Robertson Grant: Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:16951. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central):Part 2 of the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill is essentially three clauses that amend the Education Act. It is not a particularly long part but it is an important part because this is the bit where we move on from the previous way in which these industry training and apprenticeships have been managed. It is important that when we are doing so we look at the history of what was good about industry training and apprenticeships under this legislation and ensure that we are not changing it in such a way that it undermines the purpose of industry training.The biggest issue here when this was debated round the Education and Science Committee table was the question of fees and the payment of fees for the registration of industry training. There was a concern raised by several submitters that the fees that were being paid may increase and may become significant enough that they would impact on trainees themselves. Clearly we do not want to see that. We want to make sure that industry training remains as open as possible to all those who want to undertake it. That is covered by clauses 25 and 26 which amend aspects of the Education Act around the way in which registration fees will be set and how they will be paid.It is important to note that when the New Zealand Qualifications Authority comes in to undertake quality assurance activities—and this is in clause 26 of the bill—those fees do not represent a huge burden upon the industry training organisations. Several of the industry training organisations and related bodies that came to the select committee were concerned that there was the potential for this to become a very open clause. We were again assured by the officials that that would not be the case.It is a concern for a lot of people that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority performs an important role in our system but equally is perceived I think by many people as merely coming along and extracting money from those organisations rather than providing a huge amount of value. It is important in this case that there is absolute transparency around what it is that the authority is doing and why a body might be paying fees to it as they are required to under clause 26 of this bill.We heard from submitters that they were concerned that often the New Zealand Qualifications Authority coming in and working with them was some kind of tick-box exercise. It was some kind of simply filling in a form and that was enough. There has to be more than that in terms of added value from the authority’s involvement with industry training organisations. There needs to be a sense that the authority is supporting the delivery of high-quality training through the setting of high-quality standards. That is the purpose.If the authority comes in and has conversations like that with the bodies that are paying fees to it then there will not be any grudge held about paying that fee. The problem arises where the industry training organisations feel that they are simply part of a bureaucratic exercise that is about filling in forms and the authority does not seem to add value. The concern that was expressed to us in the select committee about Part 2 of the bill was what the added value is here from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. It was a little disturbing I think to see the level of cynicism among a number of those representing industry training organisations about the authority and what it would do. I think we have to take that cynicism seriously.As I said in my earlier contribution by no means do I believe that industry training organisations should be without scrutiny by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. It is a large amount of taxpayer funding that is going to industry training organisations and even more concerning would be when this money was directed to individual businesses under the clauses that have just been passed. That would be of even greater concern and we would need the authority in there making sure that there is a level of quality assurance available. That is what the fees are paid for under clause 26. We want to see as much transparency as possible in what the authority does so that those fees can be justified. It is important that the authority take heed of the things that were said about this during the select committee process.We do believe that the fees are justifiable because the authority is performing a service but it must be able to show the added value there and unfortunately—