Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Nelson has had an independent polytechnic since 1904. That's 115 years—115 years of good-quality training 115 years of local innovation 115 years of close partnerships with industry partnerships with the polytech. This Government bill nationalises and robs Nelson of its local institution. It's a failed think-big strategy and I challenge any member opposite to tell me where nationalisation and centralisation has resulted in better services for the region. This bill is bad for Nelson it's bad for Invercargill it's bad for Dunedin it's bad for Whangarei and Napier it is bad for our polytechnic sector. It means a loss of local control. It means a loss of local innovation. It means we lose the good name of our own Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT).Now I've been concerned from the Minister who has said quite publicly that there are too many centres around New Zealand that are training truck drivers and too many centres around New Zealand that are running other courses. That's code for taking out of the regions the very courses and training because I say to members opposite: take the truck driver training out of Nelson and don't expect people to be able to go to Auckland or Christchurch or somewhere else to pick up those skills. This is so important to my community. I have one of the smallest State sectors of anywhere in New Zealand. Our two most important institutions in Nelson provided by Government are our polytechnic and our hospital and both are at risk with this Government's level of centralisation underfunding and poor management.I challenge members opposite: where is the political mandate? Where's the political mandate to rip out of Nelson an institution that's existed for 115 years. I see my colleague from Te Tai Tonga: when did you tell the people of the top of the South that if you were Government you were going to take away our polytechnic? I say to other the Labour members I say to New Zealand First: when did you get the mandate from the public for such a radical reform? In fact it is exactly the opposite and I say to the member of New Zealand First Mark Patterson: the coalition agreement says that this Government is going to extend outgrow services and send out of the centre regional management of services. This bill does the exact opposite. This bill is a broken promise by New Zealand First and in respect of the coalition agreement.Here's the madness of the Government's justification for this reform. If you look at the polytech sector last year it had a loss of $70 million; $50 million dollars of that was Unitec the biggest institution in the country. So why on earth if the biggest one's in the most trouble would you make an even bigger one? If there was a dumber idea I would struggle to find it. And if it's such a good idea for polytechs why isn't the Government opposite saying Oh we can reduce the back-office functions. We can reduce competition. Let's not have a Vic a Canterbury an Auckland an Otago or a Massey university." Is that next on the Government's agenda? If we listen to the justification for this bill all the same arguments would apply to the university sector. Every one of us knows that it is healthy in a democracy to have competition between different tertiary providers and it's healthy that there is choice and competition in our polytechnic sector.Then I want to come to some of the specific issues to my community of Nelson. One hundred and fifteen years ago the Nelson City Council with ratepayers' money bought the property in Hardy Street for that polytechnic and today the Government is robbing Nelson of that asset and nationalising that asset into central government. That is wrong. That is flawed. And equally so why would we want to punish NMIT which has been one of the top-performing polytechnics?Dr Duncan Webb: Think forward!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And I say to Mr Duncan Webb who's interjecting "When did you tell the people of Nelson that you would be robbing them of their polytechnic and nationalising it through this reform?" You dishonestly hid it and now you are taking it away—Dr Duncan Webb: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Dr Smith can't use words across the House—even saying that the Government is doing something dishonestly is impugning the members on this side of the House Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Just to say that you know—the interjections across the House—if you don't want to hear that sort of stuff don't engage in it.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Thank you Mr Speaker. They are feeling guilty because never did they tell the population in regional New Zealand that if they voted for Labour the Greens or New Zealand First they'd take away their polytech and nationalise those assets that have been provided in the Nelson community by ratepayers and who have been so successful.Let's talk about NMIT's success. Last year it had the highest rate of course completion rates of any institution in New Zealand. Last year NMIT had the highest rate of Māori achievement of any institution in New Zealand. Last year NMIT had one of the strongest financial performances and had built up reserves of $20 million that are going to be nationalised. My challenge to members opposite is: why are you trying to break an institution that is actually successful? Why are you messing with the success of organisations like the Southern Institute of Technology of NMIT and of other successful organisations?I am also worried about local control. NMIT like other polytechs around New Zealand has 100 percent of local board members. How many board members will Nelson Marlborough have on the new institution? Answer: zero. So when I hear these weasel words from the member opposite about this improving the amount of local input let's be clear right now that institutions like the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology has 100 percent of its governance locally and under this reform they have none.And here's my worry about the loss of innovation. I've watched as the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology has quickly developed new programmes in aquaculture new programmes in viticulture and new programmes in aviation engineering and it's created a hub with the chamber of commerce and the economic development agency in our region. Every one of the industries that have been involved in that innovation has said "If we were part of some big national bureaucracy we would never have been able to provide the innovation and those sorts of programmes so quickly."Here's my challenge for the next Government speaker: why will you give no reassurance to my community about the number of jobs and the number of courses? I very specifically asked the Minister whether he would assure the Nelson Marlborough community that there will be no loss of courses. The Minister was silent. When I asked the Minister whether he could assure the hundreds of staff at NMIT that there would be no job losses he was silent. And when I asked him whether there would be any loss of the $6 million a year earned in international students the Minister was silent and said that he could provide no reassurances. Why should a community like Nelson Marlborough that has a successful institute put up with this bill and this reform when there is such a vacuum of assurances on the issues that matter?I also want to draw to the House's attention the number of organisations that say this reform of centralisation will not work. I've read a lot of Cabinet papers in my day. I have never read a Treasury paper that is so negative that is so risky and that is so fail driven as what we have in respect of this reform. Even the Government's own Tertiary Education Commission says that this reform will not work. And if I had to take the rest of the afternoon to be able to quote all of the business leaders that have been critical of this reform—it is ideology over common sense. It is centralisation that will not work. This is a reform that is a failure for the Government.Could I just clarify—I think there is a problem with the clock.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): There is a problem with the clock and it wasn't caused by you suggesting you could speak for the rest of the afternoon! It was inadvertently stopped and we're just clarifying the time you stopped. Roland advises me that you started at 3.45 p.m. so you should be finished at 3.55 p.m.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Could you just clarify as to the length of time that I have left?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): One minute more.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Madam Speaker it was an error in the systems of the House and not mine.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): That's right. That's correct.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I wish to conclude with: some of the House would know of John Palmer. He was the chairman of Air New Zealand and has a track record of working in senior governance roles for Governments on both sides of the House. I quote him: "The idea of centralising the whole of New Zealand's polytechs into one bureaucracy is wrong in principle and on so many fronts. It assumes that putting failing institutions together with successful ones will make everything better. This centralisation is bad for education it's bad for business it's bad for innovation and it is a nonsense as a business strategy." The Government ignoring those sorts of very strong criticisms of this reform reinforces that it is ideology over common sense. It is a disaster for regional New Zealand. National will do everything to fight these reforms. The only way to stop these reforms is to change the Government."