Sitting Date: 15 October 2025

EDUCATION AND TRAINING (VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING SYSTEM) AMENDMENT BILL

Third Reading

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): I present a legislative statement on the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I move, That the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This is a great day for vocational education and training. That is all the wonderful people who build our roads and our houses, fix our cars, run our farms, plumb our bathrooms, cook for our restaurants, care for our people, the makers, the bakers and the creators, the fixers and the fabricators, the drivers, the shearers, the welders, the hairdressers—those valuable people who are useful and drive our economy.

The purpose of this bill is to redesign the vocational education and training system and increase industry leadership in vocational education and training, particularly in the areas of standard setting and work-based training; and restore local decision-making to polytechnics and their communities which support regional development. I am so pleased to get to this stage today as the bill fulfils the Government's commitment to disestablish Te Pūkenga.

The bill will re-establish regional polytechnics, and Cabinet has taken decisions on the 10 polytechnics that will initially be established as stand-alone polytechnics. These 10 will stand alone on 1 January 2026, with two of them expected to be in the federation. The remaining polytechnics will stay in Te Pūkenga for a very short time as they continue to build their financial sustainability. I am confident they will complete this work and that decisions will be able to be made about their establishment in the new year. Further decisions regarding the federation will be taken in the first half of next year with the intention that it will be operational by the middle of next year.

The bill will also establish industry skills boards (ISBs) and disestablish the workforce development councils. Work-based training—that's our wonderful apprentices and trainees—will transfer initially to the industry skill boards for a period of up to two years. This will support existing and new apprentices, who can also transfer or enrol into new industry private training establishments, polytechnics, and wānanga as suitable programmes emerge. Any gaps in the provision for new enrolments can be covered by industry skills boards during the two-year period.

The bill was amended via an Amendment Paper at the committee the whole House stage to change the commencement date of the bill. This will ensure that all preparations for the new system can be made prior to the transfer date of 1 January 2026 and the new entities can be ready to operate from that day.

Other technical amendments in the Amendment Paper were made by the committee of the whole House to support the transition of the work-based training divisions, make some tidy-up amendments to ensure the functionality of all provisions, and to correct any remaining drafting errors.

I'd like to thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office for their drafting of the bill and for their rapid work on the Amendment Papers, as these updates have ensured the bill is fit for purpose and ready for implementation.

There are many people that I want to thank. I want to thank the officials and the private secretaries from the Ministry of Education and the Tertiary Education Commission for this superb work in getting to this point. We are often hard on our bureaucrats, but they have been wonderful in this. I asked for them to have it done before Christmas and they've done that—it's unfortunate I asked two Christmases ago, but we've got it done this Christmas.

I'd like to thank my office—Trish, Alex, and Amy—who I've worked to the bone getting this done and I am so grateful for their unfailing support.

I'd like to thank the Education and Workforce Committee, led by Carl Bates, and all the members of that committee who have added to how good this bill is. I'd like to thank coalition partners for supporting me throughout this.

But most of all, I would like to thank the communities that I have visited across New Zealand who are so delighted to have their polytechnics back and are ready to support them. I want to thank all those wonderful industry people who have been putting their hands up to be in the driving seat to ensure the relevancy of the qualifications in their industry.

A huge amount of preparatory work has been done to get everything lined up and ready for a smooth transition of functions and activities to the new entities and to have the new system up and running by 1 January next year. Including the work by industry getting involved in the ISBs and including that financial work that's been done over the past 18 months, and the polytechnics have been wonderful making their way through that.

I want to thank all the industry representatives and the staff in the industry training organisations (ITOs). We know how important our tradespeople are and I want to highlight how valuable—especially our apprentices and our trainees. They are the salt of the earth people in our community. Through the development of their industry skills, they grow as individuals, they support their families and their industries, and I want to thank them for the work that they continue to do to contribute to the prosperity of our country.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all the wonderful staff across all the polytechnics and ITOs. They have had a tough time of it for the last few years and I really want to thank them for their professionalism. I want to thank them for how well they have looked after students during this time, and I acknowledge them and I look forward to us being able to work together and grow this important vocational education and training sector.

In closing, I just want to say I am incredibly pleased and humbled to have had the opportunity to lead the bill to this stage. But I am looking forward to the progress that we can now make together across that whole vocational education and training system as the new system beds in next year and beyond. I'm especially looking forward to achieving parity of esteem for our vocational education learners, our apprentices, recognising that the work that they do is so important, showcasing how valuable they are to our country. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don't know if anyone else in this room today thought that that sounded somewhat like a valedictory speech, Minister, when you go around thanking every single person in this House. I know why that is: it's because the promise that the National Government sold last election—to reintroduce regional autonomy for polytechnics—this bill does not achieve that. It may give people the right to think that suddenly they have regional decision-making again, but what does that mean if you only have half of what you had? What does that mean if you only have half of what it had? What is the real cost of this National Government's vocational reforms? The cost is jobs—hundreds of jobs in the vocational sector: gone. Campuses: gone. Courses and access to learning in our regional communities: gone.

Hon Penny Simmonds: An extra $20 million going in.

SHANAN HALBERT: The Minister says there's an extra $20 million going in. The Minister knows that the reports and the advice that she has had is that she needs at least $200 million to stand up 16 polytechnics. Herein lies the problem with this legislation: the problem that we have collectively—that consecutive Governments—have been trying to solve is how do we make a vocational polytech system financially viable for the future? Over decades, it has lost money, and it has required consecutive Governments to bail them out. At no point throughout the process of this piece of legislation have we seen the financials, have we seen the cost-benefit analysis that tells us that this is a financially viable plan.

Francisco Hernandez: Show us the money!

SHANAN HALBERT: It is not here. We can make all the promises in the world, but the reality of this legislation is that it has come at the cost of jobs, of courses, and of campuses. Anyone that sits in this room and who comes from those regional communities—from Northland through to Otago, through to Tairāwhiti—you've lost out in this bill. Our young people have lost out, and our communities have lost out, because there are less and less opportunities—particularly for our young people.

When we look at the numbers of NEETs increasing under this National Government—under Christopher Luxon—this bill does not take responsibility for that problem. It does not take responsibility for that problem, because, at the very heart of it, this bill also doesn't address the lack of provision and access to provision that we have in foundation learning. When Christopher Luxon tells young people to get off the couch, stop playing PlayStation, and go and find a job, not only are there no jobs, but even if they're trying to get into foundation learning, they can't get in. They're getting turned away, and that is shameful.

Simon Court: This bill's going to fix it, Shanan.

SHANAN HALBERT: This bill is not going to fix it. Where have you been? [Interruption] Where have you been? [Interruption] Madam Chair, that comment from the ACT Party member just—it threw me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can see that.

SHANAN HALBERT: I come back to financial viability. The National Government simply cannot afford this legislation. It takes us back to a model where we've already been and that we simply couldn't afford. There hasn't been an explanation of how we can do things cheaper or how we can make arrangements for shared services to make savings and to create better outcomes for people that work there, for communities and, particularly, for learners.

I don't believe we had the opportunity to have a robust discussion about the industry skills boards in our debate this morning. If anything, it's a part of this conversation that hasn't been as easily explained as our local polytechs and the federations. We know that, under this Government, thousands and thousands less apprentices are graduating under their watch—thousands. Twenty thousand construction workers have gone off to other parts of the world, and thousands of apprentices aren't graduating or enrolling under their watch. That becomes problematic for our workforce, and it becomes problematic for our economy overall.

The thing is that the Minister promised—promised—industry that they would have more leadership under this piece of legislation. She hasn't achieved that, and industry has been very clear with the Minister that this legislation falls well short. They are not happy with this; they are not satisfied with what this legislation offers, and they simply do not believe that the way it has been structured or the plans that are in place are going to train in the skills areas that we desperately need for workforce shortages in this country. This bill does not have industry backing—it does not have industry backing—and it came through clearly in the submissions that were made and that the Education and Workforce Committee heard.

The workforce development councils (WDCs) were a successful part of the previous Labour Government's reforms. The industries were very clear on that, because they developed qualifications and micro-credentials that people were able to train with and that were put together by a group of experts. Instead of continuing that on—because I appreciate that sometimes this is political, but in education we can be sensible. The shortcoming of the Minister, when it comes to WDCs, is that she should have just transitioned them over. The industry skills boards do not offer anything new or additional in form and function that the workforce development councils didn't do.

It doesn't make sense to disestablish workforce development councils and re-establish a whole new entity while giving them only half the funding that they used to have under the old model. How is that setting industry up for success? How is that setting learners up for success? Most of all, how is that building a workforce that our economy needs? How is that getting us to a better place than what was in place before? I genuinely believe, with the 30 years of experience that the Minister has had in tertiary education, she knows today what she is doing. She knows that this doesn't create better outcomes for learners, it's not financially viable, and that, most of all, she has let industry down in the promise that she made back in the last election.

I have always said that her plan doesn't stack up—it just simply doesn't stack up—but I've given the Minister the benefit of the doubt to show us the detail of how this is achievable. We haven't seen the finances on our polytechs; we still have no details on the federations, and that is a good example of the emperor with no clothing, Minister. We still don't have a viable transitional plan around the industry skills boards. I expect a high level of legislation coming into this House, but, particularly when it comes to our education sector, I believe that this is a space where we can work, in a bipartisan way, to address the systemic challenges that are in front of us. If every young person in this country does well—if they have access to education and higher learning—then that will benefit out country and our economy. I do not commend this bill to the House.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill, the final one, in its third reading stage. Finally, we're grinding to the end.

I want to begin by acknowledging the people that I've always acknowledged at the start of all my debates, in all the readings except for the committee of the whole House stage where it would be impractical. These are the learners and the students in the communities that have undergone nearly a decade of disruption in the polytech sector. With nearly one-in-seven jobs lost, with campuses closed across the board, and with programmes disestablished, it's hard to see that this is what success looks like for this National Government. It's hard to see that all this pain is being suffered with the ultimate conclusion of the Treasury that the viability of the new institutions would be the same, if not worse. Almost contradictorily to my first point, I also want to thank the Minister for her engagement on this bill. I think democracy is best served when Ministers are engaged and active in the subject. Minister Simmonds, with your three decades of experience and a clear passion for the polytech sector, we appreciated your engagement during the committee of the whole House, and you're correct to thank your office. They've been very active in engaging through the parliamentary written questions process, and we thank them for their work.

I want to turn to the reasons why we oppose this bill—in spite of my kind words for the Minister. They're rooted around three concerns: representation, the federation model, and the viability of the future pathway for the polytechnics. I'll go through them one by one. I want to begin my contribution around the representation part by reading from an unlikely subject's speech during the committee of the whole House stage on the bill that established Te Pūkenga. That member is, surprisingly, Simeon Brown. Simeon Brown, in that speech, asked if there were other options though which the staff and students are able to have their voices heard rather than through central planning where the Minister essentially retains control. Simeon Brown was then complaining about the lack of staff and student representation provisions on the bill that established Te Pūkenga. I do agree that there was insufficient staff and student representation. There was only provision for one staff and one student representation. In contrast, in this bill, there's no staff or student representation guaranteed at all, which is very problematic. I do think that some enlightened polytechnics will still choose to have staff and student representation because we know that getting the learner perspective and getting the perspective of the staff who make these institutions run, is really a valuable way of governing. We do know that some won't, and it's a real loss.

I also want to talk about the stripping down and watering down of the Te Tiriti clauses and the requirements for Māori representation, which is another loss in the bill and another big omission from what could have been a bill that endured the test of time in a cross-party way.

I want to talk about the federation model. The Minister, in her committee of the whole House stage, advocated for it being a positive thing. If it was such a positive thing, why are polytechs required to be part of it but not required to be consented for it? If the federation model was going to be so successful, then, logically, polytechs would want to be a part of it, and they wouldn't need to be forced to be part of it. Unfortunately, the Government voted down my amendments which would require the consent of the communities and would require the consent of the polytechnics to be a part of the federation.

Now, the Minister said that in some cases some polytechs don't actually know that they're drowning and that they'll be in denial on this issue, but that's where the mechanisms around Crown observers could come in, to rescue them from, essentially, their own delusion. The excuse of not requiring the consents of communities to be a part of the federation does not wash. I'm also really concerned about the lack of mechanism for anchor polytechnics to exit the federation. This is something that I did have a back and forth with the Minister on.

This is something that I was going to bring up later during the debate around new section 380 around the closure of the industry skills boards (ISBs). Now, like anchor polytechnics, industry skills boards are also established via Order in Council. The Minister said that it was not necessary to include provisions to require exit clauses for anchor polytechnics, because they're being established by Order in Council, but ISBs are also being established by Order in Council. New section 380 also makes provisions to disestablish the industry skills boards via Order in Councils, so there is some inconsistency in the legislation. I do worry that the Government is opening itself up to potential legal challenges as a result of this inconsistency in drafting.

We're also really concerned around, essentially, the potential for Ministerial overreach in the governing councils of these new Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand (ITPs). The only people that the Minister had to consult when appointing or removing the chairperson or deputy chairperson is the chairperson or the deputy chairperson themselves. It doesn't require the consent of the ITP council that she's already appointing half of. Our view is that it unduly concentrates power in the hands of one person. It's a shame that the Amendment Papers I drafted, which would have potentially fixed that, have been voted down.

I want to turn to the idea of sector viability, because this was something that this bill was intended to fix. Again, I keep coming back to the words of the Treasury advice about how the ITP sector would, essentially, be the same, if not worse, than they would be coming out of Te Pūkenga as they did before Te Pūkenga was established. This is really key because, from my point of view, we've just gone through unnecessary pain. This is the view of a lot of the staff as well. When I asked the Tertiary Institutes Allied Staff Association and the Tertiary Education Union, at the select committee stage for this bill, whether the level of disruption that they were encountering was worse or better or about the same as they did when Te Pūkenga was established, they both said that it was much worse now. Again, we know that there's been significant disruption to staff, we know that there's been significant disruption to students, and we know that there's been significant disruption to the communities that the polytechs are going to serve. I do worry about what that will do to the future viability of the polytechnics. When you have a car that's lost one-seventh of its functions, of its parts, or of its essence, how is that going to be a more viable car going forward?

Look, all of us here across the House want to see people who are not in education, employment, or work going to some form of training, but they are forcing these beneficiaries into either employment or training or education. Can these polytechnics that have lost so much staff, that have lost so many courses, and that have, in some cases, stopped in-person delivery at campus handle the surge of people that are going to these institutions? Our concern is that they can't. There's funding coming at the end of the process when they've already gone through these changes. I feel that, logically, it would have been better to spend the money at the start, to define what the strategically important provisions would have been, and then to cushion the blow so that these ITPs are not losing valuable people just as they need to start again.

One of our concerns—and the Minister did talk about this a little bit—is about how much debt polytechs are going into as they start up. A lot of them are carrying existing debt. I had an Amendment Paper that would have eliminated the debt that the polytechs were going to carry forward. Unfortunately, the Government members didn't vote for that legislation.

I want to turn, now, in my last 30 seconds, to expand on the concept of the new ISBs. I agree with my colleague Shanan Halbert that there should have been a lift and shift because, with the additional responsibilities that have been overlaid, essentially, they're having to do twice the work with half of the funding that's been required. Taken all-in-all, because of the cuts in representation, because of the fact that the forced federation doesn't actually restore regional autonomy but, in fact, creates a tier system where successful polytechs can be independent but the ones that aren't, aren't, and because of the lack of viability, we oppose this legislation.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm taking this call on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill. We are very pleased to see this version of the bill which is going through the third reading and we are really looking forward to seeing that this bill is going through the House now and will be, hopefully, passed very, very soon.

The decision of merging polytechnics was a disastrous decision, and just listening to the Labour member and the Green member there, it felt like they have finally woken up. They have realised that there were issues with the vocational education and training system, but when they were in Government they didn't realise that they didn't ask those kind of questions. But now, all of a sudden, they have all those questions that they are trying to ask of this Government, and this Government is trying to fix that issue, that big disaster that was created by the previous Labour-led Government.

This bill actually fixes this very important issue because vocational education cannot be undermined. It is really important and what we are doing through this bill is we are restoring regional decision-making. Why is that important? That is important because this is about local needs, this is about local jobs, and it's about ensuring that local industries have a stronger voice. This is about ensuring that when industries evolve, they are able to take into consideration what needs to be done to respond to those evolving needs, and also, students' needs evolve as well, so the polytechs are able to respond to that. And that can happen only when there is regional decision-making.

Two changes happened in the select committee process. I want to quickly highlight those changes. One change was about the appointment of members of a polytechnic council. Before, what it said was that it should include ethnic, gender, and socio-economic diversity, and that it should include Māori. We all know that the polytechnic council's job should be about ensuring that polytechs are able to run properly, they are able to maintain financial sustainability, and that they are able to deal with the operational challenges. So we wanted to focus on ensuring that people, those who are capable, those who are able to deliver in these jobs, are appointed. That's why that amendment was made in the select committee process to reflect that the council of a polytechnic should, as far as is reasonably practicable, reflect the communities in the region that the polytechnic serves.

The second change that I want to highlight here is about industry skills boards' functions and duties. The original legislation said that they must act in a manner that contributes to an education system that honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi and supports Māori-Crown relations. Now, we need to look at the core function of industry skills boards and we need to ensure that industry skills boards are able to deliver on those core functions—that is, to plan for workforce needs, set and maintain skill standards and qualifications, and other things. So when we see these kind of things in the legislation we think they are quite irrelevant. They are actually unnecessary and are distractions and that's why that has been changed as well, to say that it has regard to the needs of Māori and other population groups as identified in the tertiary education strategy.

So now the bill that we have before us is in a much improved form than when it was tabled, but that is the process of the select committee and that is the process of the scrutiny of the committee of the whole House. So the ACT Party is quite pleased to support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of this important reform bill. I want to start off, if I can congratulate the Minister Penny Simmonds for all the work that's been done on this, because I know it has been a long, hard journey. Two things I wanted to say: first of all, to celebrate the re-establishment of community-based polytechs and the end of what we would regard as the failed centralisation model of Te Pūkenga, which was brought in by the last Government.

One of the things that I love is going around the country and seeing that every different area is different. All of them have their own aspirations, all of them have their own needs, and what is really exciting is to see each different community working with its local polytech already, and I think that's great. There are some of those regional polytechs, in particular, where there are far-flung parts of the district—I particularly think about NorthTec and the areas like the Kaikohes and Kaitāias and Kerikeris of the world. They need extra support and that is being acknowledged there as well. I would say that sometimes it is more expensive to deliver things into those far-flung areas and therefore they do—

Hūhana Lyndon: 32 programmes are going to get cut.

ANDY FOSTER: —need more resource. I don't think the Green Party's actually been listening to the answers that the Minister gave on those particular questions.

One other thing I would say in that area is that if you are a long way away from your polytech, the drop-out rate and the inability to complete is much, much higher than it is if you live in the area very, very close, in the town that is there, so there is an extra need not only for extra resource or maybe hybrid models but also for extra pastoral care. I did note the question that Francisco Hernandez asked about that a while ago.

New Zealand First strongly believes in regional empowerment, and, as I said, in education, different areas, different regions have different needs, and so I would advocate that we need to be wrapping these things up in regional deals. That's something that New Zealand First very strongly supports, that we need more work in regional deals and we encourage the Minister to get on with those regional deals. In this case, it's a different Minister, of course, but that is very, very important.

The final thing I wanted to say is this also frees up industry training organisations, which had effectively been nationalised into Te Pūkenga by the last Government. They have become industry skills boards (ISBs), as we've heard. They're not exactly the same as the workforce development councils, particularly because they also deliver educational outcomes, and that is a significant difference.

The final thing I wanted to say about those is the idea is to establish the ISBs by 1 January next year and then to transition them through to being their own stand-alone entities. Some of those are ready to go. The Minister knows that and I hope that as soon as possible, even possibly before they become ISBs, some of those entities are able to be free to go and do their own thing, because they are ready or very close to ready. She knows that I'm talking about Connexis, that's the civil construction area; MITO, the motor trades industry; and BCITO, building and construction. So I hope that we can get to there as fast as possible.

This bill is about strengthening regional responsiveness, improving industry alignment, and delivering the skills that our country needs. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: [Interruption]The next call is a split call. Hūhana Lyndon.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Hello, kia ora. Sorry, that just took my breath away.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I took a double-take, too.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I'm speaking on behalf of Te Rōpu Kākāriki, who, of course, object to this legislation, and bringing the voice of an informed Northlander—an informed Northlander—who is of the North—

Hon Member: We've got one of those over here!

Grant McCallum: Hello!

HŪHANA LYNDON: —who's connected in the North, and who actually talks to the community. I am here to share the actual issues in the community, because maybe this House didn't know that none of the iwi of Te Tai Tokerau actually knew that these changes were coming and that NorthTec was going to have to cut back so much. Some of the problem is that the communities have been left out of the conversation. We have seen that clearly in Te Tai Tokerau, whereby the iwi have been chasing for connection to the change, have been chasing to understand what is happening on the ground, and there is impact right now in our institutes of technology and polytechnics sector.

We can't ignore the fact that there are staff on the line right now that don't know whether they will have a job by Christmas, because that's what these changes are bringing. The independence that we're hearing in terms of regionalisation and giving the rangatiratanga back to the communities—well, there's a good number of staff that have their jobs on the line right now in NorthTec. They are support services; they are the admin staff; they are the marketing staff; the pastoral support people that, apparently, some of members in the House reckon we need more of—their jobs are on the line; even student voice—the coordinators of student advocacy events and tautoko for students—their jobs on the line too.

So what's the remedy for Northland? What's the remedy for the Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki? What's the remedy for Toi Ohomai Institute of Technology? All of these regional campuses that are being given back their rangatira—but forced, really; it's a forced thing, eh, because we weren't asked whether we're going to join a federation or shared services, because there hasn't been sufficient community engagement on any of these changes proposed. Rather, it has been creeping along quietly, and the staff, particularly, have been muzzled; they have not been able to share what they are being impacted by. And the students don't even understand the ripple effect of what will occur, because when enrolments and the registrar and the marketing team and the ICT teams are all getting cut back—who's going to keep the lights on? Who's going to do the facility maintenance? Because those teams are all being cut back in regional New Zealand.

So what will Christmas look like? What will Christmas look like for these key staff members and the institutional knowledge that will be lost? Because when people leave NorthTec, they get the post-NorthTec glow, and they don't come back. They go on and they do awesome things. But if we lose a programme, a tutor, if we lose a support staff member, if we lose a director and managers, then they don't come back—and that's a loss to the sector. I shared this recently in one of the many community huis that I've hosted on this issue—to my colleague, the Northland MP: he could have come; there's been hundreds of people come to my meetings. It was interesting to hear when the forestry tutors stood up and they said, "We've been teaching forestry for a decade, and we know we're in a tough spot right now. We don't have students. It's low numbers, but, you know, it's only two years away and then we'll be required again."—and if those tutors leave, you lose all of that institutional knowledge.

It's not easy to get a tradie academically ready, and I say that with love, having been working alongside our academic staff. Sometimes they're not—you know, they're in industry. They may need the academic support that comes from the admin team and the enrolments team to make sure that they click the right button on "A+"–you know, all of these are systems that are in place to make it easier for us to deliver could actually be undermined, because the back office is something that is required and, at the moment, we have job cuts coming.

Finally, in closing, talking to the issue of Māori-Pacific trade training: the fact that, actually, while there is funding offered, it's more looking like Māori-Pacific trade training is a dollar that's being kept internally in these institutions, and they'll just clip the ticket and say, "We're doing it for our Māori and Pacific students", because they've actually closed the door on hapū and iwi relationships—like we've heard from Ngāi Tahu, like we've heard from Te Matarau Education Trust. Over 10 years of delivery of Māori-Pacific trade training; in December 2024, the door was shut on Te Matarau Education Trust and they were evicted from the building in NorthTec. So that's a good question for the Minister to ask NorthTec: "Oh, far out—why did you kick Te Matarau out, and what happened to the relationship with hapū and iwi in Te Tai Tokerau?". Kia ora.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to tautoko the work that the Minister has done in bringing regional polytechnics back to the regions. Our own of the Universal College of Learning (UCOL) in Whanganui is a really positive step for our region. We're looking forward to having regional influence on the governance of UCOL in Whanganui, in the Manawatū, and I know that it is the same across New Zealand, so I commend the bill to the House.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Lovely. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to stand to take call on the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill. Now, as the Labour spokesperson for the creative economy, I stand in opposition to this bill, and I would like to take a moment to explain why that is so. Earlier this week, I had the privilege of visiting Haeata Community Campus, a fantastic school in the Christchurch East electorate. That school is full of young, enthusiastic, clever, excited, positive students. They are our future, and this move doesn't see them, because this move cuts, out of the purview of so many, the ability to be part of our creative economy. Our creative economy has enormous potential to provide meaningful, well-paid jobs, jobs that people will love, jobs that will contribute not just to their incomes but to their community and to our economy as well.

A few weeks back, I was able to see a number of those jobs in action from members of our creative economy at the New Zealand Game Developers Conference here in Wellington. Now, business is booming for our game developers. They are punching above their weight. They are creating amazing games that become weightless exports around the world. We can sell them over and over and over again, and they perform incredibly well. One of the reasons that business is booming so significantly for our gaming sector is because of a rebate scheme that Labour put in when we were last in Government. That has delivered enormous growth to the sector and enabled, very importantly, those creative economy jobs to stay in New Zealand. Instead of disappearing off to other countries—where they very easily could have and where there were very strong incentives for them to do so—they have been able to stay in New Zealand as New Zealand jobs. Those people are contributing, not just to the companies they work for, not just to their personal income, but to our wider economy and to New Zealand's wellbeing.

Now, the steps taken in this bill, the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill, do not do anything for the growth of jobs in our creative economy. This bill does not even see that our creative economy exists. I want to look at three specific ways in which it doesn't see our creative economy. The most significant of those—and I'm taking these from the submission that was made to the select committee—was from WeCreate, which is a fantastic organisation that brings so many people in our creative economy together to represent them with one voice. The loss of the industry leadership role: a core function was to have an industry leadership voice from the creative sector in our tertiary education and training institutions. That voice is lost. Further, it's no longer required to give effect to advice from our industry skills boards (ISBs). Previously where they were obligated to, now, they are no longer required, under this bill, to take advice from our ISBs.

The thing that I have found most astounding—just as a point of clarification, do I have the full 10 minutes, or do I only have—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You do.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: In that case, I'm very happy to let those members across the other side of the House who are hanging on every word know that whilst I can see from the looks on their faces they have struggled to keep up to this point, I will now speak a lot slower.

The biggest concern for me—this is also in the submission from WeCreate—is the reduced focus on equity and sustainability. There are five points here. The first is that they are no longer required to consider specific consultation with Māori and underserved population groups. Let that sink in. They are no longer required to consider specific consultation with Māori and underserved population groups. Just to remind you, this is in New Zealand—no longer required specific consultation with Māori and underserved population groups. Second, ISBs are no longer required to consider a transition to low emissions and a climate-resilient New Zealand. Third, they are no longer required to consider global sustainability goals. Fourth, they are no longer required—join in; you're getting the lines—to consider new global challenges and emerging technologies.

Carl Bates: Why did polytechnics need to worry about any of this?

REUBEN DAVIDSON: Carl Bates, you'll find they are no longer required to consider emerging technologies. I don't know if you've been keeping up. I don't know if you've been keeping up, but artificial intelligence is moving at great speed—at great speed—and ISBs are no longer required to consider emerging technologies. That seems beyond bizarre.

They are also no longer required to consider the changing nature of work. Now, we can disagree on a lot of things in this House, and we often do, but I think no one in this House could stand up and challenge the fact that work and how we work is changing radically and possibly more and faster than we have ever seen or are likely to see in our lifetimes. Yet this Act puts in place legislation that would mean that ISBs are no longer required to consider the changing nature of work. That strikes me as beyond belief.

When I see the other ways in which this bill absolutely ignores key sectors, like our creative economy, and absolutely overlooks the fact that our creative economy even exists, let alone is thriving in the places where we've got the settings right, and has the ability to continue to grow and to continue to provide us with amazing high-paying, good jobs for our young people across so many industries.

Instead, no, this Government says, "We do not see the creative economy." What is the message that I give to those students from Haeata, those students who I visited on Monday, those students who are clever, who are excited, who are positive, who want to have great jobs, who want to work hard, and who want to contribute to New Zealand? The only message from this Government is: "We do not see you." The other message from this Government is: "Everyone must go." That is the message you are saying to our young people. They are young people looking for meaningful jobs and meaningful work. That's why, when I have a conversation with an intermediate school student in Acheson Avenue in Shirley and I ask him, "What do you want to do when you leave school?", he says, "Move to Australia." Well, the good news is that by the time that person leaves school, this Government will be history.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to give a short call on the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill. I say one thing: look north. Look north over the Brynderwyns; look up to the NorthTec and you will see that we are going to have great vocational education available to the people of Northland. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is resumed. When we broke for the dinner break, we were debating the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill. We're up to call number 10, which is a split call and it's the Labour Party.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill, which is a bill, as colleagues have said, that we will not be supporting in the House today.

I did not have the pleasure of sitting on the Education and Workforce Committee when submissions were heard on this bill, but I have read through many of the submissions and listened to the calls that were taken during the committee of the whole House. I think what is unfortunate is that post - committee of the whole House, there is supposed to be much more clarity about the legislation and how it will be implemented—and, sadly, that is not the case in relation to this bill.

There remain a number of questions—as my colleague Shanan Halbert has pointed out earlier in this debate—that remain; that create a large amount of uncertainty for those in the industry as well as students, many students who are already engaged in studies at these institutions. Questions such as what the costs will be in terms of transitioning Te Pūkenga and re-establishing polytechnics under the federation system. Questions about how many jobs and programmes are going to continue to be cut to make the transition viable. Questions about whether this additional transition and change is actually going to deliver for learners and why the Minister for Vocational Education is seeking so much high-level decision-making power over the sector when she's claiming to give autonomy back to the regions.

There are several questions that still remain, and if you move away from the committee of the whole House and look at the submissions that were put forward to select committee, there's a certain amount of trepidation in the tone underlying many of those submissions.

I look to the submission of the Aged Care Association, who make a number of recommendations in terms of finances, because clearly they're worried that there isn't clarity about the funding for transition, but then also the funding to ensure that the new entities are funded and set up well. They make points such as the need for robust, detailed consultation with industry stakeholders on the actual funding rates and models for industry skills boards once these are developed. They make comments about any industry levy implemented under the bill provisions needing to be genuinely industry-supported and used for purposes that directly benefit the aged-care sector as a whole. They make suggestions as to concerns about the potential for provider charges for QA functions to increase costs for providers, which could be passed on to learners or impact the sector's already strained finances; and the need for any changes that are being made to be transparent.

These seem like fairly obvious policy suggestions, but the fact that they're reflected in submissions to select committee, in my view, reflects a trepidation from many of those who are engaged in the sector.

There was also a combined submission from the Disabled Persons Assembly and the National Disabled Students' Association, both of whom oppose these changes. They made several points about how difficult it already is for disabled students to access tertiary education. They talk about what I would call "layered changes" and how that impacts disabled students in particular. They point out specifically that with equity funding being changed as well, disabled students are more likely to suffer detrimentally in this space.

The submission of E tū is also fairly robust in terms of speaking to the fact that the workforce development councils have been working well, and it's very unusual for changes to be made in the face of a system and a structure that is already working well.

It is something that submitters have very much opposed or opposed in part in their submissions—I believe only 11 percent were completely in support of the changes—and therefore we oppose this bill.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): It's a great honour to rise and speak about this wonderful bill. Here we are correcting another failure of the former Labour Government, the centralisation of polytechnics—what a disaster. It's about time sensibility returned to polytechs and vocational training that we all knew worked and delivered. The Eastern Institute of Technology Tairāwhiti and the value it brought to Tairāwhiti was just amazing. We welcome this bill and the return of regionalised vocational training, doing the job that's needed in the regions. Thank you, Penny Simmonds, for finally returning sensible solutions to the system. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): It was touching at the beginning of this debate to hear the relief and the excitement in the voice of Minister Penny Simmonds in her speech in this third and final reading of this bill. I think we can all acknowledge what a huge amount of work for all of the officials, our parliamentary staff, and the Minister herself, in bringing a bill of this size through the legislative pipeline of Parliament. Regardless of the partisan politics and our differing views about the best way to build the kind of vocational and educational training system that New Zealand needs, we all believe in the importance of good vocational education and training serving our communities from one end of this country to the other and giving these students and trainees the qualifications and skills that they need.

But with the scepticism that comes more naturally to the Opposition benches, we have questions and concerns—many questions and concerns—that have just not been allayed by the select committee process or the debate in this House. We still haven't seen a cost-benefit analysis that would justify the policy design and the architecture of the system that the Minister has chosen. We still haven't seen—in spite of Shanan Halbert persistently asking for it—the money for the transition, let alone the capitalisation of the new polytechs, or any way to be assured about the overall financial viability of the new system.

It was very clear from the submissions to the Education and Workforce Committee that the employers who rely so heavily on a good vocational education and training system don't have confidence in the model that the Minister has chosen and that is embodied in this bill. Civil Contractors New Zealand said to the select committee—Civil Contractors New Zealand, the peak body of the organisations who build the infrastructure in this country, came along to the committee and said that at no point was anyone able to articulate the problem that these reforms solved, and they were very worried about the future funding of the vocational education system. They said, "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 [the RoVE] reforms were not delivering for industry, and that the cost of the structure was unreasonable and prohibitive. In our view,"—they said—"neither statement is correct."

One submitter after another came along to the select committee and, in the words of Ministry of Education officials—don't take my word for it; Ministry of Education officials wrote, "Many described the Bill as ideologically driven, lacking clarity of purpose and a clear evidence base, and felt it reverses progress made under Te Pūkenga. Many also felt there is no coherent plan or clarity regarding the functions of the new entities." The new system is much more complex than Te Pūkenga was and more complex than the old system, and the official said that in the regulatory impact statement.

You've got multiple polytechs, you've got industry skills boards, and on top of that you've got this federation model with polytechs who are unperforming able to be forced into this federation with an anchor polytech supposedly providing support. It is a complex system overlaid over a set of institutions with a very big question mark over their financial viability. It is a recipe for further decline.

As we discussed during the earlier debate, this bill strips out references to Te Tiriti and it waters down commitments to engage with Māori institutions at the local level and the national level; commitments that were there to ensure that Māori are represented on the governance boards of the new polytechs. It's a shame. It's a shame in modern New Zealand that a Government thinks it's OK to strip out commitments to the Treaty partnership, especially when we're talking about a vocational education and training system that is serving one of the largest groups that it looks after and is supposed to be serving: our young Māori workers and students who are disadvantaged in the labour market and the education system. But apparently this Government thinks it's OK not to take that relationship seriously.

So this is the picture—notwithstanding the Minister's enthusiasm and euphoria tonight: no assurance about the financial viability of the system, no potential under the new design for cross-subsidisation, industry skills boards which are basically a carbon copy of the workforce development councils, but with half the funding.

Francisco Hernandez: Twice the work.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: That's right. And now at a time of very high youth unemployment, we have thousands fewer apprentices than we had a few years ago. Given the Government's apparent unwillingness to invest in the new politics, the inevitable result will be fewer courses, fewer trainees, and fewer jobs in the system.

So the Minister might have got her way restoring the decentralised model that she loved so much, but at what cost? Unviable polytechs limping along, delivering fewer and fewer courses to fewer and fewer trainees. At this point, I can't help but think that the result is a victory for political hubris over evidence, stakeholder opinions clearly articulated, and common sense.

We are a tiny country. We battle constantly with the tyranny of scale. I fear that this Minister has designed a system that will be permanently hostage to scale—small populations dispersed around the country—and distance, likely to struggle to deliver the quality or the breadth of training and education that our young people deserve.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Oh, thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm quite shocked, Phil Twyford usually gives a great speech—very good off the cuff, and he read that speech. I'm not sure whose it was, but I think the technical term is "projection". I mean, he said, "no cost benefit analysis" and it was a financial disaster. Well, that's exactly what we had with Te Pūkenga. I'll give the House an example: the Marlborough Nelson Institute of Technology. I got that round the wrong way deliberately because I believe "M" always comes before "N", but that has had $23 million that went into Te Pūkenga and they're going to come out with $11.7 million. So that's about $12 million just gone down the toilet because of mismanagement.

This is a great day for New Zealand. It's a great day for young and older learners, and it's a great day for the New Zealand economy because it will enable people to get training and get jobs and have a great life. Thanks to you very much, Minister Simmons. You've done a great job today and well done.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is the Te Pāti Māori split call. I call Tākuta Ferris.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā tātou. We've been discussing the bill a lot today and, look, I've been in education myself for 25 years. I know that I look young, but that's how long it's been. I started early—very early.

Carl Bates: It was 15 yesterday.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, you weren't listening just today, were you? You don't listen, anyway.

I did 11 years at Te Wānanga o Raukawa—yeah, Māori wānanga education. Then I went to the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT), as the director of Māori education—they still call it the NMIT; Tasman might have a tussle with you there, Stuart Smith—and then I did seven years at Massey University, as the principal Māori adviser. So we've grappled with all sorts of things like how you turn a university into becoming a Tiriti-led university, and built an iwi council alongside the NMIT council, from a time when they were in such a deep fight they couldn't stand to be in the room with one another, and aal along the way, we built two kura kaupapa. Along the way, our kids went all the way through all of that, and so I understand it pretty good.

The institutes of technology and polytechnics (ITP) sector has got a really key job, and it's to train our people into work. The Māori unemployment rate today is double that of New Zealand—it's 10 percent. We need training desperately—desperately. Our young people need training desperately.

I'm going to cut the Minister for Vocational Education some slack and say that I hope you get it right—I really do. A great colleague of mine, and a mentor, Tony Gray—he hopes you get it right, and we both hope you're getting it right, because we understand the challenges. We've had to trudge through them. We've done the hard yards to shorten the gap between someone who won't come in the door—Māori kids, I'm talking about—and someone who needs a job, needs a career, and all of that, and I've talked about it in the Budget speech this year. The country needs young Māori. Those members don't like to admit it, but you need young Māori.

If you want the great economy that you talk about being able to build, you need young Māori for that economy. I'll tell you why. Take a big infrastructure company like Downer Construction, or somebody. With Downer's, their workforce population north of Taupō is 33 percent Māori, and south of Taupō, it's 44 percent Māori. Now, that's why you need young Māori. That's why they need training, and that's why this bill has to succeed, although a lot of the things in it, Minister, tell me that it will struggle. It will struggle, but I've got to live in hope—I have to live in hope.

Removing Te Tiriti o Waitangi out of the requirements is a mistake, in my view. Diluting it, downgrading it—that's a mistake, in my view. The work required to train organisations to deliver well for young Māori requires an explicit description of what the commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi needs to be. So downgrading from "honours Te Tiriti"—that's a good one. That's very clear—honour Te Tiriti. OK, probably 99 times out of 100, if I'm promoting this idea somewhere, people ask how or why. Well, if it's in the legislation and it says that you must do it, they will find ways. This is what it got downgraded to: "have regard to the needs of Māori and other population groups".

Until the country and its laws and its lawmakers can come to the agreement that the bicultural framework of constitutional rights set out in Te Tiriti o Waitangi is an actual thing and start to acknowledge them—and those two rights are the Māori rights and the Crown rights. They were cleverly captured by Eddie Durie and the likes in the 1970s and 1980s, just for clarity for the people, in the terms "tangata Tiriti" and "tangata whenua". Those two terms describe where those two groups derive their constitutional right from. Tangata whenua derive the constitutional right from the land, as the name suggests, and tangata Tiriti derive the constitutional right from the Treaty, as the name suggests.

That's probably the most alarming thing in the amendments, Minister. For me, it's the downgrading of the Māori right, because until the Māori right is recognised properly, our kids won't do well in mainstream education. The Māori unemployment rate will continue to be double. These are the things that need fixing, and they need fixing because young Māori and young Polynesians are the future. Good luck to you, Minister. The country is counting on you, but we, unfortunately, don't support the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill.

© Scoop Media