SpeechLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It's a pleasure to rise to speak to the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill and I do so out of complete disdain for this piece of legislation I'd have to say right at the beginning. This is a terrible bill a terrible move and it will be a terrible outcome for vocational training and educational training in New Zealand. You see the problem here is we haven't done the problem definition properly. The problem definition is we've got 150000 people in trade training and other training across New Zealand we've said we've got a few polytechs that are losing a whole lot of money—Hon Andrew Little: Most—most polytechs. LAWRENCE YULE: Not most. No actually—not most. Hon Andrew Little: All but three. LAWRENCE YULE: No that's incorrect Mr Little. All except five actually. They are losing money—they are losing $72 million a year—so the best thing to do is put everything together and somehow that will be better: some huge central monolith that's going to change all this and fix it all. For those members on the other side that may be worried and think this model's going to be great I ask them to look at the DHB model. This model will end up being very similar to the DHBs and where are we with the DHBs? They had a $520 million deficit in the last financial year—$520 million—and yet we're restructuring and changing the whole polytech and training sector to deal with a $70 million deficit. I want to congratulate my colleagues and friends Dr Shane Reti and Simeon Brown for the light they have shone on this particular piece of reform right throughout New Zealand. To be honest without their efforts we wouldn't understand the detail of what is coming forward in this bill. In my view this is a very risky set of reforms and probably the most dangerous reforms that we've seen in education in the last 30 years. I want to come to my own region. This is why I'm particularly unhappy about this. Eastern Institute of Technology (EIT) is one of those ones that the Hon Andrew Little refers to. It's an outstanding success. Every year it has grown student numbers. In 2018 there were 4122 full-time students—over 10000 students enrolled in total some of them part-time; some of them full-time. Every single year that number has grown. Dr Shane Reti: Good polytechnic.LAWRENCE YULE: It is a great Polytechnic. It has assets worth $150 million. And guess what Madam Speaker and to members on the other side—guess what? It has no debt. No debt and better than that it has $28 million of cash or short-term reserves sitting in the account. So that is a great result. It doesn't get better. I just want to say this: every single year the Eastern Institute of Technology even though it amalgamated with Tairāwhiti Polytechnic has run a surplus—every single year. It has 600 staff and 200 of those approximately are non-teaching staff.Importantly—importantly—it's important to remember that the land at EIT in Taradale today was gifted was gifted by the Hetley family to the people of Hawke's Bay—gifted. And where's it going—where's it going? It's going to the Government in some huge great big pot in the middle. If you ask the Hetley family today what they think about this they would be appalled. Hon Member: Just like corporate raiders.LAWRENCE YULE: It is corporate raid. That's exactly what it is: taking land that was gifted to the people of Hawke's Bay to put in a central pot.The members that are yelling out won't know this because they won't have done the research but the councils in Hawke's Bay—and the Hon Meka Whaitiri may know this—gave EIT $150000 between them for five years—that's $750000—to support the local polytech to gain ground get credibility and succeed. That is community money because it's a community asset that has now just disappeared whoof disappeared into thin air and off to some big monolith in Wellington.I also want to talk about some of the nimbleness that my friend and colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse said before. EIT is a fundamental player in developing the regional sports centre in Hawke's Bay. Without them it wouldn't have happened. It has just made a contribution to a centre of excellence at the sports park in Hastings. Do members on the other side seriously think after two years when this is all one big monolith that somehow those sorts of things are going to be made available to my people? I guarantee not and they won't care. Also in Hastings EIT—in my own electorate; not far from the Hon Meka Whaitiri's office—just developed a campus. It's chocker and it's not big enough. They need to make it bigger. Why is that? Because the courses and the community outreach are so successful. Do you seriously think that some Wellington-based bureaucracy is going to allow that level of nimbleness or innovation?Let's not gild the lily. This is actually a covert operation going on here. The subsidiary entries that are talked about in this bill are nothing more than a charade to get us to the point where it can all be put together. Members of this House need to recognise whether it's Southern Institute of Technology (SIT) EIT or the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT) those names will disappear. This will become the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology. All the locals all the local knowledge and all the brand value—gone; disappeared off the face of this Earth.These are two-year subsidiaries. The reserves are going to be consolidated. In Hawke's Bay $28 million is going to be consolidated into the national centre—$28 million built about by success operational efficiency and good governance goes into the centre. And then they say Oh you can have those reserves back for local projects or regional things that are significant but only after you've reached a set limit. I wrote set limit questions to the Minister. He came back: that hasn't been determined. So for those communities around New Zealand that have been pacified by the fact they can keep their reserves it is highly likely that most of those reserves will be used up in the reorganisation costs of this proposal.Then we talk about staff transfer. That's been talked about today. The staff are being transferred from the current entities to the subsidiaries. When you transfer the staff from the current entities to the subsidiaries they may feel some comfort. But go and look on page 70 Schedule 4 new Schedule 23 clause 5(4). It says that when the next stage happens those same staff have no guarantee or protection of employment. And why is that important—why is that important? Because these reforms estimate in back house operations the entity is going to save $134 million of money annually. Dr Shane Reti: Where from?LAWRENCE YULE: Where from? How do you do that? As Dr Reti says how do you do that? What you do is you cut staff—you cut staff. I'm sad to say—and the Hon Stuart Nash has left the room now—but what happens: they are management savings. So the people in Hawke's Bay that have got good jobs actually and they're highly competent and well qualified they go. A number of them will go. You cannot get management savings without getting rid of some people in the change that occurs after two years. It's $130 million worth of savings so if everybody says today "Oh look don't worry about it. There's a clause." look what happens in year two. This is just smashing everything. I strongly oppose it. So to this side of the House there are some wonderful models in New Zealand—EIT SIT NMIT—there are $72 million worth of losses on the polytechs in New Zealand—$72 million—of which $50 million relates to Wintec. Well guess what the Hon Andrew Little and other members? Why don't you go and sort Wintec? Sort them out and leave us alone.If you look at the papers Treasury and the Tertiary Education Commission both say this is a bad and very risky thing to do. The Minister has been asked about assurances of job losses he's been asked around course losses and he's been asked about fee-paying students—all of which he hasn't answered. I am standing up here for the people of Hawke's Bay that I represent. The other members—the members of the Government—are saying nothing. The MP for Napier is silent. But this is a tough call and it's the wrong call and we will re-open EIT as a local entity.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I call the next speaker could I just ask the member who's just resumed his seat: he should know that he doesn't refer to the absence of a member. He was on a bit of a roll on behalf of his electorate so I didn't interrupt him. But please don't refer to—Lawrence Yule: Apologies.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you. Also we know that the Speaker made a new ruling about the use of the word "you" but the way that you used it Mr Yule was not consistent with this. So perhaps over the recess you and the Hon Mark Mitchell could practise giving speeches without that term in it. That would be a good help."