Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak to this bill. I particularly want to focus on the tertiary interface and the tertiary aspects of this bill which is quite a small part but it is certainly mentioned in the general policy statement. There are three particular tertiary parts that I want to address that are mentioned in the general policy statement but it will be a short call.The first part is the amalgamation of student loan information with other Ministry of Social Development information. Pragmatically this actually makes some sense. It certainly serves a useful purpose although we will wait to hear from the Privacy Commissioner and others around the inter-agency agreements because when you have informatics like this where you join different databases there will always be concerns around the linkages that you form and whether they are appropriate linkages. Now I believe this Government can technically make those linkages but I don't believe they can be safe stewards of the data that they've then created. I think our ongoing data breaches give clear concern and I hope the Privacy Commissioner and others will offer some submissions in the select committee process.I think the second interface with tertiary is removing some of the items from the Education Act the primary statute and putting them into regulations. I'll be interested in some of the legislative committee advice for example around the implications of that. When you take something from statute and pass it into regulation what happens? Now for the member who has just sat down Mark Patterson who was commenting that there's something useful about creating disputes resolutions let's quite clear: what this bill does doesn't create it; it takes the existing provisions and simply moves them from primary statute to regulations. The main provisions that are being moved are the code of practice for the pastoral care bill which has concluded its way through the select committee process and will come back to this House; the export education levy; and the disputes resolution schemes. So they already exist; they're just being moved. I think fundamentally this is probably a good thing but I'd interested to hear again in select committee the implications of moving from statute.I think the third part that certainly interests me greatly is the slow dismantling of the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Act 1992 an Act that Lockwood Smith and many others had a hand in. If we look back at that time the problem they were trying to solve was apprentices who were coming out who had time-based competency but not competency-based competency. That was one of the things they were trying to fix and they had issues with the training that was through providers such as polytechnics and said Look we believe industry are better trainers." So that was what the 1992 Act was trying to figure out and of course this slowly dismantles it puts the umbrella for vocational training back under this one mega polytechnic.The explanatory note of the bill states that the bill replicates provisions from the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Bill. Certainly I've been corrected for grammar in the House before but it reads "The Bill replicates provisions from the introduction version of the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Bill". From the "introductory" version? Maybe others can offer a comment more than I. It just doesn't seem to be quite the flow I would have expected. But of course we're going to have that battle on a different field; that's going to be with the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Bill which is commented on here in the general description and that's really where we're going to roll up our sleeves and certainly not be as condescending—not condescending as useful as we are with this bill where we're saying to select committee to the first reading we will support it and then see what comes from that.We have issues right from the beginning with the bill that's mentioned here—the removal of up to 18000 industry learners and certainly the 2310 apprentices that will go from the Minister's own programme business case—his own statements. So again that's a battle that I'll leave for another time and another theatre. But I just comment that the obvious tertiary interface with this bill has some useful parts to it. Certainly we will be looking for more advice from submitters who are maybe more learned than we are here at the moment and I'll look forward to seeing its progress through the select committee. Thank you."