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
NZ Herald
43 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
A response to sincerely-held concerns about the Regulatory Standards Bill
It appears that most of those opposing the Bill emphasise its failure to include Treaty of Waitangi principles. For them, this omission represents a fundamental threat to Māori wellbeing and New Zealand's constitutional framework. Some fear it will undermine decades of progress. These fears reflect what people have been told, and genuinely believe. Distrust of the bill's intentions is significant. The most ideological submitters think the bill is driven by an unacceptable 'neo-liberal', libertarian ideology. Many more think it prioritises individual property rights over collective wellbeing. The bill's premise is the opposite: that the collective rules all. Parliament represents the collective voice of the nation. Its laws are those of the collective. It is sovereign lawmaker. Nothing in the bill changes that. Instead, the bill makes the Government of the day more transparent and accountable to Parliament when asking Parliament to pass a regulatory measure. Specifically, the bill requires the Government to inform Parliament about departures from key fundamental legal principles, and to provide a reason. Parliament is free to ignore that information. It would be as free as now to implement strong environmental protections, extensive public health measures, or policies specifically to advance Māori interests. The Bill draws on ten legal principles from the Government's own Legislation Guidelines. Photo / Mark Mitchell That is the key point. It is why the bill is merely a transparency measure. A related, sincerely held view is that the bill's selected principles are ideologically biased. They screw the scrum in favour of individual rights. Yet the state's first duty is to protect citizens in their persons and possessions. National defence, the police and the courts are fundamental state responsibilities. At their most basic, constitutional arrangements need to protect citizens, as groups and as individuals, from the unprincipled abuse of the state's power. Chapter 4 of the 2021 edition of the Government's Legislation Guidelines distils 10 default principles from 'the fundamental constitutional principles and values of New Zealand law'. The 10 default principles include preserving the rule of law, a presumption in favour of liberty, and respect for property rights. That is not extreme, it is basic. The six broad principles in the Bill draw heavily from the most relevant of those default principles. This is not accidental. The 2009 Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce drew them from earlier editions of the same publication. (Space does not permit going into differences here.) Why not include a reference to Treaty principles? The open question is 'precisely what difference would this make'? Specific examples would be helpful. For some years now Cabinet has required officials to identify departures from these 10 default principles. Ministers must give reasons for such departures. This is to be done before a measure is put to Cabinet or to a Cabinet Committee. The same requirement applies to another 138 default principles from the other 22 chapters in the guidelines. The problem here is that Cabinet can ignore its own requirements when it wishes to do so. Hence the concerns about measures pushed through Parliament under urgency. The bill aims to make it harder for governments to ignore such requirements, at least in respect of the most fundamental common law principles. Another widely expressed concern is that complying with the bill's assessment requirements will cost many millions of dollars in public sector time. First, that would be worth it if enhanced parliamentary scrutiny could help prevent regulation disasters, such as the housing affordability disaster. Second, it is hard to see any additional costs from the scrutiny the bill proposes – if officials and ministers are complying with the myriad of existing requirements. With respect to the review of existing laws and regulations, there will be additional costs. But the scope for using rapidly-improving AI to greatly reduce those costs has not been factored into current estimates. Nor does the Regulatory Standards Board have 'sweeping powers'. It is pretty toothless. It declares a finding but cannot force anyone to pay it any attention. Its function is to increase transparency. Finally, some common ground. Experts widely agree that regulatory quality in New Zealand is a concern. The challenge now is to move beyond misunderstandings toward a more constructive, better-informed and less ideological discussion about how more transparent and principled lawmaking can better serve New Zealanders.
Otago Daily Times
5 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
‘Not welcome here': dozens protest Seymour visit
About 100 demonstrators chanted outside a central Dunedin hotel where Acting Prime Minister David Seymour hosted a public meeting last night. They were heard yelling for the Act New Zealand leader to "bugger off" and that he was "not welcome here". The protest was organised by the International Socialist Organisation and included a variety of groups who were vocal about issues including the Regulatory Standards Bill, pay parity, worker rights, Māori rights and the environment. The protest took place outside the Distinction Dunedin Hotel where Act hosted a public meeting with Mr Seymour at 6pm. Police warned advancing demonstrators to stay away from the front of the hotel in Liverpool St and to stick to the footpath. The police guard the Liverpool St entrance to the Distinction Hotel as protesters demonstrate outside against Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour. Photos: Peter McIntosh The protesters marched a loop around the building to make sure they were heard by Mr Seymour. Protest organiser Oscar Bartle said Mr Seymour should be ashamed of himself. "How can you live with yourself when you're destroying working-class livelihoods." Mr Bartle said the crowd had gathered on short notice to oppose Mr Seymour scraping fair-pay agreements, his silence on the genocide in Palestine and his pushing of the Regulatory Standards Bill. Mr Bartle said the Bill was nonsense. David Seymour. "It's capturing regulation in the country for the rich and powerful, it's disgraceful." Otago Staff and Students for Palestine, Green Party supporters and unionists were present at the protest. Mr Seymour had previously said the principles of the Bill "focused the effect of legislation on existing interests and liberties". "In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral — it's a tax on growth. "This government is committed to clearing the path of needless regulations by improving how laws are made." — additional reporting RNZ
Newsroom
10 hours ago
- Newsroom
Anne Salmond: A flawed bill
Comment: As many commentators have noted, the Regulatory Standards Bill is based on a libertarian ideology. According to the Oxford Dictionary, an ideology is a framework for understanding the world. In this case, it's all about individuals – their rights and freedoms. The Regulatory Standards Bill sets out its fundamental precepts in the form of 'principles of responsible regulation'. These prescribe that good legislation should not unduly diminish individual liberty, security, freedom of choice or property rights, except where this is necessary to protect the liberty, freedom or rights of another. In this view of the world, there are persons with rights and property, whose liberty must be protected unless it impinges on those of another person. Here, human life is about individuals pursuing their rights and freedoms, without undue interference from others. There are three key problems with this framing. First, it is partial, and mistaken; second, it's non-adaptive; and third, it does not meet its own standards. Basing all lawmaking in New Zealand on so faulty a framework is bound to lead to trouble. To address the first point: the Regulatory Standards Bill emphasises individuals and their rights and freedoms at the expense of collective rights and values. This demonstrates a radical misunderstanding of human life. Though individuals are important, human beings are incorrigibly social animals. Partly, this is a matter of biology. Babies have a mother and father (or at least, they did until technology intervened); and when they're born, they have a long period of vulnerability during which they have to be cared for and taught various skills if they are to survive. Kinship, with families and kin groups, meets this need. With the emergence of language, human beings coordinated their activities in increasingly complex ways, building settlements for shelter and security, sharing experience and knowledge in fishing, hunting, gardening, trading and developing new technologies. The ability to co-operate is a key adaptive advantage of the human species. Pleasure came from other social activities – singing, art to share with others, games, sports and so on. Knowledge was passed on down the generations. As the size of human settlements grew, ways of regulating social life became more elaborate – laws, courts, the police and Parliament itself, for instance. The whole process of making laws – including the Regulatory Standards Bill – is a social activity. Nor is it just about relations with other people. The relational networks between human beings and other life forms and the wider environment are also far-reaching and vital to human survival. Whakapapa, for instance, along with western relational philosophies, is grounded on these realities. It is not just Te Tiriti that's at risk in this bill, but te ao māori itself, with its whakapapa framings that include all forms of life, and its kin-based hapū and marae. None of this is recognised in the Regulatory Standards Bill, bar a hollowed out account of 'the rule of law'. Though individuals matter in human life, relational frameworks are vital to survival, at different scales and with other life forms, landscapes and seascapes, as well as with other people. Any framing of the world that does not recognise these basic facts is partial, and mistaken. To address the second point, a framework that ignores the foundational importance of collective institutions, property and values in human life is non-adaptive. If people are taught to prize their individual freedom and property above all – for instance, the cost-benefit calculating individual of neoliberal economics – the bonds that bind families, communities and societies begin to fray. If the collective rights and values that underpin the social contract, including justice, truth, fairness and respect for others, are undermined, injustice, misinformation and disrespect are likely to follow – as we have seen in the tactics used to promote this bill. If economic models based on the pursuit of self-interest are privileged in law making, ideas of public service begin to fade. Families and voluntary organisations falter; and institutions created to care for others – early childhood centres, schools, hospitals, retirement villages and the like – become dedicated to the pursuit of profit. At the same time, knowledge about relationships with other people and the wider world is set aside. It is no accident that the coalition Government that agreed to pass the Regulatory Standards Bill has withdrawn funding for basic research in the humanities and the social sciences. Policy-making becomes based on ministerial 'reckons' rather than evidence. The disciplines of law, public policy, political studies, public health and nursing, philosophy, the arts and literature, history, urban design, environmental studies, architecture, human geography, sociology and anthropology are defunded, as if understanding human life does not matter. And if relationships with other life forms and the environment are ignored, these also become dysfunctional, with the mass extinctions of other life forms, polluted lakes and rivers, ravaged landscapes, melting glaciers, heating oceans and climate change. None of this contributes to social cohesion or prosperity. A bill that fails to recognise the key challenges facing the human species, and frustrates the strategic deployment of different forms of social co-operation in the public interest is dangerous and non-adaptive. Since the neoliberal revolution of the 1980s, New Zealand has already gone a long way down this track. If we want a peaceful and productive society, a bill that tips the balance even further towards the privatisation of social life and the living world around us is unlikely to prove constructive. On the third, and final, point, the bill fails to meet its own standards. Although the Regulatory Standards Bill requires that individual freedom and choice are given priority in law-making, there are many aspects of compulsion and top-down control in the provisions of this bill. These include the roles of the minister of regulation and his hand-picked board, and the requirement to review all laws and regulations, past and present, against a particular ideological framing. Ultimately, as Peter Thiel has written, a libertarian version of 'freedom' and democracy are incompatible. Taken to the extreme, the unfettered pursuit of freedom by individuals undermines democracy and the rule of law, and the rights of others. Some may want to take New Zealand in this direction. Judging from public reactions to the Regulatory Standards Bill, however, many New Zealanders have grasped where this bill would take law-making in this country, and do not want a bar of it. Of the citizens who voted in the last election, only 8.6 percent of New Zealanders voted for Act, with its Regulatory Standards Bill. Of 23,000 submitters on the bill at the consultation phase, only .33 percent supported it. Of a reported 150,000 submissions to the select committee, a large majority oppose it. This bill lacks even a fig-leaf of popular consent. If it is forced on the country, that flies in the face of the first principle in this bill – that no government should pass legislation that unduly restricts the freedom of choice of individuals. This bill speaks of freedom, but practices ideological imposition. It is self-contradictory, unbalanced and non-adaptive. This subcommittee should do their Parliamentary duty, listen to the people, and discard it.
