Swarbrick Chlöe; Dyson RuthCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It's a pleasure to rise and speak on the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill in my first speech in the House this year. Happy parliamentary New Year colleagues. I want to first ask the question because it's come across from both speakers on the Government side of the House and actually arguably from members of the Opposition that we have the same shared values in what we're trying to achieve here with that being a coherent connected-up working sector for institutes of technology and polytechnics and industry training organisations of polytech vocational education—however you want to characterise it. It does however seem that the rubber hits the road or the argument really starts to get quite argy-bargy when we talk about how we're going to achieve that. From what I've managed to discern from speakers from the Opposition they'd prefer to keep the status quo on life support. That status quo—as was raised by the Associate Minister of Education Tracey Martin—is such that we as this Government inherited from the former National Government a situation whereby 13 out of the 16 polytechs across this country were in the red financially. They required support to the extent that since we have come into Government we have had to put up over $100 million in order to keep them alive. Speaking to a number of those who are engaged in the polytech sector those who are quite high up the hierarchy who I'd hope that members of the Opposition—the likes of Dr Shane Reti—have also spoken to it would very much seem as though the implication that has been derived by those members of the polytech sector community is that the former Minister for Tertiary Education Steven Joyce was trying to run the sector into the ground and essentially disestablish it publicly to such an extent that it had to be turned into private provision. This is something which I have heard from a number of those within the polytech sector. Nicola Willis: It's hearsay. CHLÖE SWARBRICK: If the Opposition are able to mention anecdotes and conversations with those out in the community I will quite happily refer to those out in the community in Southland—the likes of Southern Institute of Technology (SIT) and Otago. So again I want to really draw attention back to the fact that we seem to have shared vision at the very least—if you could call it that—or a shared understanding of what we're trying to achieve here: a unified vocational education sector. It just so happens that this side of the House actually wants to do something about it whereas the other side of the House has a lot of critique but not a whole lot of substance about any forms of alternatives. For example the speaker who just sat down—Simeon Brown from the Opposition—mentioned the fact that it's going to cost between $200 million and $400 million for these reforms. What's the alternative? Well the alternative is to continue pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into a system which is not serving communities which is not currently serving all of the learners and which is not currently—obviously—serving those who are in charge of these polytechs. So I'm genuinely quite confused about what the National Party is proposing here except the tearing down of what appears to be an opportunity to work constructively to build the best possible vocational education sector for this country. Indeed as many submitters before the Education and Workforce Committee mentioned—I'm stoked that I got to sit in for a portion of it. Unfortunately now I'm no longer a member. But many of those submitters spoke about how this was the most transformative change to the vocational education sector in a generation and there was an opportunity here to do some really exciting things. So it might surprise members of the Opposition but I'm quite excited to see what Supplementary Order Papers they bring to the Table because hopefully thankfully we there will have some constructive debate—I hope. I'm also fascinated to hear from members of the Opposition—the former National Government—that they are big fans of localism. I'm really really excited about the potential that that offers for us to work together as the Greens and as National on reforms to local government and handing over more power to local government and more resources. I'd like to mention my good colleague and my mate Ron Mark—Minister Ron Mark over there—for the work that he did during his time in local government because we have seen on this side what can really happen if community members are engaged in the decisions that are made at higher levels. Nicola Willis: And yet you've centralised the polytechs—what a contradiction. Have you read the bill? CHLÖE SWARBRICK: So when it comes to what we are trying to achieve here—it is contained within the bill; it is contained within the bill Nicola Willis—there will be the establishment of the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Training. The pathway the transitional means by which we get there is laid out in one of the explanatory notes within the commentary which states—and I quote—Initially each polytechnic would become a Crown entity subsidiary of NZIST until its undertakings transferred to NZIST (or another NZIST subsidiary) by the end of 2022." The really important thing to recognise about that if you speak to people who are in the thick of the sector is that this offers an opportunity for a sense of contraction to get an understanding of the environments that these vocational providers are operating in and then to expand in a conscious and meaningful way whereby we have a network of joined-up providers. I'd also like to touch on a number of the points that were raised in the first reading—which I'm thankful that the Opposition are no longer speaking about because it's demonstrably untrue if you read the bill—that there will no longer be on-the-job training. There will absolutely continue to be on-the-job training. In fact that's a really important component of the vocational education sector. What this vocational education and training reform amendment bill does is bring it together in one piece of legislation so it is more accessible for the general public. It amends the Education Act 1989 and integrates provisions of the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Act 1992. So too I want to talk about the charter because I think that that is a really critical point and I'd note that a number of submitters including those from polytechs raised that they thought it was really crucially important that we had this charter here to outline the principles that will guide NZIST. I think it's really important to speak to within Schedule 3—that being clause 3—that the role of NZIST is to meet the needs of regions throughout New Zealand. To do so it must—and I quote—"(a) offer in each region a mix of education and training including on-the-job face-to-face and distance delivery that is accessible to the learners of that region and meets the needs of its learners industries and communities;". That is critical for the sake of future planning and when you add to the mix the opportunity that's presented with workforce development councils and specialisation in regions where they get to do and show off what they do so well we have the potential to turn this ship around. I just finally want to touch on the experience of those who are actually inside the system and navigating it as learners. The average age of those who are in the vocational education sector who are educating or upskilling themselves and taking on that task of learning is 27 years old. That is substantially older than the average entry age of those who go into university for example and the reason for that is the different life experience that somebody within the vocational sector brings to being a learner within that sector. They are typically those who got straight out of school and decided to go into work or they are those who tried a bit of study found out it didn't quite work for them and then decided to go into work and study something else. There is a variation—Tim Macindoe—of different ways in which this could play out. But the really important thing is that these are people who are deciding to retrain after they have got some adult life experience and I think that demonstrates the need for there to be some real structure some real rigour and a real blueprint of opportunity for them to pick up after they graduate from that vocational course.So in summary I'm really confused about what the National Party are putting forward. I would invite them to share their Supplementary Order Papers that they are threatening to drop on the Table last minute in the committee of the whole House because if they really want to collaborate there's an opportunity to do that. I'm always open for a yarn; always open to creative ways of problem solving. I think on an issue like this when we're talking about tertiary-level education that's outside of the university system and that is providing for those who are edging toward their thirties who have a little bit of work and life experience already that we should be doing our utmost to come together as a Parliament to actually make it work in a cross-partisan manner.The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand is proud to support this bill at its second reading.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I apologise to the member for not giving her her two-minute warning bell—I was engrossed in Speakers' rulings on interjections—and if I could just remind the member who's about to take the call that a number of Speakers' rulings refer to interjections being rare and reasonable. I'm sure she won't interject on her own speech though."