Te Pukenga break-up Bill being introduced
Vocational Education Minister Penny Simmonds will introduce the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill to Parliament more than 18 months after she first signalled Te Pūkenga would be disestablished.
Te Pūkenga was formally established in April 2020, the 16 former institutes of technology and polytechnics (ITPs) becoming its subsidiaries.
"The government is committed to replacing the failed Te Pūkenga experiment with a financially sustainable, regionally responsive vocational education and training system that delivers the skills and training New Zealand needs.
"We're committed to a smooth transition, with as little disruption for learners and employers as possible. The disestablishment of Te Pūkenga and the establishment of the new industry skills boards is about building a stronger, more resilient vocational system to bring certainty, improve access and support economic growth."
Ms Simmonds had previously criticised Te Pūkenga as being too big and centralised for delivering vocational education outcomes; and proposed breaking it up into a mixture of stand-alone polytechnics and those operating under a federation model.
However, it is not yet known which polytechnics will have their autonomy fully restored — Ms Simmonds said yesterday these decisions would be made in "the middle of the year".
Tertiary Education Union general secretary Daniel Benson-Guiu said Ms Simmonds "has been allowed to make it up as she goes along".
"The proposed Bill introduced to Parliament is complicated. There are a lot of changes that boil down to drawing out this disestablishment of Te Pūkenga for longer, affecting all staff and students.
"There's still no indication of which polytechnics will stand alone, which will merge and which will be federated — the Bill says all of that will be at the discretion of the minister."
Otago Polytechnic executive director Max Sims said Otago Polytech had not yet decided whether to submit on the Bill, but encouraged those interested in the reform to do so.
"We are still focused on engaging with Ms Simmonds and Te Pūkenga to ensure Otago Polytechnic has a viable future, and we continue working towards becoming a standalone institution once again
"The minister did meet the executive directors from all of the country's ITPs [polytechnics] in Wellington on Monday [May 12] — including our executive director, Megan Pōtiki — to update them on the Bill and the government's restructuring proposals, and to hear updates from individual ITPs.
"We continue to work through a series of work streams (including the reviews of Capable NZ and our professoriate) to ensure we're in a financially sustainable position in the future."
Over the past year, Otago Polytechnic has gone through several waves of restructures in a bid to remain financially sustainable and autonomous.
It cut nine programmes late last year, and proposes to drastically downscale Capable NZ, which was once the most popular course at the polytechnic.
matthew.littlewood@odt.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
10 hours ago
- RNZ News
What you need to know about Regulations Review Committee and the new law undermining it
Labour MP Arena Williams chairing Parliament's Regulations Review Committee. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Among Parliament's many committees there is a small cross-partisan powerhouse that receives scant attention. Unlike the 12 subject committees, it isn't a regular forum for critiques of government bills or finance. Unlike Privileges it isn't about scandal and politics, unlike Petitions it doesn't regularly bring human emotion into Parliament. The Regulations Review Committee is small, calm and cooperative. It is like Parliament's off-field referee; a committee for the legal nerd and the constitutional swot. It inspects the government's use of its delegated powers to weed out government overreach. But the Regulatory Standards Bill proposed by ACT leader David Seymour would duplicate and likely undermine its role, by giving a regulation oversight role to a government-appointed group . Recently on The House we reported a briefing to the Reg's Review Committee (as MPs describe it), about the proposed law. As a follow-up we wanted to discuss the committee itself with the MPs that run it, so we met with the leaders of the committee to discuss its purpose, powers, history and how it's responding to the new challenge. By convention, Reg's Review is chaired by an Opposition MP-currently Labour's Arena Williams. The Deputy Chair is National MP Nancy Lu. Rather than acting as political rivals, they operate as a team. "Most of the committee's power is… because it's cross-partisan," Williams said. "I mean, that's what's important here, that we are able-me and Nancy-to work together, to chair the committee in a way which gets buy-in from everyone around the table." Regulations Review manages this cross-partisan approach because its fundamental drive is not about policy, but good law. "Basically, we want good lawmaking," Nancy Lu said, "and we want ministers and departments who have the power to make regulations, to actually make good use of their power and make good regulations for New Zealanders… Sometimes things come to us because there may be inappropriate use of the power (in making regulations), or there are complaints from New Zealanders. And therefore it is our job to look at it bipartisan[ly] and with one common purpose-which is better good lawmaking." National Party MPs Joseph Mooney & Nancy Lu in Parliament's Regulations Review Committee. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith When governments want to change the law in New Zealand they have to ask parliaments to do that. Parliament is sovereign, government is only a subset of Parliament. But primary legislation (the Acts that parliament agrees) can't possibly include all the necessary details for efficient government, so laws often delegate authority to ministers or their departments, to specify or update legislative details later. Those post-hoc details are regulations. "Most New Zealanders will come up against the law," Williams said, "but it'll actually be in regulations. "…So if you've ever tried to, say, install a toilet in your bathroom, you will have run up against what's in the building code. "It's not actually in the primary legislation, but that building code has a big impact on your life." The law that delegates that authority to make regulations is agreed by the House, but the regulations themselves are not approved by the House before coming into force. The Regulations Review Committee fills that gap. It tests existing regulations, and any proposed laws that give regulation-making power. Anyone can make a complaint to the committee about a regulation. The committee can investigate regulations and recommend that the House strike them down ("disallow" them). The committee was created in 1986 in the parliamentary reforms of Labour's Geoffrey Palmer. It was a Labour campaign promise, deemed necessary because Robert Muldoon's National Party government had been using vastly powerful regulations to achieve things that ought to have been approved by Parliament. Things like wage freezes, price fixing and carless days. "Regulation-making was getting to be seen by the public as an overreach in itself," Williams said. "The power of the Executive was seen as a bit out of control. Your fruit and your vegetables, your trip in your car. It was all heavily regulated." The solution was to bring Parliament back into the equation. Williams described the response in 1985 to "out of control" regulation as: "a power for elected officials (who get chosen every three years by their communities), to actually strike that [bad regulation] down. "And so that's what the disallowance power is about. …It was enabling this …pressure valve… to turn off some of that overregulation." In fact very few regulations have been disallowed over the years. This is because the committee - being bi-partisan - tends to opt for soft-power, getting ministers to change poor regulations without resorting to the House by spotting the potential for regulatory over-reach within bills under debate. Williams agreed that soft-power was opted for by the committee. "Ding, ding, bingo! …That's 100 percent true. Most of the committee's power is soft power because it's cross-partisan. "I mean, that's the importance here, is that we are able, me and Nancy, to work together, to chair the committee in a way, which gets buy-in from everyone around the table." Asked whether it might be bad for a new National MP's career-prospects to point out the missteps of senior colleagues who were Ministers, both Lu and Williams laughed. "Great question," Williams said. "Most of the feedback that we have received from our ministers and ministries have been actually quite positive," Lu said. "You know, mostly 'hey, thanks for letting us know. We didn't realise that, but now we know', and… 'we'll make it better next time'. "I think that's what makes the… committee powerful and very unique in its way," Lu said. "And I think it's needed, because we want to make sure that we are using our powers within the appropriate realms and to make sure that we're setting good laws. "So maybe hopefully by calling them out, or by investigation, we can make it better in that way." Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan in Parliament's Regulations Review Committee. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Reg's Review is, on paper, one of Parliament's smallest committees, with just five MPs. Three from National and two from Labour. Despite the official membership, recent changes to parliament's rules allow MPs to attend and participate in select committees they are not official members of. A recent Reg's Review meeting included Labour's Vanushi Walters, and apparently Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan attended often. Williams, as Chair, had a more-the-better philosophy. "It's getting harder in an MMP environment, when we have minor parties that have more sway in any executive government agenda, or indeed, in opposition politics. "It is really great that we have Dr Xu-Nan from the Greens coming along to every meeting and participating in that. "We don't have an ACT member who comes to the committee. And we need more of this ability as parliamentarians to come together and go, 'hang on, does this regulation make sense? Let's do something about it if it doesn't.' " ACT's absence is notable. ACT's brand includes being the natural enemy of bad regulation, but they neither have representation on, nor attend the one parliamentary committee tasked and equipped to fight against it. ACT have instead chosen a different approach, one which may threaten Reg's Review. Their coalition agreement with National includes the passing of a Regulatory Standards Bill, something previous ACT parties have tried and failed to achieve. The bill would, among other things, create an external Regulatory Standards Board, appointed by the Minister for Regulation (currently David Seymour). At first glance, the Board's task appears similar to the current Reg's Review Committee, but it is not. The Board does not have the same powers - it cannot refer regulation to the House to be disallowed. It is a creature of the Executive, not Parliament, and so is on the government side of the governance relationship. It also has a very different idea of what bad law looks like. The new Board would evaluate legislation and regulation against a set of principles embedded in its enabling legislation. The principles consider the effect of legislation on: "existing interests and liberties, including the rule of law, liberties, taking of property, taxes, fees and levies, and the role of courts; and good law-making processes, including consultation, options analysis and cost-benefit analysis." The bill contains a much more detailed list of these principles. While the Board's inquiries could be self-determined, they would also be "in response to stakeholder concerns" and ministerial "direction". The Regs Review Committee also has a list of principles to judge good law-making against. The grounds for referring regulations back to the House are outlined in Standing Order 327. The grounds are that the secondary legislation: While there are concepts that appear in some form in both sets of principles, one set of principles appears focused on good legislative form within constitutional boundaries while the other includes more political philosophy. Regulations Review Committee Chair, Arena Williams said the committee had been "thinking deeply" about the proposed law's impact on the committee's powers, place and processes. She said the prospect of another competing entity was "pretty challenging". Arena said the two bodies appeared similar, but her committee "has this special constitutional place, and traditions that have been built up over many years around the way that we consider whether regulations are doing what they say they will do 'on the tin'." She said MPs had an advantage over appointed board officials, as they represented the affected community. "They get to put us back into Parliament (or not) every three years. …and it makes us all quite focused on… things like, 'how does this really affect someone's life?' "It will ultimately be this committee and the Standing Orders Committee (which proposes changes to Parliament's rules) which have to make some decisions and probably some accommodations …about how to work alongside [each other]. "But ultimately I would say that in our constitutional framework as it is now, that [Reg's Review] has a sort of system of constitutional preference about how it should engage in those issues." That constitutional preference comes from the fact that Regs Review is an instrument of Parliament (which is sovereign). The Regulatory Standards Board would be an instrument of the Executive, which is subservient to Parliament. "I really want to see the Regulations Review Committee as [something that] we can agree as parliamentarians, including ACT members, …is a special part of our constitutional framework. "I think New Zealand is on the good stuff here, when we've got parliamentarians …earnestly and diligently work[ing] through secondary legislation from the perspective of how it's affecting our communities. That's really special. "If [David Seymour] is [saying] there is too much regulation and that there's not a strong enough mechanism to disallow regulations, then this [committee] is the place where I think we should be focussing our attention. "[He should be putting that energy into improving the current] mechanism, so that it is parliamentarians-who are accountable to the people-who are ultimately making the decisions." RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Ngāti Kahungunu Slams The Government's Decision To Push On With Marine Legislation
Ngāti Kahungunu, who have the country's second largest coastline from Paritū, north of the Māhia peninsula to Tūrakirae on the southern Wairarapa coast, have slammed the government's decision to push on with new legislation to make it harder for Māori to get customary marine title. Ngāti Kahungunu Chair, Bayden Barber, speaking from the World Expo in Osaka Japan says, 'We are a moana iwi. Our people have lived along our coast for centuries. Our ancestors had names like Tiakitai, Te Hapuku and Te Moananui because of the intimate relationship they had with the ocean. I am appalled by the Ministers' decision to push on with changes to the Takutai Moana legislation that make it harder for us to get customary title. Again, we see this government undermining the rights of Māori.' Earlier in the week, the Minister for Treaty Negotiations Paul Goldsmith, said that the government intended to pass the Marine and Coastal Area (MACA) Bill by the end of October, effectively ignoring a Supreme Court ruling saying that Māori do have customary marine and coastal rights and that these changes were not consistent with the intent of the Takutai Moana Bill passed in 2010. Barber adds, 'The legislation, as it currently stands, still sets a high bar for Māori to prove customary title, but at least we can test it through the Courts. These intended amendments to the Bill will make it near impossible for us win in court.' He continues, 'I have spoken to a few of the iwi leaders that are here in Osaka as part of the Te Aratini kaupapa. We need to send a strong collective message to this government, that this behaviour is unacceptable. It saddens me that we are still fighting the same fight 21 years on from the hīkoi for the Foreshore and Seabed.' Ngāti Kahungunu has a population of 95,741, the third largest iwi in Aotearoa and has 96 marae and over 400 hapū.
1News
a day ago
- 1News
Former Green MP Elizabeth Kerekere runs for Māori Ward
Former Green Party MP Elizabeth Kerekere says she is excited at the potential opportunity to bring her government experience to a local level. Kerekere is campaigning to become a Māori ward district councillor in Gisborne's upcoming local elections. She said she could offer a "bridge to government", which no other candidate could bring, and wanted to "hear the voices of different people" that might not always get heard. Kerekere was elected to Parliament for the Green Party in 2020 but resigned to become an independent MP in 2023 after allegations of bullying. Speaking to Local Democracy Reporting, Kerekere said she refuted all of the claims. ADVERTISEMENT "Most people don't believe it because it wasn't true. "It is not an unusual thing for an MP to get kicked out of their party because of petty power struggles inside that party. "So that happened to me. I get on with life. I've got better things to do. And for me, running for council is one of those." Kerekere said her first experience with central governance was at age 19 on a government advisory group while studying at teachers' college in Dunedin. "Governance is something I have been in for decades." She wants to use this experience to help clarify the council's responsibilities to the public. "Here's the person in Parliament you need to speak to about this ... this infrastructure ... that's us," she said. ADVERTISEMENT "Council is not responsible for everything, but it definitely gets blamed for everything." After finishing her parliamentary term in October 2023, Kerekere reflected on what she wanted to do next. "What is the best way I can help my whānau? It's my tribal home. It's where I was born." Kerekere said she had always worked on a national scale, which meant domestic and global travel. However, she wanted to be more local. "My preference would have been to be local for most of the time, but that's where my work took me and my income was." As part of Ngāti Oneone, Kerekere had been doing overnight shifts with her wife at the hapū protest movement, called "a reclamation of whenua". Kerekere is an LGBTIQ activist and scholar. Her doctoral thesis (2017) was on takatāpui identity (Māori who identify with diverse genders and sexualities). ADVERTISEMENT After finishing her parliamentary term, she took a role as an adjunct professor for the School of Health at Victoria University, which allows her to live in Gisborne and fly to Wellington most months to lecture and conduct research. "Health has been my background for a very long time, particularly in violence [and] suicide prevention, [with a] focus on young people and takatāpui. Of course, Māori all the way across." Kerekere is also a sole trader for a business she set up almost 20 years ago, she said. "I'm an organiser, a project manager, a co-ordinator and a strategist, so people bring me in when they are trying to achieve something." When asked why electorates should support her, she said: 'If people want the status quo, don't bring me in. But if you want things to change, bring me in.' She is the founder/chairwoman of Tīwhanawhana Trust (2001), chairwoman of Kawe Mahara Queer Archives Aotearoa, and on the boards of Mana Tipua and ILGA Oceania – both LGBTIQ organisations. Understanding the difference between governance, management and operations was essential to a councillor's role, she said. ADVERTISEMENT "It's a particular skill set that means you've got to make those top decisions and then let it go and let other people put it in place, and sometimes that is difficult for people to do," Kerekere said. When asked if she was bringing a Green voice to the council, she said she would be a Māori voice, which is "inherently green in the sense of protecting Papatūānuku [the earth mother]". "So, in terms of council, then ... what's our wastewater? That's not sexy, but it directly feeds into the quality of our rivers and our beach." Kerekere said connecting the council with services that looked after young people and ensuring youths had a place to go, such as drop-in centres, would be a focus for her. 'We've got incredible agencies here that work with young people in different ways, particularly for our rangatahi [and] takatāpui/rainbow ... places where kids can just go because sometimes home is not the safest place.' She also wants to help bring back a form of youth council, designed by youth themselves to boost youth engagement with the council. "It shouldn't be old people deciding what young people need. Go and ask them, 'Is this the best way for you to have representation'?" ADVERTISEMENT Kerekere said it was her youth activism and doing these kinds of roles when she was young that was the basis for her "complete confidence" in youth and "what they can achieve if they're given the support they need". Kerekere was among 11 candidates standing for the five Māori ward seats. Local Democracy Reporting is local-body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
