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

We now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 40 to 52, “Amendments to other legislation and revocation”, and Schedule 6. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It is challenging not to have had the opportunity to discuss at length a significant part of the proposed legislation, which is industry skills boards (ISBs). I appreciate that, in depth, we did discuss federation polytechnics, but the other significant component is industry skills boards. So I’m going to do my best to include this in Part 2, in “Amendments to other legislation”, in new section CW 55BAA “Federation of Polytechnics Committee and industry skills boards”, inserted by clause 41.

I’ll start there, because the Minister for Vocational Education will have—you know, this was a significant promise from the Minister to industry, that this legislation would enable them to have more leadership around the future development of workforce, around vocational training, in there, and it’s an area where many, many industry providers are dissatisfied with where this legislation has landed. Only 11 percent of submitters support this legislation—11 percent. So, when it comes to looking at the particular parts of industry skills boards, in there is this: the disestablishment of the workforce development councils. Openly, the Minister has been critical of Te Pūkenga overall. I don’t think she has been as critical of workforce development councils, because she will know that that had a lot of improvement, including the development and design of qualifications both at a micro and macro level; that there was a lot of work that was done in that particular piece to ensure that training providers—polytechs—were able to deliver relevant qualifications. And there was a heap of work to be able to do in that particular space to change the way that Kiwis learnt within the vocational sector.

In that is the proposal to disestablish workforce development councils. I accept that, but we have disestablished again, versus tweaked and just transitioned, and the Minister, here in this legislation, has chosen to establish industry skills boards. She’s offered up half the funding in that to industry skills boards, and she’s added on more work for them to be able to do with, essentially, less money to assist them in doing that. She has increased the industry skills boards by two additional boards in comparison to workforce development councils. I’m really keen to understand from her the rationale for that, because more boards also means more expenses, which she isn’t able to fund in that particular instance. How did she come up with that particular list of industry skills boards in there, and what is the allocation of funding to ensure that she is able to support those to be sustainable moving forward?

Her timelines have ISBs to be established on 1 January 2026. That is not on track to be set up. In addition to that, the Minister of Education—with a passing conversation, as I can see, with the Minister for Vocational Education—has committed her curriculum development to be connected with the ISBs. That’s new information to them, and there hasn’t been consultation with them, or there’s a lack of consultation, even with the Minister for Vocational Education. So I’ll start there, because I would like an explanation about how she’s come up with these decisions for ISBs: the transition to include two additional ISBs, the funding allocated to that, which is only half of what it is—how does she expect an organisation to have the same function of the previous one, to be able to deliver the outcomes that she needs? [Member resumes seat] Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Shanan Halbert.

Thank you. I see that the Minister is not willing to answer that particular question. There has—

Suze Redmayne: Keep waiting—she’s pondering.

SHANAN HALBERT: Oh, she’s pondering; she wants some more. She pretty capable, so I know she has answers to those questions.

But the industry skills boards also includes the allocation of apprenticeships, and ISBs are responsible for the future of our apprenticeship scheme in this country. Under her watch, there have been thousands fewer apprentices enrolling in programmes; there’s thousands fewer graduating from the programmes. We’ve explored this previously, but she isn’t explaining how this piece of legislation is going to increase the number of apprentices that we are growing in this country. The Government talks big about their investment in infrastructure, but we do have thousands of people going overseas. That’s not my issue. The issue for the sector here, and this legislation, is: will it produce the number of apprentices that the Minister needs to meet the Government’s expectations around their economic commitments and growing the relevant workforce that they particularly need to?

In that, as well, there’s the issue where she has shifted work-based learning—as an example— under ISBs, which is fine. The Motor Industry Training Organisation, as an example, came back and submitted and said she’s actually introduced a two-part process for them, which they don’t need. This is about enabling industry leaders, and so I’d be very keen for her to be able to explain that piece of work.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I was wondering if the member could help us by pointing us to which clauses and sections—that would help the committee.

SHANAN HALBERT: Sorry, in my first contribution I did acknowledge that, but in my second I didn’t. So I am referring to Part 2, new section CW 55BAA, “Federation of Polytechnics Committee and industry skills boards”, inserted by clause 41, subsection (1): “An amount of income derived [from] the Federation”—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Ah, yeah.

SHANAN HALBERT: —in that particular—ka pai? Thank you.

Because we know that—I go back to the problem that we’re trying to solve, which is the financial viability. Where providers feel let down, industry leaders feel let down, is that the Minister promised—she promised—more industry leadership, but that’s not what this legislation does. I would like her to explain that; explain that in response to comments from Alan Pollard. Why did she not deliver on that promise, and is there a window of opportunity for her to fulfil that promise with a particular amendment in the legislation that is before us?

I’m still keen to hear from her around the funding aspect, and then that will set up a bunch of new questions that will come within that section.

Thank you so much, Mr Chair. So I’m referring to Schedule 6, which I understand would fit within Part 2. Yeah. OK, I’m seeing nods. Great. Thank you.

So, on Schedule 6, I’m looking at page 101 here. This is the line that reads “Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006” and replaces section 157 with “Minister may require output agreement to include matters relating to Board’s relationship with industry skills board or workforce development council”. I wanted to ask the Minister for Vocational Education if she would elucidate what her intentions are for that relationship and what that relationship looks like; whether she would have seen that there’s this need for student voice within it as part of that relationship.

Then I also wanted to understand—particularly since the Education and Workforce Committee briefings that we would have received in hearings with the Minister—how much engagement has the Minister had in relationship to this? I guess this would touch on broader parts of the bill with the Minister for Social Development and Employment in relationship to the goals within the industry skills boards and workforce development councils, and whether the goals that she is pursuing within this bill, and particularly with the changes to the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006, also align with the intended goals of other policy outcomes that the Minister for Social Development and Employment is pursuing.

Once again, just in relationship to Schedule 6, Part 1—and I particularly wanted to pick up this area, just because I understand there has been a bit of debate on the nature of the industry skills boards and workforce development councils, which is specifically noted in the replacing of section 157, and so this is, specifically, between lines 10 and 25. So if the Minister would be able to, in relationship to the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006, elucidate what that relationship would look like. What communications, if any, has she had with the Minister for social development since the select committee stage, and would she see the need for voices within the workforce rather than just industry as part of that board and those respective areas noted in Schedule 6? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I’m delighted to be talking about the industry skills boards (ISBs) and the incredibly important work that our industry training does with our apprentices, our trainees, and our wonderful tradies across the country. It’s incredibly valuable and incredibly important, and it’s wonderful to have industry back in the driver’s seat with our industry skills boards.

In terms of the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006, the ISB for construction also has specialist trades in it. It’s named with that in it because of, I understand, the importance of the specialist trades within that broader picture of construction trades. It’s really important to give them that visibility. I know that the plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers have been really instrumental in driving that recognition of the specialist trades.

It’s really important that our ISBs set up the vehicle and the structure that enables the voices of those industries so that it isn’t a domination of the biggest industries within the ISBs, but that they hear from all of those industries that are encompassed by an ISB. I thank the member for his question and, yes, certainly the ISBs are being asked to ensure that they have structures in place that enable them to hear the voices of all the trades and all the industries within their ISB.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m coming back to new section CW 55BAA, inserted by clause 41, and the discussion around workforce development councils (WDCs) and industry skills boards (ISBs).

My questions for the Minister: WDCs have been tapering operations for some time now—this is relative to the transition—so how is the Minister going to get from the current state, half of what it was, to the new state? That question is: WDCs have been tapering operations for some time now, but are now actively making staff redundant to accommodate consultation requirements and notice periods; where does the mandate come from to do this before the legislation is passed? To what extent did the Minister start this work before this legislation was established? We have had concerns that the recent parts of the legislative process have moved really quickly. It was only two weeks ago that the Education and Workforce Committee reported back. Lo and behold, last week we had the second reading, and we have the committee of the whole House today, but very few amendments, which tells me that, despite a large number of submissions, the Minister hasn’t really taken those on board too much. I really want to drill into getting from A to B—that transition that she’s put in place.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just checking that WDC is workforce development councils?

SHANAN HALBERT: Workforce development councils—so, for anyone in the Chamber and at home, the Minister has decided to disestablish workforce development councils, which were highly successful in the last Government’s reforms. There was lots of opportunity there, but this Minister, under this legislation, has chosen to disestablish that successful model and re-establish a model with half the funding and more entities to manage, which just doesn’t make sense in any respect.

My second question for the Minister is: how will ISBs be enabled to deliver on their statutory functions from day one when, in some instances, only two or three roles from the workforce development councils to their corresponding ISBs have been identified for transfer via an expression of interest process? This is about the runway—the Minister wants it in place by 1 January 2026. I’m keen to understand from her, in some of those WDCs to ISBs, how does she see that happening within the time frame available? Is she expecting a gap between that to ensure that the continuation of work is there and that nothing is lost?

Also, third question: does she acknowledge that, essentially, some of the ISBs are having to start again in terms of recruitment, and that there will be significant impacts and time lapses in the provision of services to industry partners and to providers? Minister, I’d really appreciate it if you are able to answer these particular three questions, because they really talk to the success of this structure—proposed structure, at this stage. You’ve been pretty firm on this structure from the start, which has given industry a promise, and they say you’ve let them down. What do you say?

I’m just struggling a little bit with the member’s questions. He quoted new section CW 55BAA, inserted by clause 41, which is about the Income Tax Act 2007 and amendments there. I’m just trying to see what his question was regarding the Income Tax Act?

Just to check: the three questions that I asked, which were in relation to that particular point, new section CW 55BAA of the Income Tax Act 2007, inserted by clause 41 of the bill, industry skills boards (ISBs)—is she unwilling to answer the three questions about transition from workforce development councils to industry skills boards?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I think it was more around the relationship between the specific clauses.

SHANAN HALBERT: Well, the relationship, Mr Chair, is that we’re talking about a transition of a structure which has fiscal implications no matter which way that you look at it. So those questions are relevant because we’ve got a funding issue, we’ve got a staffing issue—

Suze Redmayne: No, we’re fixing your funding issue.

SHANAN HALBERT: —and we’ve got a transition issue. No, this isn’t my funding issue, Suzanne Redmayne from Rangitīkei.

Suze Redmayne: My name’s not Suzanne.

SHANAN HALBERT: Suze. This isn’t my funding issue. This is the funding issue that the Minister for Vocational Education has brought to the House under this new legislation. This legislation proposes full reform of a sector, without any financial information available to us to give us confidence that this is even going to exist in two years. How do we make decisions in this committee without the right fiscal information to give us confidence that ISBs can set themselves up, that they can transition, and that learners that are at the centre of this piece of work are still going to have access to opportunity and learning provision that they were guaranteed under the last structure?

This Minister has no money. She’s put up a proposal that looks good politically, but she hasn’t shown us the fiscals on how she is going to achieve that. That is not acceptable.

Suze Redmayne: The magic money tree wasn’t real money.

SHANAN HALBERT: Then show us what your sustainability plan is. I accept from Suze Redmayne, who says there is no magic money tree—I’m not proposing that there is a magic money tree, but what I am proposing is that any educational legislation that comes through this House should offer equity of access to learning opportunities no matter where you live. That includes regional communities who are cut off under this legislation.

Back to the Minister: are you willing to answer the questions relative to industry skills boards that you have proposed under this legislation? We can be tricky about which clause we’re talking about—ka pai. If we want to play that game, we will. But as educationalists, as people who know the sector, you’ve put up a model that says that it’s better than the last one—I’m still yet to see where. I’m still yet to see where your money is on this commitment without putting more cuts in place and less provision available to those in the regions.

Before I take the next call, just to reflect on: yes, this is a place of robust debate, and a bit of back and forth is fine. But if members want to have a further discussion, please take it outside—just to note that, as well, because it does disrupt the order of the committee. And just, also, to make the point: it would be helpful for the committee if we focus on the relevant sections and provisions to focus this debate, as well.

Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I’m looking at the changes to the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Act 2017, as laid out in Schedule 6—this is page 102 and lines between 10 and about 20. In relation to your guidance, Mr Chair, about making sure we refer to Part 2 but being able to tie it to Part 1, a lot of the changes in Schedule 6—which replaces the language of “workforce development council” with “industry skills board” or “ ‘workforce development council (as established or continued for the time being under’. ”—do relate to Part 1, because they’re singling out, basically, specific pieces of legislation that affect specific areas of our workforce; in this case, for instance, support workers.

One of the things that I asked in my last contribution, and that I didn’t get engagement or elucidation on, was this bill’s intent and the funding that goes along with it—for example, if we look at the support workers, who are a critical part of our workforce and will now also be captured in this new industry skills board—and whether the Minister has sought engagement or assurances from the Minister for Social Development and Employment in relation to the intended goals around getting young people to go into education, should they not be in employment. I wonder whether the mechanisms that she’s setting—for example, for support workers, under Schedule 6—will allow young people to enter into those professions, and, also, whether she’s confident that the new industry skills board, with the funding that it has and with the ability to also explore, for example, new qualifications, is fit for purpose to ensure that we have the range of qualifications that are necessary; whether it’s support workers or—for example, I note that above the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act 2017 in Schedule 6 is the Real Estate Agents Act 2008.

How will the Minister adequately ensure that our vocational education institutions are supported via the industry skills boards to look at quality assurance or new qualifications that may be needed, to ensure that, for those 18- and 19-year-olds who may not be able to find employment, and who are being told by this Government that education is something they should pursue, the range of qualification that connects this genuinely meets the needs of our communities and the economy? I’m tying this, as I said, to Schedule 6, because the previous Chair, Madam Chair, indicated to us that, should we want to tie something in the debate to Part 1, we just needed to reference something that was in Part 2. I just wanted to make sure that that is clear. Something that I didn’t get engagement on—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m not sure that that’s open slather.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: No, but I just wanted to make sure that I can make the links between Part 2 and Part 1, as per the guidance from the previous Chair. One thing I didn’t get engagement on in my previous line of questioning on Part 2 was, since the select committee stage, what engagement, if any, has the Minister had with the Minister for Social Development and Employment in relation to the changes that will be made to specific pieces of legislation that are subsequently amended, which affect very specific industry bodies and workforce groups? I wonder whether the policy intent in this bill, particularly, and the subsequent changes in Part 2, are in alignment with the perceived goals that the Minister for Social Development and Employment has. Thank you.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’ve only been in the Chair a few minutes, so I just want to get a feel for the kinds of topics that are being covered.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā koe e te Minita. I’ve been listening intently, hoping that the wānanga sector might come up, because they’ve got a lot of questions of their own and I know that they’re an interesting part of the education landscape.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I ask the member to refer to the clause or schedule that he’s speaking to.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Yeah, sure—sure. It’s CW 55BAA, inserted by clause 41, “Federation of Polytechnics Committee and the industry skills board”, and, more importantly, how the iwi, the hapū, or the wānanga voice gets there. So I’ll cut straight to the chase—you know, these come from the whare wānanga. So how will the changes to the principal Act, this part of it included, ensure that hapū and iwi be given support and time to establish a mechanism to capture what their labour market skills are? Given the tensions around the earlier parts of the bill and the robustness or otherwise of what that Māori representation might look like, it’s probably just that the wānangas have these views or have these questions. So it’s an opportunity for the Minister to respond to the wānanga sector.

Additionally, how will changes to the principal Act, this part included, reflect and respond equitably to the unique challenges faced by Māori across the regions? The regions is a key part because it’s a part of the wānanga catchment, I suppose—takes in more of the regions than the other main central ones. So it’s a fair enough question.

Additionally, in the bill, can the Minister provide examples of how changes to the primary Act, and again, representation at the confederation and the board levels, the skills board levels, is critical—how it reflects an understanding of the challenges of rural and remote learning delivered by wānanga Māori? These things—as we’ve shared earlier, Minister, you and I are well versed in these things, and what I neglected to tell you earlier is that the 11 years before I went to the institutes of technology and polytechnics and wānangas, I was at Te Wānanga o Raukawa.

The last pātai I have for you is: what feedback and advice has she received from her officials through engagements with the wānanga Māori sector on the bill? Were there any concerns raised by wānanga Māori in relation to representation of mana whenua, of Māori communities, of the wānanga sector, in the workforce development councils, in the federation, or the industry skills board?

Before I hand over to you, Minita, just a clarification that my whanaunga who’s running Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, she’s a proud descendant of the iwi she chairs, Ngāti Rārua and Ngāti Kuia, and Ngāti Rangitane. So kia ora, Olivia.

Thank you for that, and I apologise for that. Look, the wānanga are not involved in this legislation and this legislative change, but I do want to take a quick moment to celebrate our three wonderful wānanga: Te Wānanga o Aotearoa (TWOA), Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi, and Te Wānanga o Raukawa. It’s a good opportunity to give a shout-out to them, and for those of you who don’t know, the wonderful Rongo Wetere is back in the country, the founder of TWOA.

But I can assure the member that wānanga are exempt from needing any endorsement from the industry skills boards and capstone assessments or anything like that. So as much as I’m happy to talk about our three wonderful wānanga, it’s not within this legislation.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 381 be agreed to.

We now come to the questions on Schedule 1.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 381 be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 387 be agreed to.

We come to the questions on Schedule 2.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendments to Schedule 2, new Schedule 11A, set out on Amendment Paper 392, be agreed to.

We come to Schedule 3.

We now come to Schedule 4.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 381 be agreed to.

We now come to Schedule 5.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 5 set out on Amendment Paper 381 be agreed to.

We come to Schedule 6 now.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 6 set out on Amendment Paper 381 be agreed to.