Bill To Reset Vocational Education Passes First Reading
Minister for Vocational Education
Legislation to disestablish New Zealand's centralised vocational education and training system has passed its first reading in Parliament, Vocational Education and Training Minister Penny Simmonds says.
'Today, we've taken a major step forward toward a vocational education and training system that works for learners, employers, industries and local communities,' Ms Simmonds says.
'The Bill, which has passed its first reading, will return decision-making to where it belongs — in the hands of regional polytechnics and industry.
'This is a commonsense reset that ensures polytechnic education and training is responsive to regional needs and work-based learning for apprentices and trainees is led by the industries that rely on it.'
The Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill proposes a structural reset of vocational education, focusing on two key priorities: restoring local decision-making for polytechnics, and giving industry greater leadership in standard setting and work-based learning.
Among the key changes in the Bill are:
Disestablishing Te Pūkenga and creating a network of regional polytechnics, which will operate as standalone institutions or within a federation. Te Pūkenga will remain as a transitional entity for one year to manage unallocated programmes and activities.
Replacing Workforce Development Councils with new Industry Skills Boards, effective 1 January 2026. These statutory bodies will be governed primarily by industry representatives and responsible for setting standards, undertaking workforce planning, and advising the Tertiary Education Commission on relevant funding matters.
Transferring work-based learning functions from Te Pūkenga to Industry Skills Boards for up to two years, allowing time for new delivery arrangements across polytechnics, private training establishments, and Wānanga to be developed.
Amending training levy provisions to enable Industry Skills Boards to levy industry members, subject to industry support.
Ms Simmonds says implementation will take up to two years, with the first group of polytechnics and new Industry Skills Boards in place from 1 January 2026.
'Industry knows the skills it needs. That's why we're putting them back in charge of standard setting and qualification development for their industry,' Ms Simmonds says.
'This is about building a stronger, more relevant system — one that sets our people and our economy up for future success.
'We look forward to hearing what New Zealanders think during the select committee process so that we can get on with the changes.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
'Right to choose' key to Cook Islands-NZ relationship: Peters
By Teuila Fuatai of RNZ New Zealand's foreign minister says Cook Islanders are free to choose whether their country continues in free association with New Zealand. Winston Peters made the comment at a celebration of the 60th anniversary of the constitution of the Cook Islands in Auckland today. Peters attended the community event hosted by the Upokina Taoro (East Cook Island Community Group) as part of an official contingent of MPs. Minister for Pacific Peoples Shane Reti and Labour Party deputy leader Carmel Sepuloni also attended. "We may not be perfect, but we've never wavered from our responsibilities wherever they lay," Peters said. "For six decades, we have stood by ready to support the Cook Islands economic and social development, while never losing sight of the fact that our financial support comes from the taxes of hard working New Zealanders," This week's anniversary comes at a time of increasing tension between the two nations. At the heart of that are four agreements between the Cook Islands and China, which Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown signed in February. The New Zealand government said it should have been consulted over the agreements, but Brown disagreed. The diplomatic disagreement has resulted in New Zealand halting $18.2 million in funding to the Cook Islands, which is a realm country of New Zealand. Under that arrangement - implemented in 1965 - the country governs its own affairs, but New Zealand provides some assistance with foreign affairs, disaster relief and defence. Peters today said the "beating heart" of the Cook Islands-New Zealand relationship was the "right to choose". "Cook Islanders are free to choose where to live, how to live, and to worship whichever God they wish." After his formal address, Peters was asked by media about the rift between the governments of the Cooks Islands and New Zealand. He referred back to his "carefully crafted" speech which he said showed "precisely what the New Zealand position is now". Brown has previously said that if New Zealand could not afford to fund the country's national infrastructure investment plan - billed at $650 million - the Cook Islands would need to look elsewhere. Brown also said in at the time that funding the development needs of the Cook Islands was a major motivator in signing the agreements with China. Discussions between officials from both countries regarding the diplomatic disagreement were ongoing.
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Free Speech Union's bid to reshape InternetNZ: The results are in, with a late twist
A surge of people duly joined InternetNZ (annual dues: $21). As of February 1, the incorporated society had 383 members, a number its chairman Stephen Judd said had been stable for years. By the time of its board election and annual meeting last week there were 4462 eligible voting members. Things hung in the balance, with it not being clear how many of the newcomers had answered Ayling's call and how many were aiming to counter the FSU incursion. Auditor Grant Thornton says 62.4% of eligible members cast votes – up from 43% last year. FSU wins one of two open seats, none of 12 motions Two of eight board positions were up for grabs, with 13 candidates in contention. Ayling won one of the open seats with 929 votes. The other was picked up by Dylan Reeve (1372 votes), whose varied career includes being the creative partner to journalist David Farrier, who will never make the FSU's Christmas card list. Reeve, 45, who has researched and published articles on online fraud, abuse and conspiracy theories, has often questioned why companies like Facebook don't do more to enforce their rules – and why various authorities don't do more to clamp down on illegitimate or harmful content. A second FSU-affiliated candidate, Christchurch lawyer Douglas Brown (a member of the FSU's council), failed to get elected. In a twist, Ayling quit as FSU chief executive on Saturday. No reason was given for his departure after four years in the role and he could not be immediately reached for comment. All candidates stood as individuals, so his FSU resignation does not impact his new InternetNZ role. The FSU announced over the weekend its chief executive Jonathan Ayling had resigned, with no reason given. The ginger group's deputy chairwoman Jillaine Heather was named temporary CEO. The board election was followed by InternetNZ's annual general meeting, which was held online and attracted about 1000 people. FSU supporters David Farrar and retired District Court judge David Harvey put 12 motions, each seeking changes to InternetNZ's constitution. None were carried. InternetNZ board elections are only held once a year, meaning any FSU takeover was always going to be a long-term project. Critic turned insider Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see how Reeve goes as an insider. Notwithstanding the FSU's rhetoric, InternetNZ has traditionally advocated for a 'free and open' internet and defaulted to a hands-off approach. The aftermath of the Christchurch mosque massacres, when it took 'emergency measures' to make certain sites effectively inaccessible to New Zealanders, was an outlier. Stephen Judd is chairman of InternetNZ, which had income of $15.1 million last year, mostly through wholesaling .nz addresses. The funds go to technical admin to keep our internet running smoothly, plus education and community grants. Former domain name system (DNS) engineer Reeve, who has been notably methodical and even-handed in his various investigations of harmful content, has at times questioned why InternetNZ has taken so long to act against the likes of malicious .nz sites registered with fake details, including, 'parking fee' site recently imitating Auckland Transport and another pretending to be footwear maker Vans. InternetNZ's Domain Name Commission says it acts to review a site's registration if it receives a complaint. Reeve told the Herald the AGM included some ideas for more proactive measures against sites run by bad actors. But that was outside his motivation for seeking an InternetNZ seat. 'I stood for the board because I felt that a well-resourced reactionary group was trying to take control and it wasn't something I was comfortable with,' he said. 'I'm curious to see how things will progress now that most of their efforts to exercise their power have fallen through.' Chris Keall is an Auckland-based member of the Herald's business team. He joined the Herald in 2018 and is the technology editor and a senior business writer.
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Rats And Mice To Sort Out: Parliament's Tiny Laws
, Editor: The House The bills Parliament considers that are heavily reported by the media are generally the most contentious, the most impactful or the most far-reaching, with special emphasis on the most contentious. Bills that generate little animosity get little attention. Bills that will have scant impact receive scant love. And bills with a geographical reach that is negligible, get about that much coverage. As a result, it is easy to assume that all the things Parliament does are big and important. But sometimes Parliament manages the triple-whammy - a bill that everyone agrees on, which has negligible impact, and is also incredibly specific. So let's break with tradition look at it. This is especially true of two less common types of law: the unusual 'local bills' and the rare, and highly specific 'private bills'. These bills can be brought to the House for debate by any MP and each has a very specific impact. Local bills have a geographically specific impact, while private bills deal with a specific thing, an organisation, group, trust, charity, church, or even a specific person. The topics can be so unlikely that they might be accidentally mistaken for a lacklustre political spoof. On Wednesday for example, the House spent more than an hour on third reading speeches for a bill with an encompassing name - the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill, but that affected just one single building. It was not riveting stuff. The MP in charge was National's Simon Watts, who-whether intended ironically or not-rather grandly announced, "This is a moment we have all been waiting for". The bill had an admirable purpose - fixing an issue with the ongoing costs and rental income for a community asset; but why did such a local issue need to be debated and passed by the House? It was a fault of history. As always, history has a lot to answer for. Heritage drafting meets modern needs The background for many modern local and private bills is very similar - fixing problems caused by historic legal drafting. Local organisations (including local government ones), are sometimes brought into being, empowered, or had constitutions enacted under specific legislation, written and passed by Parliament just for them. That includes many things like clubs, churches, amenities, and charities. Even patches of land or parks. That kind of empowering legislation used to be more common many decades ago, but does still happen. Unfortunately drafters are not prophetic seers, and the very specific rules and purposes included in these old laws inevitably cause issues over time. Now, when such an organisation wants to act outside its early restrictions they need Parliament to amend the original law. Let's consider this week's example. The 1923 Harbour Board etcetera law in question included stipulations for the use of a waterside property. Community activities like swimming and watersports were allowed but private gain was specifically outlawed. Just three years later, it became the Takapuna Boating Club but has since fallen into disrepair because it isn't able to raise money, for example from a café, to help cover maintenance costs. And so a new bill was required to carefully loosen those constraints. As Simon Watts noted during the debate: "It is important that while we preserve the community purpose, we don't pass a law that ends up being too restrictive in the future, meaning that another North Shore MP in a hundred years from now will have to come back and lament on the old laws that we're doing right now." That may all seem bizarrely specific and trivial, but it is, sadly, not unusual. Many local (and especially private) bills only exist to fix archaic legislation. In doing so they offer MPs a debate that is refreshingly amicable and without the usual layers of import and consequence. With so little at stake Parliament can be almost fun. Debating everything and very little This debate had MPs reminiscing about beach days, eulogising Sir Peter Blake and talking of plans to play Mahjong at the club. Simon Watts revealed his caucus referred to the bill as the "Takapuna Ice Cream Bill". Cameron Brewer suggested the bill's sponsor would get a weekend ticker tape parade through Takapuna's shopping thoroughfare. There were many oddities, but the highlight may have been ACT MP Simon Court enthusing like an awestruck fan over a dreamy possibility. "I would suggest to the member Mr Steve Abel, who spoke before, that on top of mahjong, there might even be a venue where he might be able to play some of his famous songs that he composed when he was a famous New Zealand folk singer." In the Speaker's chair, National's Barbara Kuriger chortled, "One never knows where one's endorsements might come from". The slightly breathless nature of the debate was helped along by the fact that National Party MPs seemed keen to make it last as long as possible, because they weren't in favour of some member's bills due to be debated afterwards. Governing party MPs get very little exercise in extemporising in the House about so very little. For example, Cameron Brewer's speech seemed to dawdle over every topic he could think of vaguely connected with the locality, including ice cream, cafés, local magazines and long-past America's Cups. He was not alone in the approach. When he finally concluded, Labour's Phil Twyford took the next call: "Well, the member Cameron Brewer did well to remain on his feet for nine minutes and 48 seconds, but it came at a terrible human cost. Those of us in the House this afternoon - we're the living evidence of that."
