Some of the National Party’s key stakeholders came to Parliament yesterday and ripped into one of the Government’s showpiece Bills.
Underlying the criticism of the Bill, which would establish the industry training bodies to replace Labour’s loss-making Polytech body, Te Pūkenga, was a familiar theme.
There was too much direction from Government and not enough room for local and private sector input.
Business New Zealand led the criticism, but other industry bodies joined in.
The criticism reflected what seems to be a growing undercurrent of frustration with the Government on the part of business.
Some of that is because of what business, particularly some of the larger businesses, perceive to be a difficulty in communicating with the Prime Minister and some other senior Ministers and other criticism is more specific like the submissions yesterday on Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill.
The preamble to the Bill says its purpose is to redesign the vocational education and training system “to restore regional decision making and increase industry involvement in vocational education and training.”
“The Bill meets these objectives by amending the Act to disestablish Te Pūkenga—New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology, to re-establish a network of regional polytechnics, and to establish industry skills boards to replace workforce development councils.
“The Bill proposes a framework within which new polytechnics and a polytechnic Federation Committee can be established, as well as a framework to establish industry skills boards.”
The Bill had its origins in concerns from National when it was in Opposition that the Labour Government’s merging of 16 Polytechs to form Te Pūkenga was financially wasteful and had reduced local input into the Polytechs.
National appointed Invercargill MP Penny Simmonds as its spokesperson on the issue. She had previously been the CEO of the Southland Polytech and clearly deeply resented its merger into Te Pūkenga.
But Simmonds’ focus in developing National’s reforms appears to have been on restoring the regionalism she had been part of when she was the CEO in Invercargill.
BusinessNZ ‘s Manager for Education, Skills and Immigration, Rachel Simpson, was blunt in her criticisms of what she argued was the way the new proposal did not address the other failings of Te Pūkenga.
She said vocational education was best done with an industry-led government-enabled system.
“Many of the skills that people are getting trained in are not current, relevant, or closely aligned to the skills needed by business,” she said.
“Many skills being taught are out of date, too low level, lacking in technical detail, or not being trained on industry-relevant plant equipment, or are no longer required by employers.
“OECD research shows that the New Zealand workforce is relatively highly skilled compared to other countries, but the standard of skill in these qualifications is dropping.
“This indicates that New Zealand has a problem of irrelevant and mismatched skills, and this is a bad problem to have.
“It means businesses can’t get the skills they need, graduates can’t find employment, and there’s a lot of wasted investment in that vocational education system.
“The bill as drafted will not address these problems.”
Simpson said that the ultimate power to set skill standards in industries would be the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, the Tertiary Education Commission and the Ministry of Education.
Industry Skills Boards (ISBs), which would replace the current Workforce Development Councils, would be comprised of industry representatives but would have an advisory role only.
The Business New Zealand submission recommended that ISBs should be comprised of industry representatives with strong governance skills and have the power to approve the training programs based on the skill standards and qualifications they were developing.
Overall, Business NZ has proposed 41 amendments to the 92 clauses in the Bill that affect vocational education.
Even bodies established under Labour’s legislation supported Business NZ’s submission.
Kari Scrimshaw, the CEO of the existing Services Workforce Development Council, Ringa Hora echoed Simpson’s call for the ISBs to be industry-led.
“We believe that the new system must be genuinely industry-led and future-focused,” she said.
“However, the Bill, as drafted, assigns considerable power, as Business New Zealand pointed out, to the Minister and agencies with little opportunity for industry to define and influence their priorities.
“At the outset, and from a governance perspective, five of the new services ISB members will be appointed by the Minister and the Tertiary Education Commission, not industry.”
Another existing WDC, Toi Mai, covers everyone in the cultural, entertainment, broadcasting and sports space, along with hairdressers, journalists, gambling workers and digital workers of various kinds.
Its CEO, Dr Claire Robinson, had a slightly different spin on the Bill to Business NZ and Ringa Hora, who both favoured workplace skills learning.
“We need to be frank here, our current vocational education system was not built for the industries that will define New Zealand’s economic future,” she said.
“It was built around the traditional or legacy industries like agriculture and construction, and forms of apprenticeship learning originating in the 19th century.
“These reforms support those industries and that type of work-based learning while leaving the current system flaws unchanged.
“It’s a system that assumes everyone has a boss, ignoring the difficulties faced by gig-based workers who are the backbone of our future-focused industries.”
It was a submission that struck a chord with National MP Grant McCallum, a member of the Committee.
“I think what you’re saying is that what we’ve done historically is not fit for purpose in the future world, and this, while the intent is there, is not also really addressing the issues you see, particularly with the business opportunities going forward for the country,” he said.
“It’s a fantastic summary.”
Robinson: “What we’re saying is let’s actually stop talking about degrees and apprentices and if we start using the words of skills and the language of skills, then we can really interact with industry and build that up.”
Thus, the perception that was being presented to the Committee was that the Bill failed on almost every front.
That it was able to get this far through the Parliamentary system without the feedback being presented by business to the Committee seemingly being heard suggests there is something wrong with the way National goes about developing its legislation.
It is that undercurrent that it is becoming out of touch with business opinion, not just on this Bill but on other matters too, that is starting to ripple through the business community.
These hearings should be a warning signal to National’s leadership.
