logo
Simmonds taking charge as Te Pukenga gets whacked

Simmonds taking charge as Te Pukenga gets whacked

Vendetta is the Italian word for "revenge", and it was used quite a lot by Labour in the House on Tuesday.
No, not because its MPs were complaining about the National Party's views of Te Pati Maori (which they were), but because they were complaining about that well-known political mafiosi, Invercargill National MP Penny Simmonds.
Now, Ms Simmonds has not got a bitter bone in her body, but so far as Labour was concerned, as she got to her feet to begin the work she has been preparing for for many months — the dismantling of Te Pukenga — Ms Simmonds was some sort of conglomeration of Vito Corleone, Tony Montana and Tony Soprano as she sought retribution for the perceived wrongs done to her.
"This plan is Minister for Vocational Education Penny Simmonds' personal vendetta," Shanan Halbert thundered.
"This is a terrible move from a minister with a vendetta, with no plan, no funding for vocational education," Rachel Boyack said.
Ginny Anderson's contribution was somewhat less on the nose — she accused Ms Simmonds of having "a singular purpose" — but you know that she meant the "V" word.
So, what was Labour getting so steamed up with Ms Simmonds about?
The Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill basically undoes a huge chunk of work which Labour had done while it was in government, to merge the country's various polytechnics into the mega Te Pukenga organisation. The mega merger was, you may recall, the work of one Chris Hipkins, a man of some prominence in Labour's ranks.
The creation of Te Pūkenga had laudable aims, such as streamlining procedures and policies and reducing cost duplication.
However, its critics — notably the former Southland Institute of Technology chief executive, one Penny Simmonds — claimed it stripped away local autonomy and punished successful polytechnics by using their better bottom lines to prop up less successful polytechnics.
After a brutal gangland war otherwise known as the 2023 election, Don Luxon took control of the mean streets of New Zealand and Capo Simmonds was placed in charge of the vocational education sector, making the woman tasked with making Te Pukenga sleep with the fishes. If that be a vendetta, then so be it.
"Te Pūkenga will be referred to as the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology and will remain as a transitional entity for a one-year period before being disestablished by 31 December, 2026, if not before," Ms Simmonds said.
"Each polytechnic will be funded independently and will have local governance and management. For most, they will continue operating at their current campuses across the country. Some polytechnics will be established as stand-alone entities; others requiring additional support will be designated members of a federation or merged, with Cabinet considering their options later."
And as for why Te Pūkenga had to be offed, Ms Simmonds slated it as being an expensive failure.
"Its push to centralise and standardise polytechnics and work-based learning was wrong, and it cost this country dearly."
Ms Simmonds will not have been surprised at the level of Labour's ire, although she may have been a touch dismayed given the considerable amount of praise her first salvo at vocational education reform, a revamp of work-based learning, received when it was announced in April.
She harked back to those glory days, saying that those changes were just what apprentices, learners and industry had been calling for — decentralised vocational education with training based around the specific needs of industries.
"It [the Bill as a whole is] for all those apprentices, trainees and employers involved in work-based learning who've struggled to get support from an overly bureaucratic and remote Te Pūkenga head office in Hamilton," she said.
"This redesign is also for the communities up and down the country who've watched on in frustration as their local polytechnics have been stripped of local innovation and control."
She probably got most people on side as soon as she mentioned Hamilton.
A more measured assessment of the Bill came from Dunedin Green list MP Francisco Hernandez, who did not even come close to using the "V" word, but certainly raised several cogent objections to Ms Simmonds' proposals.
"We have no philosophical objection to the idea that there could be thriving, independent vocational institutions; however, this legislation does not establish that," he said.
"However, this disestablishment has been severely disruptive to the hundreds of staff around the country who've been let go; to the thousands more that have had to go through job consultations that have rescoped, descoped and unscoped their roles."
Mr Hernandez further asserted that the reforms potentially opened a door for asset sales and privatisation.
"It's asset sales and privatisation. That's absolutely what's going on. So, we would like to see guardrails against that," he said.
"Let's have some support for thriving, independent polytechnics. Let's actually put our money where our mouth is by supporting funding for them and not disestablishing them." Speaking of scrapping things
As foreshadowed last week, Parliament did indeed pass Southland National MP Joseph Mooney's novel notice of motion regarding legal training.
To clarify, Mr Mooney sought to overturn a regulation that tikanga Maori be a compulsory component of all compulsory legal subjects.
He had no objection to tikanga being taught, nor with the NZ Council of Legal Education having acted within its powers to make tikanga a standalone compulsory subject.
However, he and the majority on the regulations review committee found that making tikanga a compulsory part of all compulsory subjects was "unusual and unexpected" and should be disallowed.
So did a majority of the House, but not without a heap of scorn from the Opposition benches.
mike.houlahan@odt.co.nz
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Ardern and Hipkins are afraid of being honest with us about their Covid decisions - Heather du Plessis-Allan
Ardern and Hipkins are afraid of being honest with us about their Covid decisions - Heather du Plessis-Allan

NZ Herald

time2 hours ago

  • NZ Herald

Ardern and Hipkins are afraid of being honest with us about their Covid decisions - Heather du Plessis-Allan

Former Labour ministers, including Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins, have refused to appear publicly at the Covid inquiry. Photo / Mark Mitchell THE FACTS If the four former Labour ministers thought they would preserve their reputations by refusing to appear publicly before the Covid inquiry, they have misjudged it. It is a refusal, by the way, not a declining. A request to appear before a Royal Commission of Inquiry is not like

Shane Te Pou: 6 ways Christopher Luxon can save his Prime Ministership
Shane Te Pou: 6 ways Christopher Luxon can save his Prime Ministership

NZ Herald

time2 hours ago

  • NZ Herald

Shane Te Pou: 6 ways Christopher Luxon can save his Prime Ministership

Luxon spent enough time in corporate management to know that a CEO delivering numbers like that is in danger of getting the chop. He also likes to boast of his credentials in doing 'turnaround jobs'. Well, he needs one now. So, how can Luxon get his Prime Ministership 'back on track'? It's the economy, stupid New Zealand's economy isn't just bad – it's one of the worst in the developed world. We had a deep recession last year; other countries did not. And we're looking at round two. Partly, that's due to the Government suddenly cancelling, delaying or scaling back a bunch of infrastructure work, which contributed to the large loss of construction jobs. Partially, it's soaring energy prices killing our manufacturing sector. You can launch all the policies with energetic names like Investment Boost and Going for Growth you like; it doesn't matter if none of them move the needle. You spend your time trying to blame Labour for spending during a pandemic, while borrowing even more yourself for tax cuts; it doesn't create a single job. You can't spin away a crisis. It's time to take this seriously. Increase government investment and fix the energy shortage. Talk to us like adults You can practically hear the groans across the suburbs each Monday morning as Luxon whines 'well, what I would just say to you is' before repeating the same old talking points on his weekly media round. You're not trying to sell us soap, Mr Luxon. Show us you have a brain and treat us like we have brains, too. Give us genuine, considered thoughts and answers on the issues facing New Zealand. Is Christopher Luxon looking likely to be the first National Prime Minister to last only one term? Photo / Mark Mitchell Have a heart Before the National Party conference, party president Sylvia Wood said the problem is voters aren't seeing Luxon's 'humanity'. I agree. It's hard to see the humanity when he labels poor New Zealanders as 'bottom-feeders', scraps the pay equity process for 180,000 low-income workers and restricts access to emergency housing. If he is a humane guy, it's time to show it. As a Christian, Luxon must know Matthew 7:16: 'By their deeds you will know them.' Spend more time at home When Luxon said he was going to be a Prime Minister who didn't spend a lot of time inside the Wellington beltway, I don't think many of us realised just how far away he planned to be. I'm a man who likes to travel, but Luxon is taking it too far. At least one overseas trip a month, often on some pretty thin premises (what was he doing in Papua New Guinea the other week?) and with very little to show for it in diplomatic outcomes. Spend less time in the Koru Club and more time at the desk. Don't be afraid to change direction No one could accuse Luxon and his ministers of lacking self-confidence. They've ripped up ferry contracts, water reforms, light rail plans, the state house building programme, the RMA Act, the NCEA and more – all with the blithe assumption that they'll come up with something better. It's not exactly working out great, eh? Maybe it's time to revisit some of those impulsive decisions. Maybe it wasn't a great idea to borrow $14 billion for tax cuts and increase the Government's debt. Maybe, it's time to have the humility to adopt some of the Opposition's ideas, rather than reflexively scoffing at them. Pull the minor parties into line Luxon failed from the start to exert any authority over Act and New Zealand First's ministers. Casey Costello's dealings with tobacco companies should've seen her sacked. Karen Chhour's bootcamps disgrace would normally see the portfolio taken off her. Luxon's done nothing. Yeah, Winston Peters and David Seymour can threaten to pull down the Government if Luxon disciplines their ministers. But would they? It would cost them more than him. Have some guts – look them in the eye and see who blinks first. All is not lost for Luxon. But he's looking more and more likely to be the first National PM to last only one term, or less, unless he changes his ways.

Covid-19 pandemic handling returns to headlines, with Labour under scrutiny
Covid-19 pandemic handling returns to headlines, with Labour under scrutiny

NZ Herald

timea day ago

  • NZ Herald

Covid-19 pandemic handling returns to headlines, with Labour under scrutiny

What truly put the wind at the Government's back this week was the unexpected exhumation of half-buried relics from the Covid era – a period Labour may prefer was left entombed in the sediment of public amnesia. The first, was last Thursday's Treasury Long Term Insights Briefing (LTIB). The report was actually into how best to manage economic shocks: should the Government spend up, or leave it to the Reserve Bank? Treasury reckoned managing shocks was mostly best left to the Reserve Bank – a conclusion it published in a draft report some months ago. What was new were details of Treasury's advice to the former Government of its advice during the pandemic. Two short sections in particular noted that Treasury advised the last Government to ease up on the stimulus in 2022, and another section detailed the consequences of this: a large structural deficit and risks of inflation. With Finance Minister Nicola Willis off in London, exchanging knowing grimaces with Chancellor Rachel Reeves over their mutually dreadful fiscal headaches – left-right ideological niceties be damned – it was Bishop's opportunity to don the acting finance minister cap and have lobbed at him volley after volley of low patsy questions on the report, giving him ample opportunity to sermonise on Labour's alleged fiscal sins. Bishop first cleared his blocked throat during the very first question of the week on Tuesday, Labour leader Chris Hipkins, pointedly interjecting that this was clearly 'audition number one' for Luxon's job. Hipkins wasn't wrong about it being 'number one'. Come Wednesday, it was Nancy Lu's turn to take to her feet and ask Bishop what economic reports he'd been reading, to which he replied he was not yet done with Treasury's gripping LTIB. On Thursday, the lucky backbencher was Catherine Wedd, who asked the same question: what reports had the minister (officially Willis, but in practice, Bishop) been reading on the state of the economy. Bishop replied, 'Oh, I haven't been able to stop reading Treasury's long-term insights briefing.' Another MP, Tom Rutherford piped up, 'What did it say?' Bishop replied, testing the limits of MPs' obligation to be truthful in the House, 'it's a great read'. It's not a bad parliamentary tactic: Grant Robertson often used it to highlight his successes and the Opposition's shortcomings. Bishop's effort this week worked wonders in cheering an otherwise gloomy backbench. In Question Time this week Chris Bishop revealed a passion for reading Treasury documents. Photo / Mark Mitchell Willis and Bishop have done a clever job in giving the impression Treasury's LTIB was mostly about slamming Labour for the Covid response – it's true, that's what's new in the final version vis-a-vis the earlier draft, but overall, the backward-looking part of the report is a small part of the whole. Labour's responses are as interesting as the report itself. Leader Chris Hipkins dismissed it as 'spin', former Robertson staffers Craig Renney and Toby Moore had more detailed critiques. Renney, posting to his Substack, quoted Michael Cullen to describe report as an 'ideological burp' and decided to skewer the conclusion that managing economic cycles was primarily the job of the Reserve Bank. In Renney's view, the whole government is responsible for managing the economic cycle. If this is left to just the Reserve Bank, its focus on inflation would mean that other, distributional impacts become neglected. Hammering inflation somewhere means hammering the economy everywhere. To be fair to Treasury, its report does briefly touch on fiscal policy's ability and obligation to smooth the bluntness of monetary policy. That's worth pursuing in more detail, particularly given the experience New Zealand had during the pandemic, in which the Reserve Bank's money-printing played arsonist to the housing market, before the bank guiltily and belatedly doused the inferno in a series of rate rises so blunt in their asphyxiating cruelty they cast thousands on to the dole queue, and shunted thousands more into the airport departure lounge. Moore's piece, published in the Herald, was more of a right of reply to Treasury. He resurfaced papers he first received as a staffer in Robertson's office and which were subsequently published in the Herald to note that as late as Budget 2023, Treasury was still advising Robertson to spend yet more money – not on Covid stimulus, but via his operating allowance, the pot of money to fund ongoing cost increases in departments and to pay for new things, like removing the $5 prescription charge in that Budget. In that Budget, Robertson actually spent slightly less than Treasury told him, not more. In that Budget, as for all of Robertson's Covid Budgets, the advice to spend more was consistent with the economic forecasts continually being revised in the right direction. This meant more money flowing in, allowing the Government to spend more money while returning to surplus in a creditable timeframe. The trouble with these forecasts is that they were wrong – and badly wrong. The economy did not grow nearly as much as hoped, tax revenue fell – and the effect was compounded, tax revenue as a share of the smaller economy was smaller than forecast too. The spending still happened, but we're still waiting on the money to pay for it. There were, then, two obvious flaws, given just passing detail in Treasury's report: the first is that Treasury's forecasts were badly wrong, the second was that Robertson did not show enough caution when he relied upon Treasury to put his Budgets together. That telling of the story is no less interesting to either side, but it has a different moral lesson: the solution to the fiscal problem really is, as Willis says, growth. If the economy had grown to where Treasury earlier forecast it would grow to, we'd be in surplus and reducing the debt ratio by now. A Treasury graph plotting which fiscal years have run counter- and pro-cyclically. Graph / Treasury Treasury quietly dropped another paper this week – this time by one of its economists, with the usual disclaimer that it does not necessarily represent the views of Treasury as an organisation. It pondered whether governments were running pro-cyclical or counter-cyclical fiscal policies, with the latter generally preferred because it allows the Government to moderate the economic cycle. Cullen gets the biscuit for running the most counter-cyclical budgets, Bill English and Steven Joyce get good marks too. Robertson's first term gets a pass, but not the second. The report only goes up to the fiscal year 2024, which was the year of a Labour Budget and National mini-Budget, but some back-of-the-envelope maths from the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update would suggest the Budgets for the last and the current fiscal years will be counter-cyclical – the first since 2019, a cautious vote of confidence in approval to Willis' economic management. The week ended on another blast from the past. The Covid-19 Royal Commission announced Labour ministers would not be appearing before the inquiry in person. Labour itself only found out the commission was going to announce this change a few minutes before it did so – the coalition seemed to have more warning, with each of the three parties putting out damning press releases shortly afterwards. Polling shows the public is clearly on the coalition's side and wants the ministers to appear, but they won't. The refusal led the news for 24 hours and is a good reminder to Labour the public haven't put the pandemic to bed quite as much as the party would like. Labour is proud of its Covid record but the fact the ministers won't appear in public allows the Opposition to argue, with some conviction, that perhaps Labour actually isn't – and its Covid record, particularly on economic matters, is really as embarrassing as the Opposition would like the public to believe. It's a dilemma for the Labour ministers, some of whom probably wouldn't mind appearing and defending themselves. One of the ex-ministers probably will be appearing in public in the near future – and, unlike Jacinda Ardern, will probably spend a lot of that time talking about Covid and money: Robertson's memoir Anything Could Happen is out later this month. There's a good chance some of these questions will get an airing in any promotional tour, and the book itself.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store