Parliamentary debates: Wednesday, 15 October 2025

Members, when we suspended last evening, we were considering the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill and we were debating Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 39, “Main amendments”, and Schedules 1 to 5. The question is, again, that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to thank the Minister for her engagement last night on this bill, particularly her willingness to engage in hours and hours of discussion about how great the polytechs around this country would be, if necessary. The Opposition is also looking forward to that.

I also wanted to acknowledge something she said last night around the pastoral code issue, and around how that might have prevented some people in NorthTec from being able to stay the night at the marae—I mean, obviously, that pastoral code was a response to some very sad tragedies around halls of residence. There was a lot of stuff that was going on that shouldn’t have been. I’ve had mixed feedback from talking to stakeholders around it. Some of the groups that I’ve been talking to don’t think it’s strong enough. Some people that I’ve talked to—and acknowledging the submission made by the University of Otago and the University Advisory Group where they called for a review of it. A cross-party basis of reviewing it could potentially be on the cards, depending on the terms of reference, and we’re willing to engage constructively with the Minister on that bill.

Turning though to this bill, I want to start going clause by clause a little bit, while acknowledging that some colleagues might still have some specific questions to ask around specific polytechnics. I want to turn to clause 5(5) in Part 1, around the definition of “relevant services”. Now, the relevant services here include the design and development of micro-credentials, “the development and ongoing operation of a quality management system”, and “the provision of shared administration information services for 2 or more federation polytechnics”. I do believe that there are other relevant services that could, potentially, be added to that clause—for example, I’m thinking in particular, as we’ve just been talking about earlier in this debate, that pastoral care issues could perhaps come into shared services. Something that could be shared across different federation polytechnics, or one or more polytechs, is disability services, and disability support services in particular.

I want to acknowledge the joint submission that was made by the Disabled Persons Assembly and the National Disabled Students’ Association on the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill. They talked in their submission about how 38 percent of disabled people aged 15 years and over who are not currently in post - secondary education or training would like to do so in the future, but they face numerous barriers in accessing it. I think that including disability services in the relevant services that could be shared across the different services could be a way that we get a cohesive approach on this, and I do think that that is something we need to make sure is not lost with Te Pūkenga. It had a very good focus on reducing inequity between mainstream learners and learners with disabilities and on reducing the education gaps with Pasifika and Māori cohorts, and that was talked about in the annual review hearing with Te Pūkenga. We would like to see the disability services potentially included in this list of relevant services, as well as pastoral care services.

Another thing that could potentially go into it is marketing services, and particularly international student support, as well. We know that there has been an increased focus on getting the international students back. That started recovering in 2023, and there’s been a continuation and acceleration of that trend during this Government. We do feel that having provision for international support services and the marketing component of that could be something that’s beneficial to the vocational and educational training system going forward, if the different institutes of technology and polytechnics could share services and support between them in either the federation or the anchor federation context. I’ll have many more calls to take during this debate, but I’ll leave my contribution at that.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the member Francisco Hernandez. I appreciate that very constructive start to his question, where he offered to review the unintended consequences that have come from the pastoral code that the Green Party brought in. I think that’s very sensible, and I’m keen to talk further on that.

In terms of the federation and the shared services, it isn’t an exhaustive list. Obviously, in the legislation I would expect that the list will change over time. I absolutely accept what the member is saying about shared services for disability support, pastoral care, marketing, and international marketing. All those things, I think, are open to be able to be included in the sort of shared services, and I think the member has completely grasped the essence of the federation, which is that it’s going to be about what services are needed by the federation partners and what they can do to work together to be more effective, to save costs, and to be able to provide better service to students. Thank you for bringing in those matters, and they are exactly the sorts of things I would expect might be shared. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. This is my first call on what’s promising to be a lengthy and detailed examination of this bill. I just want to make some opening comments. I’m sure I share with all members in the committee a commitment to the importance of building a first-rate vocational education training system for this country, and we know how important that is for the social and economic outcomes that we all strive for.

I’m particularly interested through the course of the debate this morning to touch on what I think is the increased complexity in the system that is reflected in this bill, and I’ll be keen to ask some questions, particularly, around the federation model that is contained here. Like my colleague Shanan Halbert, I’m also keen to explore the costs that are not directly contained in the wording of this bill, but are nevertheless the elephant in the room in terms of a successful transition, and we’ll be doing that particularly around the sections of the bill that are around the establishment of the new industry skills boards, or the new polytechs.

One of the areas that we want to talk about is the weakening of the requirement to engage with Māori, and I want to direct the Minister for Vocational Education’s attention to new section 318 in clause 22 of the bill. This is just one of a number of issues that we’ll be discussing over the next few hours. New section 318, basically, amends the text by deleting a requirement that “(1) The council of a polytechnic should, as far as is reasonably practicable,—(a) reflect the communities in the region that the polytechnic serves,”—and then it specifies—“(i) industries and commercial activities; and (ii) ethnic, gender, and socio-economic diversity; and (iii) diversity of abilities; and (b) include Māori.” in that governance of the polytechs. It’s been replaced by a new subsection (1), which says that “The council of a polytechnic should, as far as is reasonably practicable, reflect the communities in the region that the polytechnic serves.”

I have two questions for the Minister. Given the centrality of the Treaty in our country’s public life and matters of public policy and the importance of Māori being at the table and fully engaged in decision making and so on, including in the governance of our country’s institutions, why would the Government deliberately exclude the reference to including Māori in the governance of polytechs? That’s the first question.

The second question is: why replace the specificity that was in the original text with a phrase that simply says “reflect the communities”? What does “reflect the communities” mean? I mean, our communities are made up of a myriad of different identities and qualities. Does it mean the people on the board should live in the same place? Does it mean they should have brown hair or blue eyes? It could literally mean anything, to say “reflect the communities”, and I think we owe it to the communities we serve that if you want to give a direction about what groups should be included in the governance of a board that is serving a particular community, why not say it—why not be more precise?

I put it to the Minister that this—I mean, and I’d like to know whether this is kind of a deliberate vagueness here and what kind of outcomes she is suggesting. Who does she think should be included, and if she does have in mind specific groups that should be included in the governance of a given polytech, why not say it, because otherwise, how are people going to know?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I did address this yesterday, but I am very happy to go over it again. I think it’s an important part. Can I also just thank the member Phil Twyford for talking about how important this sector is. It is particularly important for our Government, given the Going For Growth agenda, and I am very happy to talk about costs as we go through the day because we’ve got some very good stories around costs.

In terms of this particular section, I think it’s very important to ensure that a piece of legislation like this can be enduring, and to put exhaustive lists in really constrains things to the moment, now. By having a much less exhaustive list and to be leaving it open-ended, to be leaving it inclusive, and to be giving the intent, that allows the local region to look at their region, and I’ve said this on multiple occasions: a successful polytechnic is one that is engaged with its community, that is integrated with its community, that takes notice of its community, and that works with its community.

This is very much about insisting that it is not a tick-box exercise—“Oh good, we’ve done what we should do in the legislation.” This is about ensuring polytechnics are taking notice of their community and reflecting their community, and communities will evolve over time and so will be able to be open enough and inclusive enough to take note and reflect their community at any given time. I would expect that there would be virtually no community in this country that would not have a significant proportion of Māori in it, and therefore I would expect that that would be reflected in the council. In some, it may well be a majority of council members, but let’s leave it as open and as inclusive as possible for the local regions and the local people to make that call on the basis of the make-up of their community.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to ask the Minister another question this morning. It’s a pity that we’re revisiting issues that were addressed last night already. I just want to acknowledge the Minister’s focus on creating enduring legislation, and it’s a pity that the previous Government spent a billion dollars trying to solve a problem that was only about a few million at the time and it didn’t create an enduring solution. So I just want to acknowledge the Minister’s focus on creating an enduring solution in the polytechnic sector.

A part of that is the establishment of industry skills boards to ensure that industry is able to have a role in the polytechnic system in New Zealand. My question for the Minister is regarding the representation on those industry skills boards and how they’ll be created to ensure that the polytechnic sector is supported by industry. Specifically, given the conversation we’ve just had, how will Māori be represented on those industry skills boards? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The industry skills boards are such an integral part of the whole vocational education and training system. Industry should be driving our vocational education and training system, and that is why the industry skills boards have been put in place. They are to be driven by industry. Six of the governing positions will be put there by industry and two will be put by the Minister, but the Minister can only appoint people that industry have nominated, and so the Minister is constrained again by ensuring that they are industry people to be there.

The whole notion of our industry qualifications being driven by industry is integral to this. The industry skills boards will set the standards, will develop the qualifications, will undertake the moderation, will give endorsement to those entities that can run the programmes, and will give advice to the Tertiary Education Commission about where funding should go so that it’s in the right place at the right time. This is about industry being put in the driver’s seat again of ensuring that industry qualifications are fit for what industry wants out in the workforce. It’s really absolutely being driven by industry.

In terms of the membership—and I just want to get to the right clause, and I’m hoping someone on the bench behind me—

Section 356.

Section 356, is it? Let me get to that quickly—

Section 362, sorry.

Section 362—thank you. Yes, I didn’t think it was that. New section 362 in clause 23—the membership. We expect that the membership will give effect to the tertiary education strategy. The roles of the board will be giving effect to the tertiary education strategy and the particular populations that are referenced in the tertiary education strategy—sorry, I’m quickly trying to find it, and I’m hoping someone will tell me which clause it is. [Interruption] It’s new section 370(e) in clause 23—thank you very much. Here we are, yes: it will have “regard to the needs of Māori and other population groups as identified in the tertiary education strategy issued under section 7.”

It is incredibly important. The tertiary education strategy is absolutely wanting to ensure that there is equity of access and there is an absolute emphasis on ensuring that Māori are achieving. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e te Heamana. Tēnā hoki koe e te Minita. I’m not wanting to relitigate anything, but I’m actually just trying to get some specific answers and clarity for communities throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and Aotearoa, particularly small communities like the one I live in, several of whom I represent.

I want to preface my comments by thanking the Eastern Institute of Technology (EIT) for their service throughout Tairāwhiti over the years, servicing people as far north as Pōtaka, tae noa atu ki roto o Kahungunu [and all the way into Kahungunu].

I just want to pick up on the Minister’s statements about giving regard to Māori. It’s very hard for me to stomach that when, in fact, the words “include Māori” are being struck out. So I just wanted to ask the Minister, for clarity, whether she can accept that the reason that this clause was put in there is because Māori were not adequately represented, and I would like an explanation of how giving regard to Māori representation will look. For example, in an area like Tairāwhiti, where 56 percent of the population are Māori, does that mean that 56 percent of the council will be Māori? I’m just really interested in how that will be addressed and delivered upon, because those clauses were put—

Labour loves quotas.

Oh, hang on. We’ve got an expert across here. What was that—what was that, expert on Māori representation? Nothing—kia ora. Now, can she appreciate—

And you’re an expert?

Calm down.

—that clauses—

How are you an expert?

What was that?

Calm down. I invite—

What’s that, Mr Bates?

I invite the questioner to continue her questions to the Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair—get those experts to settle down. So does she appreciate that clauses like that were included because of a lack of representation of Māori, and how exactly is she going to ensure the balance of representation? Actually, by leaving it, I think she’s making it more complex. Heoi anō.

It was really awesome also to hear the Minister talking about primary industries and how they will be represented. I’m definitely interested in that, in areas throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti where industries like forestry, etc., are major drivers of employment and economy. So what’s that balance going to look like for smaller regions?

Now, I refer back to section 314(d) in clause 22, which provides that one of the characteristics of polytechnics is that “they improve outcomes for Māori students and trainees and Māori communities in collaboration with Māori and iwi and other interested persons”, and, in particular, the part where it says that they “improve outcomes for Māori students”. Now, how can this be ensured when areas like Tairāwhiti and EIT Tairāwhiti, who have a Māori population of 56 percent and a rangatahi population of 70.4 percent, have lost 40 academic and support roles? How is that improving outcomes for Māori students?

Now, we’re talking about centralisation, as well. What assurances does that give for communities who cannot necessarily get the amount of students or “bums on seats” that may be required by the institution but still deserve access to education? What assurances can the Minister provide for people across rural communities from Wharekahika to Tolaga Bay, and even actually in Gisborne—now that massive amounts of staff have been lost—that they will have access to education?

Recently, we’ve had a really good tranche of nursing students come out of EIT. Our hospital is at only 63 percent of staffing capacity. What assurances can the Minister give to ensure access to education and that it will flow on to employment in our smaller regions?

I also think about the wonderful beauty course being delivered out of Maraenui. What assurances can the Minister give to them that they will continue to have access to education and employment? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am so pleased that the member asked me to discuss the Eastern Institute of Technology (EIT). What a wonderful polytechnic, a wonderful institution—I’m absolutely delighted to talk about it—and what a great example she has given of a community that has a population of 56 percent who are Māori. This clause enables the local community—not the Minister sitting in Wellington, but the local community—to decide what the make-up of that board and of that council should be for EIT. What a wonderful opportunity to ensure that the 56 percent proportion of Māori in that population is well represented on that council, and, if it’s not, then they should be looking very closely at their local board that was put in place.

I’m delighted to talk about EIT, and the member is quite right that there have been some losses there. There have not been as many as in some places, but there have been some losses there.

One of the things that I’ve been incredibly disappointed about for EIT is that they had a very difficult time under Cyclone Gabrielle, their campus was ruined, and they had to rebuild it again. There was a bit of gap in the insurance, and no help was given to them under the previous Government, but even worse than this—and I hope the member listens very carefully to this; this is one of the reasons why redundancies have had to be made there. Under the previous Government, $6.5 million was clawed back by the Tertiary Education Commission because, with the closure of their campus from the cyclone, they didn’t meet their targeted numbers. So, instead of doing what happened when there was an earthquake in Christchurch and where they were able to keep their numbers for a number of years, $6.5 million was clawed back. They had to drop down their base number that they started from, and I’m having to rebuild that again for them.

The member will be delighted to know—absolutely delighted to know, I’m sure—that EIT will be getting $1.559 million under the strategic fund in the next two years. I’m also looking under the recapitalisation at what we can do to help them there in order to address that dreadful situation where $6.5 million was clawed back from them during the previous Government. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā koe, Minister. I’m sure we all know the importance of education. I’d spent the last 15 years before coming here in institutes of technology and polytechnics, and universities. I was at the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT) for seven years, while Penny was down south at the Southern Institute of Technology. We’ve hashed all of these—

“While the Minister”—not the first name.

Oh, the Minister—the Minister. These things have been hashed out time and time again. We’re here considering a new federation model when the one that’s being thrown out was the federation model. We’re here talking about Māori representation on councils. There’s never been good Māori representation on councils, and these adjustments—

I’ve sat on council with some good Māori.

You’ve got no clue—no clue. Penny knows—the Minister knows—that these adjustments won’t achieve it. These adjustments won’t achieve it. Mana whenua managed to produce good Māori input into councils, but it’s not as a result of any Government law; it’s as a result of iwi determination and presence in those rohe. [Interruption] Don’t you just love listening to the guys who know nothing about something? [Interruption]

I’m only noting the speaker’s comments, and I’d ask the others to just tone theirs down a bit. Thank you.

The key role for education and training, probably more so training in this country’s current situation—training, getting people from one job to the next one, or out of work and into a job—is vital for the future economy, and here we are, two years into solving the problem and we’re not quite there yet. Does the sector have to wait another three years to get the next revamp of the same ideas? We need the training done effectively and we need it done quickly. That’s what the economy needs.

In 2010, Arthur Graves came down—no, no, sorry. He came down, probably, in about 2012. He came down to NMIT and sold us the story of why Māori and Pacific trade training was so desperately needed. His story was that we’ve got 30 percent of the workforce retiring—they’re the baby boomers—and exiting over the next decade or more, and that 30 percent of retirees exiting the workforce were being replaced by a 30 percent cohort of young Māori and Polynesians. Now, the conundrum for the Government of the time was that the legislative settings and, indeed, all the settings in education continued to produce poor to despicable results for those young Māori and Polynesians. That was their problem, OK, and so what’s the fix? It’s Māori and Pacific trade training. The first cab off the rank was Ngāi Tahu. They showed up with their money, He Toki ki te Rika, away they’d go, and they were a raging success—a raging success for more than a decade—and then, slowly but surely, all the other regions would come on. They’re supported by their iwi, and that’s the story of Māori and Pacific trade training. The problem it was trying to address was the skill gap in the labour workforce of the economy. Now, if you can’t get that right, your future economy is just buggered.

So here we are, continuing to talk about the same challenges and trying to fix them whilst the need continues to go unaddressed. It needs some speed, Minister, and I know you’d appreciate that. That 30 percent young Māori and Pacific Island cohort who are going to drive the future economy, they deserve action fast. The iwi people will support them. The community people will support them, like they already have. They need the legislative settings and the right policies to enable good action. Now, unfortunately, the Government has pulled the funding on Māori and Pacific trade training, and in Otago the managers who look after all of that apprentice work that those Māori and Pacific trade training graduates would go into have experienced a 67 percent downturn in the take-up of apprenticeships by young Māori and Polynesians. These are the problems on the table for any solutions that you have here, e te Minita.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m delighted to be talking about the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT) in particular, where the member Tākuta Ferris had 15 years’ experience. Of course, I had 30 years’ experience, but it’s great that there are others who have got experience in this sector.

I particularly want to acknowledge that the polytech sector is known for training Māori and Pasifika, and I will stand corrected if someone will give me a different figure, but I believe that the polytech sector trains more Māori than any other part of the tertiary education sector. That’s something that I am incredibly proud of. In terms of that wonderful institution NMIT in Nelson-Marlborough, what a great institution that is, and I am so delighted that we have found a young star there. Young Ngāi Tahu Olivia Hall, who is the director there, has done wonderful work there. She is also a member, of course, of the iwi leaders forum for education and has, again, done wonderful work feeding in to these challenges.

Look, I absolutely agree with what the member has said: it needs to happen fast—the changes need to happen fast. I will correct the member that Māori and Pasifika trades training still exists and is still going, and I am absolutely looking forward to that growing as the economy takes off again because construction is doing so well in the South. I thank the member for bringing to the committee’s attention how well the polytechnic sector serves our Māori communities.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. This is my first contribution for the morning. You know, I acknowledge the Minister for Vocational Education’s been in this game for a long time, and I acknowledge that the Government members, both last night and this morning, have launched out our chair for the Education and Workforce Committee, Carl Bates, who has asked specifically around the impact for Māori and some of the specific changes in the legislation that were made by the Government members on the select committee and given the Minister the opportunity to respond to those. However—

And that’s fine. It’s good to see Government members taking calls rather than closure motions, right?

I applaud them for that. Long may it continue over the next few hours.

Only if they’re relevant, right?

But speaking of relevancy, I do want to come back specifically to the Māori piece and the Te Tiriti piece that I don’t believe that the Minister has answered. Last night, I did ask a series of questions relevant to new section 314(d) in clause 22, in particular, that the Minister didn’t respond to. The main theme there is the amendments to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and I guess, given her sheer experience—was it 25 years, Minister?—in the tertiary sector—

30.

—30 years in the tertiary sector—she would have a very good understanding around the inequities that sit in the system, particularly for Māori. I’m interested to understand from her why she reached out in this legislation. What we’ve seen through submissions is very few amendments overall, but she did go out of her way with the Government members in the select committee process to make changes to the Māori piece and the Te Tiriti piece.

My first question for the Minister is that I’m just really interested to understand, out of 106 pages of legislation—you know, you’ve really gone out of your way to make changes there. It does dilute Māori representation and, therefore, will directly impact on achieving Māori outcomes. My colleague Cushla Tangaere-Manuel spoke specifically—

What about the French? Can you show me the logic lying there?

—about the Eastern Institute of Technology—and I appreciate that Stuart Smith really has an interest around better French representation on the council. It’s all over to you—we can speak to the French section a little bit later on. But I just reserve the right and I just want to speak about the Māori parts. I’m keen to cover that off first, before we get to the French, Mr Smith. I’m keen to understand from the Minister the whakapapa, in her view, of why these changes were important, given all the changes that we might require in this particular amendment.

I come back to this. I’ve got two minutes in this piece, but you’ll see in the select committee report a—

You don’t have to take it all.

No, I will take that one, and I’ll take some more too, until we have specific answers to why the Government has made changes specifically to create worse outcomes for Māori and to dilute the reference to Te Tiriti. So—if I may, Madam Chair—I’m very keen to get a good understanding because this sits at the baseline of the success of our tertiary sector. If we don’t get on top of this particular piece, there won’t be better outcomes. We’ll continue to have an inequitable system, and some will do better than others across tertiary education and vocational training in this country.

If I come back to the departmental report, clearly, submissions related to the Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations were common amongst many submissions. They were mostly themed around the removal of explicit Te Tiriti obligations for the vocational education sector, such as the obligations under section 9(1)(g) of the principal Act, the absence of effective engagement with Māori throughout the drafting process, and the potential lack of ongoing accountability to Māori and Māori representation through governance settings. Now, that wasn’t just a handful, and so my two questions there for the Minister are: what’s the whakapapa here, why has she gone out of her way to make these changes, and is there influence from the ACT Party and New Zealand First on her in this sense; and what advice has she received around the impact of these changes?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m delighted to speak about this for the fourth time. Let’s just go to the exact clauses. Let me now talk about section 314(d) in clause 22, which says that the characteristics of a polytechnic are to “improve outcomes for Māori students and trainees and Māori communities in collaboration with Māori and iwi and other interested persons or bodies.” It’s a very clear characteristic of the new polytechnics. It’s wonderful to see that there in writing, isn’t it?

Let go to section 318(1) in clause 22: “The council of a polytechnic should, as far as is reasonably practicable, reflect the communities in the region that the polytechnic serves.” We had the wonderful example that the Eastern Institute of Technology is in a community where 56 percent of the population are Māori, and that’s exactly what we expect to see reflected in the council of that entity.

Now let’s go to section 321(c) in clause 22, which says that the additional duties of the council of a polytechnic include to “ensure that the polytechnic operates in a way that allows the polytechnic to develop meaningful relationships”—meaningful relationships, not tick-boxes—“and to engage with communities at a local level, including industries, Māori employers, hapū and iwi, and Pacific communities.” You’ll be delighted to see how well that is baked into the legislation, and of course, within the wider legislation, polytechnics still have a general duty to acknowledge the Treaty in the main Act. Isn’t it wonderful that we’re seeing this right across the legislation, and I’m happy that we can celebrate that and showcase that today.

I’m going to take a call from Ingrid Leary, but on the topic of what’s in the bill around giving regard to Māori in local polytechs, etc.—I think the Minister has covered that quite well—unless there are specific clauses or questions that people want to refer to. No more general questions on that front; I want specific ones.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to ask the Minister about an elephant in the room in the lower South, in terms of why she is tearing apart our region when it comes to tertiary education.

It is easy for members of her party to say to people, “Don’t take things personally.”, but I would like her to consider how personal it is to the people in Dunedin when our whole economy is predicated on health and education through the tertiary sector. We have had this Government stymie the ability of the new Dunedin Hospital to be a gold-star hospital that will provide world-leading, tertiary-level excellence in medical education. We have now had the polytech kneecapped because it has been set side by side, pitted against the Southern Institute of Technology (SIT), and so my question is: how is that not personal, and how can she assure people in Dunedin that there is no conflict of interest when she was indeed the chief executive of the Southern Institute of Technology since 1997, when she went into politics with a clear mandate—

I’m not sure that the Minister actually sits with the responsibility for all polytechs. I don’t believe that that is a fair—it’s not an accusation, but it’s not a fair question in the context of what we’re trying to do in this piece of legislation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just point to the regulatory impact statement (RIS), at page 3, which talks about the lack of consultation and the lack of being able to assess the risks, and so one of my questions is: who bears those risks, particularly when there is active competition between polytechs in the way this has been set up? These are questions that have been asked in the media and they are being asked by locals, and this is an opportunity, in fact, for the Minister to show that this is not personal.

There is no clear rationale that has been explained to the people of the South as to why SIT gets treatment on one hand—including Cabinet investment under her Government—versus no funding and a requirement for the Otago Polytechnic to have a pathway to recovery which the unions have described as a cost-cutting programme. These are very legitimate questions, and the people in Dunedin legitimately feel like they have been kneecapped. If that is not the case, then this is the Minister’s opportunity to explain that and to explain away the culture of anxiety that has been described by staff and reported on by the Otago Daily Times. This is an opportunity for her to explain to the whole workforce in Dunedin, of whom between 30 and 60 percent, and 30 percent at minimum, work in health and education. So these are very live questions in my part of the world.

I’d like to commend the polytech for coming out and being really open and robust at the beginning of the process and say that they were appalled by the lack of consultation by this Minister, that they did not know they were going to be part of the federation until the announcement was made, and that they sought and did not get a meeting with the Minister for some time because she was too busy to consult with them. If that is not something to be taken personally, then I would like to understand from the Minister what led to those actions, because it felt like kneecapping, not only to the tertiary sector in Dunedin but to the greater Dunedin community, because education is our lifeblood, and, time and time again, we have seen from this Government a kneecapping of our lifeblood in Dunedin and a disregard.

I would also say for context that it does seem personal when this is the same Minister who at the eleventh hour, in a different capacity, overturned a local government decision where local ratepayers had paid $18 million to get a decision made locally, in local democracy, around fresh water. It was this Minister who led the charge against that. Now, this is all relevant—

It’s not relevant to this piece of legislation. The last piece is not relevant to this piece of legislation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My questions then, really, are around batting away the very strong perception of conflict of interest that exists for us locally; understanding from the Minister who she thinks bears the risk of her decisions, given that the RIS, on page 3, makes it very clear that there was not time to adequately assess Option 2B. What can she say to claims locally that there is a privatisation agenda in tertiary education, because we have seen a mental health programme cut from Otago Polytechnic that is now suddenly appearing via a private provider in Dunedin. These are very vexed questions for our community, and I welcome a long explanation from the Minister to assure us that we should not take this personally.

Oh, Madam Chair, am I pleased to be able to straighten out some of that misinformation that has just been put out by that member Ingrid Leary. What a pity—what a pity. It is a wonderful polytechnic, Otago Polytechnic, that has been so damaged by Te Pūkenga, and all she wants to do is put out misinformation.

I’m going to spell this out very clearly because I know that financial matters can be quite challenging for some members of the Labour Party, but let me make it very clear to you: there was no conflict of interest there. Otago Polytechnic, sadly, have a debt of $16 million, and to ensure that they are sustainable, I want to wrap support around them because I know how important that polytechnic is to Dunedin. That is why we have wrapped strong governance support around them, that is why I have enabled them to be in the federation to get the additional support, and when the member tries to pit Otago Polytechnic against the Southern Institute of Technology (SIT), what an unfortunate thing to do, because here I am, trying to recapitalise and support Otago Polytechnic. The difference here is that when you have no money in the bank and you have debt that I am trying to solve for them, if they run a deficit, what does she think will happen to that polytechnic? I do not want to see them in that position.

Now, let me give her the opposite situation in SIT, which went into Te Pūkenga with $40 million in reserves. Only $15 million of that will be ring-fenced, and so they will not come out with the full amount that they went in with, because in the recapitalisation exercise, we’re having to ensure that we take away that debt from those that have got debt so that they have every chance of being successful in the future. And do you know what—sorry, not you, Madam Chair. I’m sure you’d know—

I wasn’t taking it personally.

—but that member should be very aware that to take away that debt, a number of polytechnics that went in with significant reserves will not come out with the same level of reserves. Any time you want to thank me for that, I say to the member of Parliament for Taieri, you come and see me, because we are going to ensure that all the polytechnics come out in a way that they will be able to sustain their operations going forward.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be able to discuss that misinformation that has been spread by that member in Otago. Otago is a wonderful polytechnic, and I want to do the very best for them to ensure that they can continue to be a wonderful polytechnic going forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This will be the last contribution from our side on the question of Treaty clauses and Māori representation, but the reason I want to take this call is that the Minister hasn’t yet provided an understandable explanation for the removal of Treaty clauses. We’ve talked about the issue generally and so on, but I’m really keen to hear from her why she is determined to strip references to Te Tiriti out of this bill.

I’d point her directly to new section 370(c) in clause 23, about the industry skills boards. Now, if I think about the Māori community in the communities that I represent in West Auckland, probably one in five of our people in the communities I serve are Māori. We have Te Kawerau ā Maki, our mana whenua in West Auckland, and large Māori organisations like Te Whānau o Waipareira. We have thriving marae and a network of Māori community organisations. There is significant leadership in our community, where Unitec provides the essential service of vocational education and training, and in West Auckland, like in so many parts of the country, young Māori are the ones who have been so disadvantaged over time and who desperately need responsive services and institutions in vocational education and training.

Why would you take out from the charter of a vital piece of the machinery like the industry skills boards the obligation that a Treaty clause conveys to engage fully with Māori leadership and with mana whenua to ensure that the right services are being delivered? I’m baffled by that. In this debate so far, we’ve had a number of calls on this question, but I haven’t yet heard from the Minister a clear explanation why she’s determined to strip the Treaty clause out, and I invite her to give us that.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Thank you for allowing me to speak on this bill but also to respond to some of the kōrero that the Minister for Vocational Education has placed in the committee in relation to NorthTec, and particularly marae-based stays.

Having been the director at the time, it was an effort for us to provide a place for students—yes, nursing students and others—to stay at the marae as a whare haumaru [safe haven] for them to study at NorthTec, because in Northland it’s hard to get around. We don’t have public transport like in urban settings. You’ll be lucky to get a bus on time in Whangārei and despite the best advocacy of students to Northland Regional Council to change the bus timetable, they wouldn’t, and so students would have to start way earlier and get their kids off to school way earlier in order to catch a bus.

I want to go to the pastoral support code that the Minister did speak to, and which the Green Party did support, because that code is the anchor, and maybe we need to review it. Maybe we need to review it because I’ve heard from Student Voice, in particular—[Interruption]—that they want to strengthen it. I’m going to talk to the bill and I will continue to talk—

No, that’s all right. I was just going to say that the Minister did agree to what you were asking just before too, when your colleague asked.

Kia ora, thank you, and it’s great because, from the Student Voice perspective, they certainly do feel ignored a lot of the time, and especially when you’re paying your voluntary student levy and it’s going into a black hole sometimes, you don’t know where the services are landing.

In terms of this legislation, some of the opportunity that we have is to strengthen a focus on pastoral support—which has come through very clearly—as well as academic support. In vocational education, we have a number of students who come out of work or who may not have had the opportunities in secondary education to lock down some of the key areas of literacy and numeracy. Having been director of learner support at NorthTec, I know that we were inundated by requests to support in literacy and numeracy and the testing to support them understand what are their learning needs. Disability support, in particular, has been an area where polytechs don’t necessarily have enough resource to support all of our learners to succeed, and if we can be explicit within the legislation that it is a need for disability support for academic support and pastoral support to be provided across the board, then regions like Northland could thrive.

That’s one of the first cabs off the rank when there are cuts in the polytech sector, and, often, it is pastoral support that gets the cut. We have a significant number of fulltime-equivalent students at risk right now in NorthTec through the internal operational review because of the requirement to be financially viable. I hosted a hui on Monday, 6 October. Unfortunately, my colleague Grant McCallum didn’t come, despite a hundred from our sector—business leaders, our civic leaders, those who work with iwi and students and who are connected to education—

He’s a hard-working MP who has a lot to do.

If my colleague could stop heckling me so that I could talk about my rohe—you talk about Whanganui when you get a chance. When you get a chance, you talk about Whanganui and you tell us how you’re doing. So, for—[Interruption]

OK, we’re going to have less heckling both ways, and we’re going to have questions to the Minister, please.

Thank you—absolutely—because what I want to ask the Minister is this. Te Matarau Education Trust was a Māori Pacific trade training provider for over 10 years in Tai Tokerau. Hapū and iwi working together were told by NorthTec at short notice to evacuate the building in December 2024. The general manager spoke to this issue at the hui on 6 October and said, “Do you know, we had a longstanding relationship with NorthTec. We had been partners for such a long time.”, and yet the door was closed on Te Matarau abruptly and they had to leave the office.

They’ve been based at Future Trades in Dyer Street for a decade, and I was a former general manager of Te Matarau, and so I know Māori Pacific trade training deeply. What appears to be the issue is that Māori Pacific trade training may be being retained internally now so that it can boost the pastoral support, and that contract can be retained internally instead of valuing the hapū and iwi relationship that Te Matarau had committed to. Te Matarau is a valued member of hapū and iwi providing pastoral support and work brokerage—

Point of order, Madam Chairperson. I appreciate that the member is coming to the close of her five minutes on this, and I’m not trying to question your judgment at all, Madam Chair, but from what we’re hearing there, it sounds like a general debate speech, talking about topics that is not pointed into any clauses relevant to the bill.

Yeah, and, look, thank you for bringing that up. I was about to make a ruling after this speech, but I understand that the Minister wants to take a call first, so—

The Minister might want to reply. What will Māori Pacific trade training be moving forward into the future, when iwi and hapū groups like Te Matarau no longer have a place in the landscape? It’s a missed opportunity, and that’s very sad to hear.

Of course this has nothing to do with the bill that we are currently looking at, but I can give the member an assurance that total funding of approximately $18.5 million has been allocated to Māori and Pasifika trades training, and the funding was fully allocated in 2024-25. Matters of private training establishments and polytechnics are not a matter for the Minister to interfere in.

OK, I’ve just indicated that I was going to make a bit of a judgment call now. We have been here this morning for an hour, and I feel we’ve traversed a number of issues quite fully. We are getting quite repetitive and we are starting to relitigate some issues. I would request that from hereon in, I want members to refer to specific new clauses that have not yet been asked questions on, and I will take a call now from Shanan Halbert, who is chomping at the bit.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. Thank you, and, yes, you are right: we do have a lot to get through over the few more hours that we will be in this Chamber scrutinising the Minister, because there are 106 pages in this legislation. I did outline for the Chair last night—and I know that this has been passed on—that we sought permission from the Chair to go through a process of being able to talk polytech by polytech, because there are implications in local contexts. We will continue to do that, and I acknowledge that we’ve started on NorthTec and we’ve started on the Eastern Institute of Technology, but there are a number of polytechs that we would like to discuss as a result of the implications of this legislation. We would also like to do that with regard to specific industries that are implicated.

I also acknowledge that the responses to Te Tiriti o Waitangi questions are insufficient, Minister. There are two parts, and I acknowledge that, in your view, you have responded to the Māori piece. That is quite different to the references to Te Tiriti, and so if you would honour us by giving your view of the world of why you’ve made the decision, we would really appreciate that, as the sector would.

But, Madam Chair, taking your direction, I will move on to new section 315 in clause 22, which is around the establishment of the polytechs. I think there’s a lot to traverse in this particular area. Submissions noted that in the Ministry of Education’s departmental report, it raised that there were alternative options, but these were not adequately considered because of the ideological agenda of this Government and the Minister. The submissions noted concerns about ensuring collaboration between polytechs will remain under the new system and about how important low-volume provision would be retained.

As one example, as the Government loads an attack on young people at the moment, if we look at level 1 and 2 foundation learning, there’s simply not enough places for young people to access those particular programmes in Auckland, as one example. Even if the Government wanted them to, there’s not enough provision funded at level 1 and 2, and so there’s one implication there. But, Minister, what submissions or advice were received about retaining Te Pūkenga or alternative options, rather than having a complete disestablishment and re-establishment, because we know—

That sounds like a written question.

Well, you are correct. Yeah, so Stuart Smith is—

Carry on, Mr Halbert. It sounded like an oral question to me, and so continue to ask the question, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have continued to ask these questions through written questions and through oral questions, and across this piece of legislation, it is the emperor without clothes. It’s the emperor without clothes, if anyone knows those stories, because the Minister has been building this plane as it flies because there is a lack of information.

So that is my specific question in relation to this clause, and I’ve got a number of others because she has not explained why she chose to disestablish Te Pūkenga as opposed to tweaking some of the challenges that the structure and the sector still faced. Underlying that—which I covered off in my opening statements—is the real question, which is that she hasn’t shown us the money. She hasn’t shown us how this is a more financially viable model than what was in place.

It’s not.

We don’t think it is, and she keeps on talking about “I’ve invested this in the strategic fund.” She’s only got $20 million in that—she can’t afford it.

What clause?

It’s new section 315, Stuart Smith—“Establishment of polytechnics”—OK—

Perfect—we’ll get some more details.

—of which there’s a number, if you’ll listen up. But that question to the Minister remains: why did you disestablish and go against advice that you received to re-establish something that you don’t have a cost-benefit analysis of?

Oh my goodness, what a wonderful question: why did I choose to disestablish Te Pūkenga? Let me count the ways. Te Pūkenga: what a failed experiment, what a dreadful example of going with form before function, and what a dreadful way to try to solve a few specific problems in the sector by creating far, far more.

Let me see: perhaps the issue that it was going to take nearly $1 billion over the next 10 years to have the IT systems made operational is a good place to start. Perhaps the fact that a number of the polytechnics were losing numbers during Te Pūkenga is another good place. Perhaps it’s the fact that the polytech sector under Te Pūkenga did not get back to pre-COVID numbers, with internationals sitting at only a third, when the universities and the schools and the private training establishments were getting back. Perhaps it’s the fact that it was overriding local decisions and stopping things like being able to offer free fees to students, which you would think a left-wing party would be pleased about for students. Perhaps taking away the innovation and all the successful things that local regions did is a good reason.

There are a lot of reasons why Te Pūkenga was not the answer, and I have reflected on how this happened. I’ve really reflected on it, and, look, I feel quite sorry for the members who are here today having to try and defend this. They have been thrown under the bus by their leader because, remember, this mess was set up by the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins. It followed on from the mess in the police and in health and in COVID, and what did they do? They made him the leader.

This is a mess that was created by the leader of the Labour Party, and these poor members—and look, they are genuine. Shanan Halbert is very genuine. He spent some time with Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, a wonderful institution—TWOA, my good friends in there. He’s spent some time there. He understands the issue in the sector. He has been thrown under the bus in trying to defend the indefensible. I will not try and defend Te Pūkenga. It was form over function, it was uninformed, and two years after it had been formed, it was saying, “Oops, we’ve forgotten the due diligence to tell you another $1 billion is needed.” I don’t think I need to answer much more on that one.

Before I take the next call, I have been watching. I heard the previous Chair ask people to now get more specific. That was two general debate speeches that I’ve just heard. We are now going to be asking members to speak to the relatively narrow parts of Part 1, please.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m going to get very specific around clauses 13, 14, 15, and 16, elaborating more on clauses 13, 15, and 16, given the guidance that the previous Chair has already issued around the idea of Te Tiriti and Māori representation in the legislation. I will focus most of my contribution on clauses 13, 15, and 16, but I’ll touch lightly on clause 14 just for completion’s sake.

My wider questioning around this is informed by why there are differences in the legislation that will govern institutes of technology and polytechnics (ITP) versus the legislation that governs university councils. For example, I’ll turn to clause 13, which is around the membership of councils. Now, if you look at the parent section, section 276, “Members of council” for the university sector, it says that institutions can be between eight and 12 council members, but for the polytech sector, which is governed by section 317, polytechs can have between six and eight council members. So my question is: how did that number of six to eight get arrived at, as opposed to the membership of university councils, which can be eight to 12 members? We know that some universities will be smaller than some polytechnics, so I don’t think it’s necessarily to do with size. Why has this specific number of six to eight for polytech councils been arrived at?

There are other provisions for membership of councils that are referred to in this legislation—for example, in the section around appointment of council members in section 278 of the parent legislation, it talks about wider sets of requirements, including election processes—this is now clause 15 of the bill. But if you look at the clause for the polytech sector, which is section 320, it doesn’t make reference to potential elected members, and so my thinking around that is this. Is the Minister thinking that this legislation precludes the appointment of members that are elected by an appointment process, because I don’t see this in the legislation versus the legislation that exists with the university councils. Is it expected that they’re all appointed, or is there going to be provision made for potential elected members who are then appointed to their ITP councils? As I’ve said, it’s not currently in the legislation, but it is in the legislation that governs the university councils.

Obviously, I do have some Amendment Papers that would directly put elected members from students and staff representatives on the student council, but my thinking is that this legislation as currently drafted doesn’t actually have any provision for an elected member who is then later appointed to the council. That is provided for in the parent legislation, which only governs university councils at this stage because the polytech sector is excluded from it.

Then my final question is on clause 16, which amends section 281, “Duties of councils”, which is to do with the university council legislation. This is something that I do want to give the Minister some kudos over in that in the section to do with polytechs, the additional duties of polytechs makes reference to the need for polytechs to collaborate with other polytechnics to use resources effectively to avoid duplicating efforts, and so it is potentially moving the polytech sector to a more collaborative model. If that’s good enough for the polytech sector, why not also require the university sector to work in a collaborative manner, because I do think it’s important that the wider tertiary education sector works in a more collaborative fashion. So why are there differences in clauses 13, 14, 15, and 16 in the bill between university councils and polytechnic councils, and I’m particularly interested in the answer relating to clause 15, around the ITPs making provisions to, potentially, have elected members on there.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member Francisco Hernandez for those sensible questions, and I’m happy to traverse those. The numbers have changed over time. Twenty-odd years ago, there were 20 on a council. They were pretty unruly, and it was hard to get things done. Polytechnics, I think, are known for being collaborative, nimble, and agile. I don’t think university councils have ever been accused of being that but it’s important for the polytechnics that they are. They’re smaller and they need to be able to react quickly to industry, and so we’re giving some choice, again, to the local communities to decide—rather than have a Minister decide—what size they should be. Anywhere between six and eight is generally accepted as a good working board or council that will be able to represent the community but also be agile and nimble.

In terms of the members other than those appointed by the Minister: of course, if it’s seven or eight, four will be appointed by the Minister; and if it’s six, three will be; and the other members are to come from the community, and the council will make a decision as to how that will occur. In the past, they have formed statutes and they’ve been different for each institution, and I would expect that, again, they will be different, and so they won’t exclude any of the representation that you’ve said from staff or from students or from iwi. Their statute can determine that, and so, again, it’s giving choice to the local polytechnic to do what is right for their local community. It’s not spelt out, but it certainly doesn’t exclude that from happening.

In terms of collaboration, absolutely—look, the polytech sector has been collaborative for many years, and it’s something of a myth that they haven’t been. The first nursing degrees were brought about through collaboration. The Te Pāti Māori member previously talked about the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology and the Southern Institute of Technology. They worked really closely together on a number of things in the post-graduate area. The member Shanan Halbert was from Te Wananga o Aotearoa (TWOA). He knows that for 20 years, TWOA worked with a number of polytechnics.

The polytech sector is collaborative by necessity. There is no point in trying to reinvent the wheel on a number of things, but—you’re quite right—we want to encourage it further—hence the reference to it here; hence the federation, which allows that collaboration in order to have better service, better academic delivery and better financial outcomes for those that are struggling.

Absolutely, I agree that collaboration is necessary in the sector. This legislation facilitates that. I thank the member for that very sensible question.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to take the opportunity to take a call in this committee stage—my first opportunity. I just want to ask—and I won’t take a full call—a very specific question around clause 7, which amends section 267 and looks at amending the main Education and Training Act 2020 in relation to the clause on academic freedom.

My question is this. First of all, I think—and it’ll be good to hear the Minister’s response to this—academic freedom at polytechnics, as well as other tertiary institutions, is of utmost importance, and that’s one of the founding principles within the education system. In the Education and Training Act, as it is currently, with the provisions in relation to Te Pūkenga which this bill removes, there is a change from including a specific clause relating to polytechnics, which in the current Act is, I understand, section 318, to, in the Minister’s bill, which is in clause 7 in Part 1, which is amending section 267—it essentially puts academic freedom back into the primary academic freedom clause that applies to wānanga and universities, as well. My understanding is—this is a genuine question—that the current situation is we have an academic freedom clause in the existing Act which applies to wānanga and universities, and we have an academic freedom clause which is specifically spelling out the academic freedom requirements in relation to Te Pūkenga, which currently includes polytechnics. The Minister for Vocational Education has decided, or is proposing under this bill, to take away that specific clause and put it back into the main clause.

My question is: why is that? Is that simply for the simplicity of the legislation—that would be a sufficient answer if that was the reason—and I’d just like to get some guarantees from her that there is nothing lost in relation to the relatively extensive academic freedom provisions in section 318 which are currently in the Act, because, as I’m sure the Minister will say in her response, this is of utmost importance.

I also note that we are only on clause 7 in Part 1, which is about 41 pages long, and so there are a number of very specific provisions which have not been discussed at all in this committee stage that cover the substantive part of this bill. I would just note that. My contribution and my question is on one of those clauses, but there are a number of clauses that have not been traversed at all in relation to that bill, and so I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer.

Thank you, and I’ll answer very briefly. It absolutely ensures that polytechnics are included. It includes universities, polytechnics, and wānanga, with regard to academic freedom, and so there is no issue at all.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to talk about new sections 314 and 315 in clause 22, which are to do with the characteristics and establishment of polytechnics. I have a couple of specific questions about those provisions, but I just wanted to note that the establishment of the polytechs is really the heart of the entire enterprise.

I just want to quote Civil Contractors New Zealand, the peak body of one of the most important industries in New Zealand, and it is an industry that is heavily reliant on a pipeline of trained workers to make that industry hum. They said to the Education and Workforce Committee in their submission that at no point was anyone able to articulate the problem that the reforms solved. They said they were very worried about the future funding of vocational education: “Throughout the process, no one has been able to articulate the problem that they are trying to solve. We have consistently heard that the structures arising from [Labour’s] reforms were not delivering for industry, and that the cost of the structure was unreasonable and prohibitive. In our view, neither statement is correct.” They further went on to say, “We are deeply concerned the further reduction in funding proposed places our ability to train our future workforce at risk.”

Now, in relation to sections 314 and 315 and the creation of the new architecture, I would really like to hear the Minister’s response to that very important peak body and what they said to the select committee about the creation of the new polytechs, and I’m keen to know in relation to section 314 why there is nothing in there in the description of the characteristics about the role that polytechs play in alleviating skills and workforce shortages. I would have thought that that was absolutely core to these institutions, and, in addition—and other colleagues have mentioned this already this morning in relation to other provisions—the very important role that polytechs play in providing pastoral care for the students enrolled in their institutions. Is that not a core characteristic of these institutions? I’m keen to hear from the Minister.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m not sure what part of the legislation the member is reading, because I would have thought that new section 314, “Characteristics of polytechnics”, in clause 22, which says that “(b) they are predominantly involved in providing continuing education that responds to the education and training needs of local communities and industries in their regions;”, was doing exactly that. It is addressing any school shortages that are in the regions and addressing the needs of the industries in their community, and so I’m very confident that we’ve got that covered.

In regard to the comments from Civil Contractors New Zealand, the chief executive of Civil Contractors New Zealand, Alan Pollard—Alan has his own inimitable way of expressing himself, and I enjoy conversations with him. I enjoy conversations with the wider civil contractor industry, which I keep in contact with regularly, and I’m delighted that Alan is one of the establishment advisory group members of one of our information skills boards. It’s wonderful to have him there supporting this whole new development as it goes forward.

Thank you, Mr Chair. In line with your direction, I am going to speak to new section 315, and particularly new subsection (3)(a), in clause 22, in regard to the regions served by the polytechs, and, as we know, this legislation establishes a structure that still aims to serve learners across Aotearoa New Zealand. When I think about the impact of this legislation on regional communities, I am highly concerned. One of my colleagues said to me, when she received the library pack, that it’s quite easy to do a speech on this in opposition because there are so many negative stories that have come out as a result, but beneath the politics of this, it is about learners.

I acknowledge that one of the three goals of this is around access to learning for people that live in regional communities, and I just don’t see how this legislation achieves that. I will start at NorthTec. NorthTec is going to become half of what it was—half of what it was. It will see courses cancelled in the further-out parts of Northland like Kaikohe and Kaitāia. Marae-based programmes—those will have to be peeled back. It’s going to see the closure of its main campus in Whangārei, as an example, for it to be relocated somewhere else—is that not correct, Minister? You’re looking perplexed. I hope that you’ll be able to clarify that in your response, too.

I looked at Eastern Institute of Technology. While it’s an OK set-up for people living in Hawke’s Bay, I’m really concerned about Tairāwhiti and Gisborne, and about programmes offered in Wairoa. What happens to those regional communities? We’ve seen Tokoroa and Taupō impacted by this legislation. While in Tokoroa, the Minister thinks she may have saved the campus, there’s still significant job losses and, as a result, over consecutive years we will see less learning opportunities in smaller communities like Tokoroa, which have already been heavily impacted. Taupō is the same, and we’re seeing a campus closure there. We see WelTec, Whitireia, and UCOL, where we’re seeing a downsizing of courses and programmes available to learners in our most regional and remote communities.

That is inequitable, Minister. You’ve made a commitment to achieving better outcomes than Te Pūkenga did for those learners. What better outcome is there than sharing access to learning opportunities? Online learning is not the only vehicle by which people engage in learning opportunities, and you haven’t offered the specificity that we need to assure us and give us confidence that this legislation is going to retain access for regional learners and actually going to have pūtea—money—available to invest in those learners, because you are committed to having a 1:18 student ratio. Tell me how that is achievable in those remote communities in the number of programmes that we need—that doesn’t stack up. We’re missing the financial information still.

Those are the answers that I’m looking for from you. How does this legislation better serve learners in our most regional communities?

Thank you, and that’s a great question, Shanan Halbert, because it is at the heart of what we are doing here. Centralisation, where all of the decisions had to be made by a central entity that was supposed to be in Hamilton but was actually in Auckland—allowing those sorts of decisions to be made locally is incredibly important.

I do want to address the specific question that you’ve asked around NorthTec because we have got that wonderful group of community leaders there that are working very hard to try and get a much better, newer, fit for purpose campus for NorthTec. I am very happy to be working with them, and if the community can get on board and get that to happen, what a wonderful thing it will be for NorthTec. I’m happy to be working with them on that, and, again, it’s the community driving a solution for their local community.

Look, I absolutely accept what the member has said about the importance of those small rural regions. I was over in Wairoa after the floods there and I met with a lovely young man who had trained through the Eastern Institute of Technology to be a builder. I heard of the work that he was doing with his extended whānau there, and I really want to acknowledge how wonderful builders are in a situation like that and how important it is to have that kind of provision. That was exactly what drove me around the strategically important funding in order to put that in place while I can work on adjusting the funding system which I have inherited.

I have had to make some changes because the unified funding system that had been put in was so disastrous, but I was trying to get recognition of exactly that—and the member is completely correct. That is why in a place like Telford, you can’t put 18 students who are trying to learn how to shear a sheep or drive a four-wheeler in front of one tutor. You must have flexibility around those ratios, and that’s exactly why I have sought that additional funding.

It is to hold on to those strategically important geographic regions—particularly those remote rural regions but also those strategically important industry areas—and nowhere is more important than in the Far North, where we’ve got the highest number of NEETs anywhere in the country. That is exactly why NorthTec will be receiving the largest amount of any of the polytechnics—$3.648 million a year over the next two years—to ensure that they can keep that important provision going. I know how much we must ensure access in those regions. That is the pathway to employment for those young people.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Now, I’m aware that there is a lot in this bill, but we are still getting bogged down in relatively local parts of that, and so I’m looking for new material.

Thank you, Mr Chair. You’ll get new material. My question is around a part of new section 319 in clause 22, which concerns the chairperson and appointment of deputy chairperson, and which hasn’t been addressed yet. Prior to that, I also have a question on the numbers that the Minister has been saying throughout this debate. She said that NorthTec has gotten around $3.68 million and, earlier, that the Eastern Institute of Technology has got $1.55 million. If the Minister could provide a specific breakdown of how much each polytech is getting, that would help assure members, I think. I would like a breakdown of how much institutes of technology and polytechnics (ITPs) are getting from the strategic fund, and I’m bringing this up only because the Minister is engaging with questions around the funding issue.

I’ll return to new section 319, around the appointment of the chairperson and deputy chairperson. At the moment, as written, the legislation says that “The Minister may, by written notice to the member concerned, dismiss the chairperson or deputy chairperson from office as chairperson or deputy chairperson.” The Minister may also appoint the chairperson and deputy chairperson from among the members of the polytechnic. My question is: why in section 319(1), instead of using the word “must”, does it use the word “may”? Is there any thinking that the Minister might potentially appoint a chairperson and deputy chairperson who is not currently among the membership of the ITP in concern? I’m just curious why it’s the word “may” that’s been used as opposed to the word “must”.

I also have what I think is a constructive Amendment Paper that will require the Minister to consult with the members of the ITP in question before appointing a chairperson and deputy chairperson. My theory is that if the chairperson and deputy chairperson are the ones who are supposed to be leading the council, I think it makes perfect sense for the Minister to consult the members of the ITP concerned on who their chairperson and deputy chairperson might be, because the members might know something about the person that the Minister might want to appoint as chairperson and deputy chairperson that she doesn’t necessarily know.

Again, with the potential to dismiss the chairperson or deputy chairperson, I think it’s also important to consult and require the majority approval of the ITP in question before, essentially, removing a chairperson or deputy chairperson, because I do think there have been concerns articulated by submitters during the submission process that the Minister has a lot of power within this legislation to appoint council members. You’ll see that in an earlier section—section 317—she will be appointing up to half of the current polytech council. In the current set-up, the Minister has a lot of power to set the composition of the council, and I acknowledge that that is taken from the legislation that established university councils. I think a potential check and balance to that power would be—and this is in my Amendment Paper—to require the consultation and the consent of the majority of the council before appointing a chairperson and deputy chairperson and before removing them.

My question to the Minister is: will the Minister consider the Amendment Paper that I have proposed requiring consultation and the consent of the membership of the ITP board before appointing and removing chairpersons and deputy chairpersons, and why is it not currently in the legislation to require consultation with the ITP council, which she would be appointing half of anyway? She will have quite strong influence on the council members appointed anyway, and so why is it not currently in the legislation and will she consider my proposed change to change that so that there can be more responsiveness to local communities and also some local input on the Minister’s decision? Thank you.

I thank the member Francisco Hernandez again for his very specific and sensible question. Look, it is described as “may”, but it is, effectively, mandatory because the chair will be appointed. It’s not about bringing someone in from outside.

I have read the member’s Amendment Paper. I don’t think that it’s necessary. I believe that in terms of removing a chair, there’s quite a lot of consultation and work that has to go on. It’s not something that a Minister would do without really significant engagement with that council.

At the very start, the member asked for the information that I’ve been quoting from. Absolutely, it’s publicly available. I’m happy for you to get a copy of it, and so thank you for that.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have quick questions for the Minister around section 315, “Establishment of polytechnics”, in clause 22. I’m curious as to why the provisions in the bill don’t have more to say specifically about the imperative to take advice or consult on the needs of a particular region.

Currently, in section 315(2), the Minister must “(a) seek advice from NZQA on quality assurance matters … (b) consult other persons or bodies that the Minister thinks fit;”—that’s very open-ended—“(c) take into account the characteristics of a polytechnic; and”—crucially—“(d) be satisfied that the establishment of the polytechnic is in the interests of the tertiary education system and the nation as a whole.” But what about the particular region? If I think about West Auckland, it’s a part of the city with very particular demographic characteristics. We have a young, large working-class population. We have real transport challenges that create barriers for our young people to get access to jobs, and education and training opportunities, and I’m sure that if you look at any particular region, there would be particular characteristics. So why doesn’t section 315 require that?

I’m interested in what advice the Minister had about whether or not the interests of a region where polytechs could be established are important for consideration in that provision. Why are the interests of those regions not actually something that the Minister is required to take into account when she issues one of these orders, and why is there not, for example, in paragraph (b) the requirement to consult, for example, local institutions, regional industry groups, local community organisations, and iwi and hapū? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll be very brief because, as the member has pointed out, new section 315(2)(b), in clause 22, covers that with that very open phrase “consult other persons or bodies that the Minister thinks fit;”. It opens the door to consult with all of those entities that the member brought forward.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to follow up, and I’ve got a new point that I want to ask the Minister for Vocational Education about. It’s about new section 289(7) in clause 20 in relation to Crown observers, and also the operative clause, which is new section 341J in clause 22, which will be the new section of the of the bill once it becomes an Act.

That’s the section I want to focus on, but I want to draw a parallel with the question I asked around academic freedom. In that question—which the Minister did address, but I feel that perhaps it would be good to get some advice on some other aspects of that question. In that particular situation to do with academic freedom, we had a removal of a specific clause in relation to polytechnics and polytechnics being put in together with wānanga and universities, and I agree that the Minister’s response is correct—I’ve not contested that academic freedom applies to all of those. That meant that that specific provision in relation to polytechnics specifically was put into the general provision, and so I wanted to know why that was. I think that she said that it applies, but I would be grateful if there was a further elucidation on that.

The question I want to ask in this contribution, though, is in relation to Crown observers. We’ve had the opposite legislative drafting happening here, as I can see it. Essentially, in the main Act, the Education and Training Act, the current section 289(7) doesn’t apply, but section 341J does apply. So if we go to the new section 341J, which is in Part 1—which is what we’re considering—this provides for the Minister to be able to appoint a Crown observer. This is specific to a polytechnic.

This is the opposite situation where we do have a specific polytechnic clause which has been put in that may differ—and that’s a question for the Minister—in relation to how Crown observers may interact with other types of institutions. That’s the first question. Why has a specific polytechnic clause been put into this new bill and what is the purpose of that, and I’m just noting that it’s different for that academic freedom section.

The other question that I have is in relation specifically to new section 341J(3). When a Crown—I mean, obviously, this is not a situation where it is desirable to appoint a Crown observer. But we have to acknowledge—especially with the disestablishment of Te Pūkenga, I would say that this is a real possibility in some instances, when we do have these independent institutions—that to be prudent in some situations where there are issues with how an institution is being managed, it may need a Crown observer to be put in place. The Minister has put forward a specific process, and that does involve consulting with the council of that polytechnic and, essentially, getting their feedback on that.

Now, I just wanted to know from the Minister whether in relation to this section, the word “consulted”—I mean, essentially, this part says that when the Crown observer is to be considered by the Minister, the Minister must tell the polytechnic that she, in this instance, is considering implementing a Crown observer and get their feedback on that, or get their comment on that proposal. I imagine—and it would be good to get your feedback on this, Minister—that it may be that the council says, “No, Minister. We don’t need a Crown observer. We’re totally fine.” Surely, there will be instances where the Minister has a firm view, and there is nothing that the council can say to dissuade the Minister that there needs to be some outside intervention into this council.

I just want to ask if the word “consult” is the correct word. I imagine this will be something that the Minister would want to act quickly upon if it did occur, and I think we need to be future-looking with this because this will be in place for all of these polytechnics. Those are just a few questions on the legislative drafting, and then the operation of that specific clause.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. It’s very good to be discussing this because, of course, this mirrors the legislation for Te Pūkenga. I’m a great believer in nothing is all good or all bad, and so I’ve been prepared to look at what was put in place for Te Pūkenga by that member Camilla Belich’s party when it was in Government. I’ve seen this and thought that it’s wonderful to have early intervention and to have different stages of intervention, because the worst thing possible is to allow a polytechnic to keep going and getting itself more and more in trouble and racking up huge amounts of debt.

I looked at what had been put in place for Te Pūkenga by the member’s party when it was in Government. I thought that it looked sensible, and thought that I’d pick that up because it looks a good thing to put in here to ensure that there’s various stages of intervention to stop polytechnics getting themselves into major strife. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I am continuing on new section 315 in clause 22, and I now want to move to new section 315(4), which says that “Before recommending that the polytech is specified as an anchor polytechnic, the Minister must be satisfied that the polytechnic is able to perform the role of an anchor polytechnic specified”.

I’ve spoken very clearly around my concerns about insufficient information when it comes to the finances of setting up this structure that the legislation proposes. I appreciate, Minister, that you are being very responsive to the questions—that’s really helpful in this committee stage, and so thank you—but you are talking about some of the costs of Te Pūkenga. You’re talking about costs as an example of funding via the strategic fund to particular polytechnics. What I would like to hear from you is what advice you have received around the shared costs, and I acknowledge that Treasury has advised you against this—they’ve highlighted the risks financially for this particular structure. That was some time ago, and so I’d be really keen to hear the centre of that. What advice are you receiving around the actual costs and funding that you need to establish this particular model for the 10-plus other polytechnics? Just polytechnics alone in this instance—what advice have you received?

I thank the member Shanan Halbert again for some very sensible questions around this, particularly around the anchor polytechnics—the federation. The federation model isn’t new. It’s used in a number of countries. It was actually suggested to the previous Government when they set up Te Pūkenga that the federation model would be a good model. A number of submissions were made on that, and I wonder if the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins sometimes reflects and wishes he’d gone down that track.

However, I think that the questions that have been asked are very fair in terms of what we are doing to ensure that each individual polytechnic is in the best financial position it can be to be set up. That was work that, of course, happened over those 18 months of getting that sustainable pathway for each individual polytechnic. That has been done by polytechnic—not by sector, but by polytechnic—and that is why we’re doing it in tranches. The 10 that have got that pathway—they know that; they have that. The senior management team has that, the Establishment Advisory Group appointments have that, and they are working through that. In terms of the four that are left, they are sitting in Te Pūkenga as we work through that process.

We’re also working through the recapitalisation process, because—as I mentioned when the member for Taieri, Ingrid Leary, talked about the Otago situation—there are some that have big debt, and I don’t want them set up with big debt. That is setting them up to fail, so we’re working through that recapitalisation process. The member will be aware that some have got some pretty significant issues there, and it’s important that we address those issues and get that debt out of the road so that they start from a strong, stable set of finances when they start.

The other matter was around the strategic funding. That has been put in there to recognise that we do have to do some work. I’m sure the member himself will know from the time that he was in the sector that we do need to do some work to be more nuanced around those areas where you can’t have the 1:18 ratio, which is kind of the golden metric of whether a course is financially viable or not.

Treasury’s advice was interesting over the period of time. We got that advice at different periods of time, and over the last 18 months, things have changed as the institutions have got stronger and more viable.

I just want to really assure the member because I know he’s genuine in asking these questions. I want to assure the member that we have no intention of setting polytechnics up that are not in the best possible financial state they can be in, in order to give them an absolute chance to be successful going forward.

Mr Chair.

Mr Chair.

San—Francisco Hernandez.

Thank you, Mr Chair. We nearly got our two names merged together there! I’ll turn to some specific questions around some specific clauses. I have one around new section 328, “Duties of Federation Committee”, in clause 22. I’d be interested in hearing a definition around that language around new section 328(1)(b): “act in the interests of federation polytechnics provided that action is not detrimental to the interests of an anchor polytechnic;”. Who’ll judge whether an action is detrimental to the interests of an anchor polytechnic, and is there a specific definition around what “detrimental” might mean in this context? I think it’d be good to get a clarification of that because that is really essential to the idea of what federation polytechs and anchor polytechs are, and their not being able to harm each other.

Then I’ll turn to new section 337, “Role of anchor polytechnic”, in clause 22—first, around new section 337(2) around the conditions of an anchor polytechnic declining to provide or ceasing to provide relevant services. Does the anchor polytechnic, basically, have free rein to activate these clauses if they want to? Is there no mechanism whereby their decision to cease providing these services, if they want to, can be challenged as long as the provisions under paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) can be met, and if there are provisions to challenge that, who will be the one judging that challenge? Is it the Minister, is it the Tertiary Education Commission, or is it the dispute resolution mechanism under new section 330 in clause 22, mentioned earlier in the bill?

I’ll turn now to new section 339 in clause 22, which is around the designation and removal of federation polytechnics. There is a requirement under here to consult the polytechnic before either adding or removing their designation for removal, and I do have an Amendment Paper tabled here. I was wondering whether the Minister might consider using stronger language, and so rather than the Minister just “consult” the polytechnic which has been considered for designation or removal, the Minister would “require” its consent, because I do think the Minister was rightly upset about some polytechnics under the Te Pūkenga model being forcibly amalgamated into that entity against the will of the communities in the local regions and the students they served. So my Amendment Paper would prevent that from happening under this model.

Essentially, if the Minister doesn’t strengthen the language around consultation and upgrade it to requiring the consent of the polytechnic, I think she’s, essentially, leaving the door open for Te Pūkenga to be re-established, which she has said that she doesn’t want to do. Like a future Government could just fold the polytechnics into the federation again, and then rename the federation as Te Pūkenga, if it wanted to. Will the Minister consider upgrading the requirement from consultation to requiring the consent of the communities? In that way this Government does have some safeguards against Te Pūkenga being re-established again, although I do note that Opposition members, including the Leader of the Opposition, have already committed to not re-establishing it again, but it does create a legislative safeguard to prevent that.

Those are my questions that I’ve asked so far. Again, it’s around new sections 328, 337, and 339. I’m keenly looking forward to answers from the Minister.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the member again for asking such sensible and specific questions. It’s a pleasure to answer them.

In terms of the paragraph (b) in new section 328(1) in clause 22, which says, “act in the interests of federation polytechnics provided that action is not detrimental to the interests of an anchor polytechnic;”—and, indeed, new section 337(2)—these provisions came from the good work that the Education and Workforce Committee did in ensuring that the legislation was fit for purpose. When I looked at what examples there might be, I could think of, for example, where there were polytechnics that wanted the anchor polytechnic to develop a particular course, but it was going to cost the anchor polytechnic a lot of money and divert them from other development, and that is where this might come into play.

The essence, though, of the federation—and this is how I think the member can look at it—is that this is not a head office telling individual institutions what they can do; this is a collective. This is a federation with a committee of representatives from each federation member. It is a collective, making decisions in the best interests, ensuring that the anchor polytechnic doesn’t suffer from the work they might have to do, and ensuring also that the federation polytechnics and the services that are provided to them are not cost-plus, but are only cost recovery. This is putting the fabric in place to ensure that that collaborative work can occur. Whether it’s a very small polytechnic sitting out in a regional area or the large Open Polytechnic, there is equity of decision making. It’s to ensure that each federation polytech is well looked after but, equally, the anchor polytechnic is looked after.

In terms of whether to consent rather than just to consult, can I just say that it’s really, really difficult when a polytechnic gets into that downward spiral, either academically or financially. Sometimes, they don’t see the wood for the trees, and I think that the whole nature of the federation is not punitive. It’s not to punish polytechnics; it’s to support them, and so I think, probably, that the member is underestimating the level of engagement that would go on before you might get to that stage to ensure that the polytechnic understands the areas that they have a deficit in—whether it’s academic or financial—and to ensure that they understand what can be done to help support them.

I think there has been a little bit of this talk, and probably the member for Taieri kind of continued that talk. It’s not punitive. The federation is not punitive; it is there to support.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Pursuant to that answer, I’m going to ask the Minister a sensible question about, particularly, the Universal College of Learning (UCOL) in Wairarapa. Speaking of the regions served by the anchor polytech, how will the Minister ensure local autonomy in multi-region providers like UCOL Wairarapa, what protections will be in place to prevent populous areas or those perhaps better off economically from dominating, and what will the funding structures be and how are they different from Te Pūkenga? Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I was excited for a moment that we might be talking about tertiary education on the North Shore, but we’re still pretty short.

Thank you, Minister. I want to continue on to new section 324, “Purposes of federation”, in clause 22. This is, in fact, the part that I call the emperor without clothing, because there’s a lot of detail that we haven’t been able to explore throughout the select committee process, and so bear with me on that.

But I particularly come back to new section 324(b): “enable federated polytechnics to—(i) develop, design, and deliver cost-effective education and training programmes that are consistent with the polytechnics’ characteristics:”. My colleague Cushla Tangaere-Manuel has spoken of one example. The other live example that we’ve fluffed over today is Otago Polytechnic and the awkward arrangement that has been set up there. I guess if we just break down that into form and function—form and function of who is doing what? So, as described by you today, the Otago Polytechnic problem that we’re trying to solve is that it is significantly in debt. I’m not aware that there’s any academic or educational delivery issues, but if there are, I’d encourage you to discuss those.

If that is the problem we’re trying to solve in that example, under the federation model, who in that set-up is assisting Otago Polytechnic to resolve the financial issue at hand? In the cluster that you’ve established as the anchor polytechnic of the Open Polytechnic, who is the educational delivery partner—that is its core business? It is not the financial partner, as I understand it. So who, therefore, in that live example is offering the fiscal advice to assist Otago Polytechnic to get to a place of sustainability, as required by this legislation?

I’ll very briefly answer. I thank the member for asking me about the Universal College of Learning and the disbursed provision they have there with Masterton, and particularly Whanganui. I’m delighted to tell the member that I’ve been having ongoing discussions. The very capable MP from that area has been advocating very strongly for, particularly, Whanganui, and I met yesterday with local iwi and they are very excited about being engaged in that sort of hub concept in Whanganui. I think we’ve got some really strong buy-in from the local communities there, and we’re looking at having a bespoke situation for them to ensure that they have plenty of say in what happens there and that they can gather together. Te Wānanga o Aotearoa is also operating there, so I think that we may see an exciting new model there—again, driven by the enthusiasm of local leaders there. So it’s wonderful to see that because I absolutely get what the member talks about if you were to have one big one dominating another, and we’ve seen that when we’ve seen takeovers by other polytechnics.

In terms of the financial situation for Otago Polytechnic, for example, their council will, of course, be responsible for their financial improvement plan. They have an improvement plan there. They are working towards that and we are looking at what we can do with their debt, and so I’m very confident that we can assist them there.

The federation is there to enable those shared services where it might provide some financial relief. The greatest financial relief that the federation can provide, of course, is the fact that the Open Polytechnic has 160-odd programmes online that can be available to the other institutions and they won’t have to do the development of them. They can have a combined academic board if they want to, and they can have that combined development that can be shared then across all the institutions. I think it provides some real opportunities for the federation polytechnics to be able to save some of those costs.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that debate on this question now close. All those in favour, say Aye—

Point of order—point of order.

A point of order—please do not dispute my decision to close. I’ve been watching carefully. I have seen it through and I am aware that there are other questions. However, I’ve made a decision to close and—well, there will be a debate and there’ll be a decision. But if you challenge my decision to close, please don’t.

That was going to be it.

All right.

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

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendment deleting clause 4, set out on Amendment Paper 389, be agreed to.

Francisco Hernandez’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 388 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 386 be agreed to.

The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 314, to replace paragraph (a), be agreed to.

The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 314, to replace paragraph (b), be agreed to.

The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 314, to replace paragraph (d), be agreed to.

The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 315(2), to replace paragraph (b), be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendment to clause 22 replacing new section 315(2)(b), set out on Amendment Paper 390, be agreed to.

The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 315(2), to replace paragraph (d), be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendments to clause 22, new sections 316 and 317, set out on Amendment Paper 391, be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendment to clause 22, new section 317, set out on Amendment Paper 382, be agreed to.

The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 318, to replace subsection (1), be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendment to clause 22, new section 318(2), set out on Amendment Paper 383, be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendments to clause 22, new section 319, set out on Amendment Paper 392, be agreed to.

Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 321, to replace paragraph (c) is out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words.

The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 322(1), to replace paragraph (b), be agreed to.

The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 324, to replace paragraph (a), be agreed to.

The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 324(b), to replace subparagraph (i), be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendment to clause 22, new section 326(1), set out on Amendment Paper 393, be agreed to.

The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 337(2), to replace paragraph (c), be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendment to clause 22, new section 339, set out on Amendment Paper 385, be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendment to clause 22, new section 339, set out on Amendment Paper 394, be agreed to.

The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 339(2), to replace paragraph (d), be agreed to.

The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 339(6), to replace paragraph (a), be agreed to.

The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 339(6)(c), to replace subparagraph (ii), be agreed to.

The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 340, to replace subsection (2), be agreed to.

The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 341B, to replace subsection (4), be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendment to clause 22, new section 341H, set out on Amendment Paper 396, be agreed to.

The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 341M(1), to replace paragraphs (a) and (b), be agreed to.

Before I put the next question, can we have a bit more enthusiasm in calling the Ayes and Noes so that we can get some clarity on the voice votes. I can let the committee know we’re on to the last page, so we’re nearly there, folks.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendment to clause 22, new section 341P, set out on Amendment Paper 397, be agreed to.

The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 341P(3), to replace paragraph (a), be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendment to clause 23, new section 362, set out on Amendment Paper 384, be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendment to clause 23, new section 364(a)(ii), set out on Amendment Paper 398, be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendment to clause 23, new section 365, set out on Amendment Paper 399, be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendment to clause 23, new section 370, set out on Amendment Paper 395, be agreed to.

We now come to Part 2. This is the debate—point of order, the Hon Phil Twyford.

Point of order, Mr Chairman. I want to speak to Standing Order 137(3). We felt that the closure motion taken by your predecessor was not reasonable. We thought it was premature—very premature—for a bill of this substance and a lot of really meaty provisions in Part 1. Two hours is not excessive. In fact, it’s modest for a committee of the whole House. I don’t believe that there was excessive repetition, and, in fact, there weren’t warnings that we were going to be cut off. The Opposition members have been trying to work step by step through the substance of Part 1 and we got through, probably, barely half of it. There is a really significant section, Subpart 6, which covers the industry skills boards and apprenticeship training opportunities; we haven’t had a chance to speak to that. We were, I think, really part-way through the provisions around the federation of polytechnics, which is a big and significant and complex area. So to say we are unhappy about what we think was a premature closure is an understatement. I think that it has done a disservice to the quality of this committee stage.

So, Mr Chairman, I invite your advice about what we can do about that—what avenues there are to ensure that we get a chance, I think, to properly debate and scrutinise Subpart 6.

Thank you. Speaking to the point of order, Suze Redmayne.

We have spent at least 2½ hours on this part, and I’d just like to acknowledge that the previous Chair made it quite clear he’d considered carefully what had gone before and he didn’t want his decision challenged.

OK. Probably the other point—the issue before us, as well—is we’ve just finished the vote, which closes off Part 1. But I will seek some advice from the Clerks, because I do hear the concern here. [Consults with Clerk]

I just want to acknowledge the concern expressed by the Hon Phil Twyford, but just, also, to acknowledge that the Chairperson before me did make the call, the closure motion was taken, it was voted on, and then we’ve just gone through 40 minute’s worth of voting on the parts, as well. So, in terms of my ability to provide avenues at this particular point in time, they’re not there. We need to be able to move forward, in terms of the process that we’ve got in front of us right now.

Point of order. Thanks, Mr Chairman. I would like to seek the leave of the committee for Subpart 6 to be allocated a period of time for debate.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Leave has not been granted. OK, moving on to—

Point of order, Mr Chair. Just following on from that, if there would be any grace or ability to—I know we’re moving on to Part 2—have a little bit of leeway, if anything does pop in, from you in terms of that debate and discussion.

Yeah, I mean, if it’s attached to Part 2, then that is entirely possible, but you have to draw the link between Part 1 and Part 2 in order for that to happen. Because my understanding is Part 2 is about consequential amendments, so if there are consequential amendments flowing in from Part 1 to Part 2, then make the point in your calls, and then we’ll see if that’s appropriate or not.

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?

Shanan Halbert.

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

Keep waiting—she’s pondering.

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.

I was wondering if the member could help us by pointing us to which clauses and sections—that would help the committee.

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”—

Ah, yeah.

—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.

Just checking that WDC is workforce development councils?

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?

I think it was more around the relationship between the specific clauses.

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—

No, we’re fixing your funding issue.

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

My name’s not Suzanne.

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.

The magic money tree wasn’t real money.

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—

I’m not sure that that’s open slather.

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.

Can I ask the member to refer to the clause or schedule that he’s speaking to.

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.