Reti ShaneClauses 1 to 3Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to speak to the enablement date of this bill. In this contribution I'd like to raise several points. I'd like to suggest that at a minimum the first enablement date be the end of 2020 and I'll make the arguments for that and in the second instance the end of 2022 may be even more suitable.In the first instance to talk to the haste that this bill is progressing and that these clauses talk to when they'll bring it into law. This is reckless haste frankly—reckless haste. If we look at most of the submissions from the polytechnic sector somewhere in their submissions everyone said This is hurried". The industry training organisations said the same. This is far too hurried and I'm making the case that this is reckless haste. In fact if we look at that independent body the Office of the Auditor-General they also had concerns. They had concerns for the timing of the schedule and indeed expressed some doubt whether the espoused objectives could be achieved in the time frame that had been mentioned.We heard the Minister Chris Hipkins talk about the risks that are outlined in the programme business case and look to allay fears that "Yes but then the mitigations reduce those risks." Well one of the risks was that the schedule was not achievable. This clause does not mitigate that risk; it perpetuates it. Surely if the hurried nature is being pointed out in the programme business case and the risks around it then the mitigation is to slow it down. So I'd point to the Minister's own words and his own actions—from his own team so this is from Treasury; if we go across the programme business case the regulatory impact assessment this is a combination of panels from Treasury from the Ministry of Education and from the Tertiary Education Commission all saying that there is a risk that the schedule will unbuckle the objectives that the Minister is trying to achieve.So the first proposal that I have to change the timing from what is stated in these clauses is to have the bill enabled at the end of 2020. Now I say that for two things. A key factor here is that currently as it reads—and I've mentioned it before—there's a break in the financial year. So the first three months we have one set of financial statements and then the next nine months we have a second set of financial statements and we hope to heck that under the Public Finance Act we're going to be able to bring these together in some comparable way because that's what we need with financial statements. We need to be able to compare year to year to year not year to three months plus nine months—that doesn't actually help us. So I'd ask the Minister to consider at least ridding ourselves of that anomaly and the risks going with that or furthermore tell us what the cost is going to be of that single action. What are the costs going to be to revalue every single institute of technology and polytechnic? What is the cost to having a three months plus a nine months financial or aggregated set of financial statements? I don't imagine that is going to be cheap.So firstly if we were to have an enablement of the bill in these clauses changed to the end of 2020 we wouldn't break a financial year. We could still have comparable data year on year.Secondly if this is good if this is the answer and the solution to our vocational education sector take it to the campaign trail. Get a mandate from New Zealanders in September and then at the end of the year 2020 you're good to go. If this is so good take it to the campaign trail. That would be another advantage of having this bill enabled at the end of 2020. I would still make the case that these clauses bring in a lot of haste; more haste than there needs to be. That would still be very hurried in my view. Those in the sector that I speak to think that there are several years in this. They've looked back at when the teachers colleges were amalgamated into their current form how that was over several years—in fact a number of them have said "Look what happened there". Contestably it either went right or it went wrong but that took many many years to get to the position we are today where they may or may not—again contestably—be suitable. That was over several years. Look at the costs that it took. So I think we should draw on that. Let's not reinvent the wheel. If this is going to work if we think it's going to work let's change these clauses and let's say 2022 as a start date. I think the sector would take a big breath. But again I'd come back to the two options that I'm suggesting the Minister speak to: the first take it to the end of 2020 get rid of this whole broken financial year take it to the campaign trail; secondly a more thorough deployment more likely to succeed—if it's going to succeed—would be 2022. I'd ask the Minister to speak to those matters."