Polytech bail-outs lie ahead, Te Pūkenga warns
Te Pūkenga's managers have warned MPs the government will have to bail out struggling polytechnics despite its reforms.
Meanwhile, Nelson's mayor Nick Smith appealed to the government to save the region's polytechnic from inclusion in a federation of weak institutions.
Appearing before the Education and Workforce Select Committee the mega-institute's chief financial officer James Smith said the changes, which included disestablishing Te Pūkenga, would leave in place a volume-based funding system.
He said that would lead to the institutes making the same poor investment decisions that prompted the creation of Te Pūkenga as a means of ensuring their long-term viability.
"The system remains a simplistic, inefficient volumetric system with no ability to adjust price based on scale. We expect that these issues will persist under the structural changes enabled under the bill. We also expect because of this that the government will be relied upon for further ad hoc financial support for ITPs (Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics) in the future," he said.
Smith said "unhealthy race to the bottom behaviour" was likely to re-emerge and polytechnics needed stronger incentives to collaborate with one another.
He said the government's Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill also watered down institutions' obligations to underserved learners such as Māori and Pacific communities.
"This tempering of obligations, along with reductions in targeted funding for these learner groups from 2026 will maintain or worsen the current education disparities that exist in the tertiary education system," he said.
Drew Mayhem from the Tertiary Education Union also cast doubt on the long-term viability of the government's plan.
"Splitting out the work-based learning component and putting it in direct competition with the polytechnics that you're trying to stand alone, that's not sustainable," he said.
Nelson mayor Nick Smith told the committee the creation of Te Pūkenga had been bad for the region's local polytechnic, the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT).
He said his greatest fear was that NMIT would be among the former polytechnics placed into a federation rather than being allowed to stand-alone after Te Pūkenga was disestablished.
Smith said he had heard that NMIT was "on the margins" of inclusion in the federation and wanted government to consult with mayors and iwi before making that decision.
He said he was not expecting NMIT would emerge with all of the $20 million in cash reserves that it took into Te Pūkenga, but understood about $9m remained.
Smith said that money should be transferred to the re-established institution.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Supreme Court gives green light to riverbeds' inclusion in Māori customary marine title orders
The Supreme Court has found riverbeds can be included in Māori customary marine title orders, if other legal tests are met. That comes from the second part of the Court's judgement on claims to customary rights in the harbours, river mouths, beaches and seascape of the eastern Bay of Plenty. The first judgement released in December 2024 addressed the meaning of section 58 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (MACA), which sets out the test Māori groups must meet to have their customary rights recognised. It also overturned a previous Court of Appeal decision in 2023 which made it easier to gain customary title. This second judgement resolves the remaining seven issues on the seven separate appeals which were heard together. All this as the government forges ahead with plans to amend the law in question over fears that the 2023 Court of Appeal decision could have made it significantly easier for Māori iwi, hapū and whānau to have their customary rights over parts of the coastline recognised. Navigable rivers In this case one of the orders for customary title included the confluence of the Waiōweka and Ōtara rivers near Opōtiki. "Navigable river" in this case means a river of sufficient width and depth (whether at all times so or not) to be used for the purpose of navigation by boats, barges, punts, or rafts. The court accepted that the relevant portion of the rivers in question is navigable. The definition of "marine and coastal area" in MACA includes the beds of rivers that are part of the coastal marine area as that term is defined in the Resource Management Act 1991. The Attorney-General submitted that previous Acts of Parliament were intended to "vest the full beneficial ownership - akin to freehold title - in navigable riverbeds in the Crown." The court found that previous Acts were not sufficiently clear to extinguish customary rights or title to the beds of navigable rivers. The court concluded that "the beds of navigable rivers form part of the common marine and coastal area as defined in MACA, and recognition orders may extend to them". The court found the impact of these findings on the CMT claims in the Eastern Bay of Plenty, particularly in relation to the confluence of the Waiōweka and Ōtara rivers, can be dealt with by the High Court. Timeline October 2023, just days after the 2023 General Election, a Court of Appeal decision made granting customary marine title easier In November 2023, the coalition agreement between National and NZ First includes a commitment to overturn the Court of Appeal decision September 2024, the Waitangi Tribunal recommends the Crown halt its efforts to amend the Takutai Moana Act That same month the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill is introduced to Parliament December 2024, the first Supreme Court judgement overturns the Court of Appeal decision. The government hits pause on the amendment bill August 2025, the government presses ahead with the law change.
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Cabinet minister Goldsmith involved in Seymour's UN letter controversy
On July 1, two days before the letter went to the UN, one of Seymour's advisers sent a draft to Goldsmith's office. 'Attached is the Minister for Regulation's proposed response... He mentioned that we had agreed to run it past your minister before we sent it off,' the email read. Act leader David Seymour sent a blunt letter to the UN after consulting Paul Goldsmith. Photo / Mark Mitchell 'It is a little more direct than what MFAT [Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade] might draft. Please let me know if your minister is happy.' Goldsmith's office responded the next day, asking for a phone call. By the morning of July 3, Seymour's adviser emailed him: 'Goldie is happy for us to send it. He is going to send his own mild MFAT holding letter on behalf of himself and [Māori Development Minister Tama] Potaka.' Seymour replied: 'Okay, great.' His letter was sent to the UN that afternoon. In a statement provided to RNZ on Saturday, Goldsmith said: 'When asked, I did not object to [Seymour] sending the letter, but when commenting on UN matters, it is the Foreign Minister's views that are relevant, not mine.' A spokesperson for Seymour said he had nothing further to add. Emails between Seymour's staff in June canvassed the options for responding to the UN and noted MFAT's preferred approach was a joint reply from 'relevant ministers' Seymour, Goldsmith and Potaka, in line with previous UN communications in 2024. Instead, Peters ultimately issued a Government-wide letter on August 11, striking a softer tone and expressing regret for the 'breakdown in protocol'. The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, Albert K. Barume, had raised concerns on June 12 about Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, suggesting it failed to recognise Māori traditions or uphold Treaty principles. Seymour's reply branded the critique 'presumptive, condescending and wholly misplaced' and 'an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty'. After news of Seymour's letter broke in July, Luxon told media he agreed with its content but Seymour was wrong to have sent it: 'I expect Winston Peters to be the person that engages with the UN'. – RNZ
Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Another Cabinet minister caught up in UN letter saga
By Craig McCulloch of RNZ Another Cabinet minister has been caught up in the United Nations letter-writing imbroglio, with new documents showing David Seymour first ran his response past Paul Goldsmith before he sent it. Seymour, writing as Regulations Minister, fired off a blunt reply to the UN in July that prompted public rebukes from both Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters for bypassing proper processes. Seymour refused to concede any mistake but agreed to formally withdraw his letter so Peters could issue one on behalf of the full government. New correspondence, released to RNZ under the Official Information Act, reveals Goldsmith, the Treaty Negotiations Minister, had been looped in early on and appeared comfortable with Seymour's approach. On 1 July, two days before the letter went to the UN, one of Seymour's advisors sent a draft to Goldsmith's office. "Attached is the Minister for Regulation's proposed response... He mentioned that we had agreed to run it past your Minister before we sent it off," the email read. "It is a little more direct than what MFAT might draft. Please let me know if your Minister is happy." Goldsmith's office responded the next day, asking for a phone call. By the morning of 3 July, Seymour's advisor emailed him: "Goldie is happy for us to send it. He is going to send his own mild MFAT holding letter on behalf of himself and [Māori Development Minister Tama] Potaka." Seymour replied: "Ok, great." His letter was sent to the UN that afternoon. In a statement provided to RNZ on Saturday, Goldsmith said: "When asked, I did not object to [Seymour] sending the letter, but when commenting on UN matters, it is the Foreign Minister's views that are relevant, not mine." A spokesperson for Seymour said he had nothing further to add. Earlier correspondence in late June showed Goldsmith's office drafted an initial "holding response" to the UN but requested it be sent with Seymour's letterhead as "the senior Minister for this response". Emails between Seymour's staff also canvassed the options for responding to the UN. It noted MFAT's preferred approach would be a joint reply from "relevant Ministers" Seymour, Goldsmith and Potaka, in line with previous UN communications in 2024. Instead, Peters ultimately issued a government-wide letter on 11 August, striking a softer tone and expressing regret for the "breakdown in protocol". The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, Albert K Barume, had raised concerns on 12 June about Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, suggesting it failed to recognise Māori traditions or uphold Treaty principles. Seymour's reply branded the critique "presumptive, condescending and wholly misplaced" and "an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty". After news of Seymour's letter broke in July, Luxon told media he agreed with its content but Seymour was wrong to have sent it: "I expect Winston Peters to be the person that engages with the UN."
