SpeechMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. Could I start by just acknowledging the loss of a New Zealand First stalwart Pita Paraone who was buried today and I acknowledge Dr Reti's acknowledgment of him earlier and other members across the House. He was clearly a respected member.On the Reform of Vocational Education (RoVE) reforms: New Zealand First does support these RoVE reforms. I am here to reassure the member from the South that has just sat down Michael Woodhouse as a member also from the South that it's going to be all right. There is plenty to celebrate and there is plenty of reassurance—and I'll go through that in a bit more detail shortly.But at a national level the system was broken. I heard the member that just took his seat call the National Party the champions of the polytechnic sector." Well under their watch students in the polytechnic sector decreased by 40000 students at a time of massively growing skills shortages. So it is a bit rich to stand up here and claim to be champions of the vocational education sector.This is a sector that has bled nearly $100 million and required bailouts during the course of this term in Government. There was an urgent need to reassess how we deliver and how we fund our vocational training and this bill sets out to do exactly that by the creation of the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology. It does create a coherent and an integrated plan for our polytechnics and our industry training organisations. There has been a plethora of institutions competing against each other; an incredibly inefficient system. And that's why these reforms have been warmly welcomed by the likes of Business New Zealand—remember them over the other side of the fence? Remember the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern)? Dairy NZ desperately concerned about the lack of trainees in their industry; Federated Farmers; all those institutions have supported these reforms because they are on the coalface—they know exactly what is happening out there on the farms and the factories and the hospitals.The reason they are supporting this is a feature of these reforms: the workplace development councils. Business will be in the driving seat. They will be asking for the skills that they need they will be getting them delivered they will be setting the scene setting the template and putting their requirements forward first. They will start this process through the workforce development councils. Businesses will have much more input into what our institutions are delivering in the way of their education.These will be much more fit for purpose courses because what we've heard of course is that we've got cohorts of students coming out that have maybe a level 3 in electrical engineering that actually can't do the job that they are tasked with doing when they get out into the workforce because there has just been such an incoherence and a lack of consistency across this field. I do want to address the issue of Southern Institute of Technology (SIT) and the Otago Polytechnic. Of course these are vitally important institutions in the South—absolutely vital and it is imperative that we get these forms right. We have listened to those communities and I certainly have been and I know my colleague Dr Liz Craig has been. Despite the catastrophising on the other side of the House we have actually been working constructively with the likes of Phil Kerr with the likes of Penny Simmons to make sure that their voices are being heard—not jumping up and down and Facebook and causing distress in those communities—actually working through the issues one by one including in the Minister's office with a leadership group from Southland including local mayors the chamber of commerce and the like.They did bring eight specific issues that they wanted addressed. There were issues around whether they could continue to deliver their SIT2LRN their distance learning: yes. Could they have majority local representation on their subsidiary board? Yes. Could they still retain the ability to attract international students to their campuses? Absolutely yes and keep their branding. Those were legitimate concerns that were given reassurance. Were their reserves ring-fenced? Yes. Would the regional skills group—that is signalled to have seven or eight people on it—still be able to use their committees that they sit underneath their board? They have 42 different committees that feed into the courses that they put there with their local committees. Would they still be able to use those and utilise that programme? Yes. Would there be a programme within this two-year period to have an earned autonomy role so higher-performing institutions like Otago like SIT could continue to function and have a high degree of local autonomy and that will be addressed in the charter and they will be coming through to the select committee to put their case and it will be a strong case.Of course the brand—I disagree fundamentally with what Michael Woodhouse just said. I think the danger for the likes of SIT or Otago if they totally sit outside the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology (NZIST) is that they end up—OK all right now but what happens in five years' time? What they will be perceived as in Indonesia or India is maybe just a regional or a local institution rather than part of a national qualification. It could be seen as a secondary qualification and that could be incredibly damaging to their long-term prospects. So to sit totally outside the NZIST is totally untenable.We have seen benefits already. We've seen the Minister down there delivering $5 million to Telford to put that back on solid ground. The National Party apparently the great champion of tertiary vocational education let that institution almost fall not once but twice. They stood aside and allowed it to be pillaged by Lincoln. They had $10 million of reserves. They allowed it to go into Lincoln and they barely survived that. Then they allowed it to be tied to Taratahi which was itself listing. If it wasn't for Minister Hipkins coming in off his holidays in January to put an urgent injection of funding in it would have gone under then. So subsequent to that the $4.7 million the other day has been incredibly welcome in the South and will put Telford back to where it belongs: into the jewel of the agricultural training crown.The other part of that of course and why that was allowed to flounder fundamentally was that the funding does not meet the cost of delivery and this is exactly what this reform is designed to do. It costs more to teach a student to shear a sheep than it does to have a hundred accounting students sitting in front of a lecturer. These reforms reflect and the funding that is intended through these reforms will reflect more accurately the cost of delivery so that our primary sector particularly—where it is expensive you do need more one-on-one tuition—will have much better outcomes because we'll actually be funding those courses as they should be. Of course we've got the CoVEs within that the Centres of Vocational Excellence where the likes of Telford—and I see Kieran McAnulty out there trying to pitch Taratahi but I'll certainly and Liz Craig will certainly be out there pushing for Telford and the SIT to have that Centre of Vocational Excellence for agriculture.So New Zealand First absolutely support the elevation of vocational training. The schooling system has been geared to take people through to universities. We are refocusing that. The future of work does not look like the past. So we are going to elevate vocational education prioritise it get it in front of the kids and make it available and attractive and deliver it well. The New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology will do this. We believe that's the right mechanism. There is a lot of disruption out there and this mechanism will deliver educational outcomes for our young people and get them back into the vocations. Thank you Mr Speaker."