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Grant McCallum: Oh, yes, yes—great speech.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Of course Grant agrees; of course our Northland MP agrees. It would be great to see him come to our meetings; they’re well-advertised. We only get hundreds of people come to talk about NorthTec because we’re all worried about it, and we’re committed to a pathway forward.

We stood in the Banquet Hall and we heard a great pitch. We heard a great pitch from the Northland Corporate Group, these big employers, who said, “As Northland, we can contribute some $60 billion into the New Zealand economy. Join us, New Zealand, and invest in Northland.” Well, I tell you, we cannot optimise that $60 billion worth of contributions to the New Zealand economy without the people workforce. If we ignore the people workforce, there ain’t no kaimahi. You’re going to be importing them from overseas or outside of the rohe, because, in Tai Tokerau, let’s get that clear; we are young, we are brown, and we are fertile. Our education rates continue to grow, and our population does too. It is Māori who are there, and it is Māori who need to be uplifted.

Can I refer to the institutes of technology and polytechnics (ITP) league chart—the table that compares NorthTec to other ITPs, the 16 across the country, for Māori achievement. NorthTec’s qualification completion rate for Māori was fourth out of 16 ITPs. For Māori, it was fourth out of 16. Now, in terms of the overarching retention of Māori learners at NorthTec, it was second out of 16 ITPs. I look at our overall—this is overall students—in terms of our progression rates across NorthTec. We continue to grow, and we were first; in the first year of studies, we were first out of all ITPs in New Zealand for retention. This is NorthTec, little old NorthTec—Raumanga, Rawene, Kaitāia, Kerikeri, and the closed Dargaville campus—punching above our weight nationally. This polytech has already been identified as being not financially viable—no pathway to financial viability.

I acknowledge the Minister’s invested, I think, a little bit in NorthTec, for a little bit of leeway—awesome. That’s a little bit of a breather for our region, but the question is, really, to the Minister, reflecting on these achievement rates; the way that we can retain our learners; the way that we can see progression happening both for Māori and non-Māori. We need to think of a plan whereby people are put at the centre of decision making instead of a balance sheet, because not all regions are the same, e tātou mā. I don’t know whether you know that Hokianga is different to Kerikeri; Kerikeri is different to Manurewa; Manurewa is different, of course, to Whakatāne; and Tai Tokerau is a little bit like Toi Ohomai. Tai Tokerau is a little bit like Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki. These are regional campuses that require urgent assistance and that pathway for us to be able to see a clear way forward.

My questions to the Minister, in relation particularly to NorthTec, are about assets, about these wonderful campuses around the hearts of communities like Kaitāia—Redan Road—like Kerikeri, and it’s called Te Pou o Kororipo. Rawene campus is something that is, right now, with community—but, actually, they want to do more. There’s a particular connection that I think maybe institutions such as NorthTec might be missing—and I’m asking the Chair to allow me to finish my kauwhau before the Minister answers—[Bell rung] Thank you, Mr Chair, may I complete my kauwhau? Kia ora.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yes, if you do it quickly, because there are answers that I’ve been waiting for.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Yes—and I have more pātai—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yes, if you just finish off there.

HŪHANA LYNDON: It just keeps giving, so give me a chance. My pātai is: we have that short runway of a little bit of investment to help us for the next year or two; we have these wonderful assets in our communities that have been hubs for educational excellence, as you’ve heard. NorthTec has great achievement rates and retention. But, further to that, are we going to see the investment in those places to stay open? May the doors stay open and allow and encourage our employers to get alongside NorthTec and start boosting student numbers with our equivalent full-time students?

Thank you so much, Mr Chair, I’m very pleased. Thank you to the member Hūhana Lyndon for bringing up NorthTec because it is a wonderful example of the work that has been done. I think they were the first polytechnic that I started engaging with the community—I think probably 18 months ago, maybe a little longer than that. There is a fabulous community group of leaders up there made up of business leaders, iwi leaders, local government leaders, chamber of commerce, the local economic development agency, who have been working away diligently because of exactly the comments that you have made: that it is an incredibly important part of the Far North—Northland and the Far North.

Yes, you will see in a number of the papers that are released that I was constantly getting advice that there was no pathway to viability. That was something I would not accept for that polytechnic because I consider it is too important for that region. That is why I have continued to work with them. I have ensured that they had financial assistance all the way through. You will be very pleased to know that out of the strategic investment fund, NorthTec have got the most of any polytechnic for the next two years. I am very keen to ensure that we keep provision in that area.

Can I make one point very clear to the member: you do not want a Minister of any stripe making decisions about where polytechnics have campuses. That is a decision that should be made by the council of that polytechnic because they should be engaged with their community; they should know what is needed in their community. Please do not let a Minister ever think they should be making that decision.

The other thing, though, I would say to you is that there were some unintended consequences of some legislation that the Green Party brought in a few years ago. One of them—I think that it would be really useful if you could look at an address. You have a very—sorry, not you. NorthTec has a very strong nursing degree. It’s an incredibly important degree and has a lot of mature Māori wāhine that take that programme, who up until a few years ago were able to stay on the marae when they came down to undertake a few days. They weren’t able to do that once the pastoral care code came in, which the Green Party brought in, because they couldn’t do it. These were mature women who had brought up families, but they weren’t able to stay on the marae themselves without having some kind of residential assistance there for them. I would like the Green Party to have a wee look at the unintended consequences that have made it very difficult for a number of mature women in the Far North who want to undertake their nursing degree. Thank you.

Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume tomorrow at 9 a.m.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 9.58 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)