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

Members, we now come to clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.

Title and commencement. One of the themes that’s been well traversed over the last few hours has been really kind of a defining feature of this bill, and that is a systematic stripping-out of references to Te Tiriti and also a weakening, a removal, and a dilution of commitments for the various institutions in the vocational education sector to engage with, consult with, Māori organisations and institutions in the communities they represent. We saw it in relation to new section 314(d); we saw it in relation to new section 318 removing the provision that a polytech council should, as reasonably practical, include Māori; new section 370(c) references to Te Tiriti removed; and, in 314, around the characteristics of polytechs.

So it’s one of the pervasive features of this bill, and during the committee stage we have persistently really quizzed the Minister and invited her to really explain, in the first instance, the removal of references to Te Tiriti, given that it’s our nation’s founding document. Those references convey a whole lot of things about the kind of quality—the seriousness—of the Crown’s and the public sector’s engagement with mana whenua and Māori institutions and stakeholders. I don’t believe that we have had a clear explanation from the Minister about the removal of those Treaty clauses.

If it’s just politics, if it’s just a function of the ACT Party’s coalition agreement, then let’s hear that, let’s say it. That would be interesting to know. But if the Minister has a deeper philosophical commitment to weakening those things, then that would also be interesting to hear. There’s a higher-level obligation that I think we have as a country to ensure that we look after the Treaty partnership; that we grow it, take it seriously. It’s one of the things about New Zealand that makes this country great and distinctive. But there’s a very practical reason why high-quality engagement with iwi Māori should be at the heart of something like the vocational and education training system. That is because Māori figure so prominently in statistics that show they are getting the rough end of the employment market and the education system, and we have an obligation to take that seriously and to fix that.

In light of all that, I would want to invite the committee to support Shanan Halbert’s Amendment Paper that would replace “Vocational Education and Training System” with “Dilute Māori Representation”. I think that that would make the title of this bill, the “Education and Training (Dilute Māori Representation) Amendment Bill”, much more appropriate.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Following that contribution—and we just tabled some amendments from my colleague Francisco Hernandez, which I’d like to speak to—I did want to ask the Minister for Vocational Education whether she believes that the title accurately represents the scope and intent of the legislation.

I ask this because, you know, when we’re engaging with the public, if I go out into the community and I say, “Have you heard of the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill?”, people may not know that, behind it, there was a broader intent of undermining our vocational education institutions. My colleague Francisco Hernandez put forward some suggested amendments which in his view do tend to better, in my view, reflect—and from my conversations with him—the sentiments both at the select committee process but, also, in terms of the actual impact that this bill is intending to have.

So, for example, one of his amendments was to change it to the “Ensuring Course and Campus Closures Amendment Bill”; the other one is “Education and Training (Committed to Ignoring Official Advice) Amendment Bill” and “Education and Training (So Long as Southern Institute of Technology (SIT) Survives) Amendment Bill.”

The reason for the need to often unpack whether the titles actually represent the intent of the bill is that I do think—unless you are studying law or unless someone who you know peruses the Parliament website often to go through legislation and the minutiae of it—it can be genuinely difficult to get a sense of whether titles reflect potential harm in our communities.

So, with that, I’d like to know whether the Minister would consider any of the proposed amendments by either Shanan Halbert or Francisco Hernandez to better represent the intent of the bill. If not, can I ask the Minister whether she genuinely believes that the current title, as it stands, adequately reflects the intended outcomes; and, if not, why not? And I ask whether she sought any advice from industry bodies in whether the title actually communicates the intention of the bill, as well. So I would appreciate engagement on the issue of the title.

Very quickly, I’ll answer the two suggestions that have been put forward. Yes, I think it’s a very appropriate title. I acknowledge that “vocational education and training” perhaps isn’t explicitly known by everyone, but it is a good explanation of the bill.

I note from the member Phil Twyford his suggestion of the alternate naming, which I think is entirely inappropriate because of—as I answered five or maybe six times—the references here around the expectations and engagement and representation of Māori in new sections 314(d), 318(1), 321(c), 370(e), inserted by clause 23, and the overarching general duty in the main Act to acknowledge the Treaty.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We’ve had a few hours of good discussion on the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill. I have put forward a number of amendments that, I think, better reflect the nature of this legislation that the Minister has put forward. I acknowledge her experience in this particular area—more so than many of us in here today. With this scale of reform, in fact, it’s no small feat, and she will carry a great sense of obligation and responsibility with her in the decisions that are made as a part of this legislation. Minister, can I just acknowledge you, today, and also your ability to respond to not all, but many, of our questions and your enthusiasm in doing that.

The title and commencement, particularly the commencement date: 1 January—that’s ambitious, as we all know, and we do want ambition in the sector. On the questions that I’ve asked around transition today—one example was the workforce development councils through to the industry skills boards—there hasn’t been a good explanation of the practicality of that transition between now and 1 January. I know that things take a while to set up, but what we’re concerned about here is the loss of work as we exit staff and make them redundant and the lapse of time between the disestablishment and reestablishment of a new entity. I’d be keen to hear from the Minister particularly around that commencement date and how she intends to do that.

I have thrown a couple of cheeky title changes in there, which I hope that the Minister finds humorous too. We’ve had a good relationship in to-ing and fro-ing in this debate, and I want that to continue. At the heart of it are the learners, and I’m still not convinced that this set-up offers better access to learning, particularly for Māori, for Pasifika, and for ethnic communities, but specifically for those out in the most remote parts of our country, in regional communities. It takes us back to a setup that we simply couldn’t afford.

The problem that we’ve been trying to solve from the outset is the financial viability piece, and there is not a successful vocational sector without financial viability. I’m still yet to see any evidence of whether the Minister is able to demonstrate that what she has put up is better than what was there before. That amendment I’ve called “Back to the Future”, replacing “Vocational Education and Training System” with “Back to the Future”. That’s simply because we’re going back to a model that was so expensive. We ended up with millions of dollars of debt. Consecutive Governments had to continue to bail institutions out, and that, in fact, is one of the primary reasons why we established Te Pūkenga. I just can’t see how the Minister is able to afford that, moving forward, or that it offers a sustainable future.

When I meet with any institution at the moment, they say that they feel uncertain and that they are experiencing the instability. Any meaningful engagement with the sector will show the impact of consecutive years of change. Again, the reform that the Minister puts before the Chamber today doesn’t aid in offering any certainty or stability for the sector. It, in fact, offers more instability and more questions that remain unresolved. I worry about that, Minister.

We didn’t have the opportunity, today, to talk in detail about industry skills boards and apprenticeships and that significant chunk of work, but I want to flag that as a priority, and I encourage the Minister to really focus on that part moving forward. I’ll end my contribution on this round there. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I thank the member Shanan Halbert for his thoughtful and considered comments at the finish, there. Look, I agree, there is a lot of work to be done in terms of enhancing the parity of esteem for our trades, our apprenticeships, our traineeships, and that is certainly an area that I am going to be focusing on in the coming year.

I also want to give an assurance to the member about my commitment to Māori, Pasifika, and regional communities. They are at the heart of what I am doing here, and I would extend an invitation to the member, once we are now through this, to come and meet with me and I will talk through some of the financial viability matters, particularly once we get the recapitalisation landed. That is going to make a huge difference to those polytechnics and industry skills boards.

I want to acknowledge the member’s own commitment to this sector, and I know that has driven his questions on it. I also acknowledge the impact on staff over the years of change, and I want to take this opportunity to thank all the staff for their professionalism. It’s been their professionalism that has ensured that the students haven’t suffered over this time. I can assure the member I read through all his suggested amendments. One or two were sorely tempting for me to accept, around the change of title—had a nice ring to it, some of them—but I’ll stick with the existing title. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I note the Minister’s comments that a couple of Amendment Papers were sorely tempting. I suspect it’s not the one that I’m about to speak to, but I do want to speak to Shanan Halbert’s amendment to replace “vocational education and training system” with “undoing reform and taking vocational education backwards”. It is probably a little bit strong, but the point that I want to make is just to pick up on a point that Shanan Halbert made—I think the Minister’s responded partially to it, but there’s another part to it that I would like to traverse in my short contribution—and that’s around both the characteristics of polytechnics and also new section 318, inserted by clause 23, which is “Matters to be considered when appointing members of polytechnic’s council”.

While I don’t have the huge wealth of experience around vocational training specifically that other members in this House who’ve spoken today have, I have seen a similar context within the universities, as well, and that is around the place that tertiary education has when it comes to pastoral care—when it comes to being able to reflect. I think this would probably be even more important for vocational education and training institutions to be able to reflect the communities that they serve, and therefore to be able to reflect both the needs and aspirations of the students who go to these training centres.

It does say in new section 314, in clause 23, when laying out the characteristics of the polytechnics, a whole bunch of things around the diversity of continuing education that these institutions provide and the fact that they are predominantly involved in providing continuing education that responds to the specific needs of their local communities. I think that focus on local communities is important, and regional need. It then goes on to say: “(d) they improve outcomes for Māori students and trainees and Māori communities in collaboration with Māori and iwi”, as well—those are fine. The issue that I have is with new section 318, which cuts out a whole number of groups, including, in 318(1)(a)(ii), ethnic, gender, and socio-economic diversity.

New section 318(1)(a)(iii) is also of concern, because it takes out the need for appointing members of polytechnics’ councils to be reflective when it comes to diversity of ability. I would have thought that, at a time when we’re seeing significant issues—I mean, if I were to just look at disability unemployment rates, it’s gone up from 8.2 percent in 2022 to 14 percent. Now, we know that employment and employability is directly related to training, and that’s largely what vocational training institutions in specific areas are trying to do to ensure that those who need to get employment in specific spaces and specific sectors have the training and education that they need to be able to do so. So removing them, working backwards—surely one would want the council or the decision-making bodies herein to be able to reflect the needs of those who are coming for training. I don’t understand removing these specific categories but then including a clause that says, “The council of a polytechnic should, as far as is reasonably practicable,— (a) reflect the communities in the region that the polytechnic serves”. That’s good, but it seems to me a step backwards, which is why I am arguing the change in title here. If one wants polytechnics to be reflective of the communities, then why take out the specifics of what that make-up should look like?

I do also want to take a quick moment to acknowledge, as Shanan Halbert has done, the care in which the Minister in the chair is responding to questions. That’s one we haven’t always seen, so I do want to acknowledge it. Thank you.

There is clearly an exhaustive number of contributions here, but I will take another call from Glen Bennett.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. The generosity is wonderful and goes a long way, and I will reciprocate with a short call. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Penny Simmonds, has acknowledged staff, and I want to thank her for that. I come from New Plymouth, and obviously the Western Institute of Technology (WITT) in Taranaki has really struggled.

In terms of the title, I want to mention the Amendment Paper in my colleague Shanan Halbert’s name, and it really is around the instability. I was at WITT recently, and what I heard from staff and from students was just the constant instability of change, of change, of change.

💬 Hon Penny Simmonds: Lovely new building—or lovely renovated building.

Yeah, there’s been some good work done. The Government has had to bail them out several times over the years in terms of financial viability. What came to me was the instability of the—yes, Te Pūkenga, I acknowledge, was a huge amount of change and upheaval, and now with the Government doing what they’re doing and the Minister doing what they’re doing, it’s just been constant change, instability, review after review after review. I want to support my colleague’s amendment that is on the Table, replacing “Vocational Education and Training System” with “Creating Instability in Vocational Training”.

I ask the Minister: you have assured and thanked the staff around the country for what they do in vocational education and training, but how do we assure that, going forward, there is stability; that the sector can feel confident; that it’s not going to be just another set of people rolling in from Wellington or from Auckland to places like Taranaki or Southland or the West Coast and again creating instability and creating fear in terms of that job uncertainty? We’ve got mortgages to pay; we’ve got kids to feed; we’ve got our communities to look after. I just want assurance from the Minister. Please, consider the amendment of Shanan Halbert’s—I think it is a good one—or maybe you could think of changing it so that there’s actual vocational stability in education that you want to bring in with this bill.

It’s frustrating for the people who are at the coalface—for people who are at the flax-roots—but we need to know, for them, that there is stability. In terms of the title, I support Shanan Halbert’s amendment, because I believe the Minister has created more instability in the sector, and I ask and plead that we can do something to ensure the staff, the students, and the community can feel affirmed and stable in the future, going forward, of vocational education.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Shanan Halbert’s 11 tabled amendments to clause 1 are out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Francisco Hernandez’s eight tabled amendments to clause 1 are out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2)

Second Reading