Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to always follow my colleague from the Green Party. But I'd like to rise in opposition to the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill. I'd just like to make a few comments in regards to what member Chlöe Swarbrick just said. The comment there was around earned responsibility"—to be able to earn their ability to be able to manage their own region. That's essentially what the Government is saying here. Regions will be able to earn the right to be able to look after their region make decisions for their region and be able to—Dr Shane Reti: Permission.SIMEON BROWN: Permission. That's right Shane Reti. It's about permission to be able to continue doing what they do well for their regions. I fail to understand how the member can continue to push that this is about the regions. This is about the regions. Well why are we closing down and shutting down the regional polytechs up and down our country? If this is about doing the—Chlöe Swarbrick: We're not shutting anything down.SIMEON BROWN: —best for our regions—oh and they say "We're not". Well in two years' time there will be a New Zealand institute of skills and training and all the subsidiaries will be gone—all gone. That's what happens under this piece of legislation if you actually read it Mark Patterson.I'd like to discuss a few aspects of this bill and the reasons that we oppose it. Firstly I'd like to also talk about the cost—the cost of these reforms which are being proposed. The figures that I will refer to come from the Reform of Vocational Education: Programme Business Case. I didn't write this. Shane Reti didn't write this. No one in the National Party wrote this. This came from the Tertiary Education Commission and was asked for by the Minister. I'd like to just point out the absolute cost that this is going to be for New Zealanders. Firstly the establishment cost of up to $400 million—$400 million. That's twice the amount of money which they have put aside from the failed fees-free scheme—the $197 million which came from that. Four hundred million dollars—that's more than twice. So fees-free has to fail twice for this policy to actually be able to be implemented. But that's just the establishment cost of this. There is an overall increase in the cost of running the vocational sector of $50 million per annum and the cost-benefit analysis says that the costs will be greater than the benefits by three to one. The overall costs of running the sector of these reforms will be between $686 million and $1.08 billion and the potential savings are between $224 million to $368 million. Now when we talk about cost-benefit analysis normally we think the benefits outweigh the costs but here we're talking about something where the costs will outweigh the benefits by three to one. There are some savings which I referred to but there is still a big unknown which the Minister will not answer the question on: the unknown costs of the IT changes and the new IT set-ups which will be required under this. The Minister will not release the numbers and will not give us those numbers. So that cost-benefit analysis could become even worse potentially four to one or five to one once those figures are released. The Minister keeps talking about the cost of doing nothing. Well I'd like to point out that while the cost of the deficits may be $70 million and Nick Smith mentioned earlier that $50 million of that comes from Unitec's current deficit what we don't hear from the Minister is the fact that we are losing about $70 million every single year through the fact that visa applications for student visas are being delayed—$70 million of lost income to our institutes of technology and polytechnics sector because Immigration New Zealand is delaying the processing of those visas. That's happening under this Government and that's costing $70 million—the exact same amount of money that the deficits were in the last financial year. That's a point that our polytech sector—money that they're losing out on and money that taxpayers are having to fund because the Government won't actually solve the problems in the Immigration New Zealand area that need to be focused on. I'd also like to talk about the risk that these changes are putting on New Zealanders and on apprenticeships and traineeships up and down New Zealand. The figures which are again in the programme business case indicate that we will lose 18000 trainees—18000 trainees—and 2300 fewer apprenticeships—2300 fewer apprenticeships. At a time when Jenny Salesa in her speech says we need 30000 people in construction we're going to be saying no we're going to disrupt the sector and we're going to say goodbye to 18000 traineeships and 2300 fewer apprenticeships. Dr Shane Reti: Their data.SIMEON BROWN: And that's right Shane Reti: that comes again from the programme business case. I didn't make up those numbers. Shane Reti didn't make up those numbers. The National Party didn't make up those numbers. They came from the Tertiary Education Commission in advice to the Minister.Thirdly the regions are being undermined by these changes. These changes will strip assets away from the polytech sector: $58 million of cash reserves—that's $58 million of cash reserves according to last year's financial statements from the polytech sector—will be stripped away under these changes and controlled by the New Zealand institute of skills and training which will be controlled by the Minister—$58 million.Mark Patterson: Are you in the meetings?SIMEON BROWN: And for the benefit of Mark Patterson who is interjecting on the other side $4.4 million in the Southern Institute of Technology (SIT) will disappear. Mark Patterson: Ring-fenced.SIMEON BROWN: Ring-fenced he says but it won't be SIT who'll be controlling that money; it'll be the Minister and the Secretary for Education which gets to make decisions. There is a removal of decision making from local regions. They won't under this bill be able to have any control over their assets over their courses; workforce development councils will be in charge of that. The academic freedom point which Chlöe Swarbrick seemed to spend a lot of time talking about forgets the fact that the workforce development councils will have a huge amount of responsibility over the courses and will be signing off effectively on the courses which the New Zealand institute of skills and training will be delivering. I'd like to finish on a note a little bit closer to home and that is the Manukau Institute of Technology. It's in my patch. I live in Pakuranga—that's my electorate—and the Manukau Institute of Technology serves my area. We've heard a lot about successful polytechs in this debate. We've heard about the Southern Institute of Technology Otago Polytechnic; we've heard about the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology. And yes I do acknowledge that the Manukau Institute of Technology has had some deficits over recent times but again it is a fundamental part of the South and East Auckland community. It was formed in 1970 and it plays an important role in the skills and the training of young people in South and East Auckland. Under these changes that will be gone. Under these changes there will be no more Manukau Institute of Technology which will deliver for the region of South and East Auckland. We will see people who have pride in that institution as I think the point made by Michael Woodhouse that his daughter—she's studying at Otago Polytechnic. She's studying midwifery at Otago Polytechnic. That qualification has value because of the name on the certificate and that value is being taken away because the name will be taken away by these changes. I say the same thing to the young people in South and East Auckland who are proud of the Manukau Institute of Technology and they will also have that taken away from them. The National Party at the next election will be proposing policy where we will be retaining the industry; we'll retain training and the opportunity to provide apprenticeships where it belongs. They know best around that. We'll be ensuring true regional representation in our polytech sector. The National Party has a clear plan and we will continue to deliver for New Zealanders and we will be taking these changes to the election. Thank you Madam Speaker. We oppose this bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The next call is a split call—I call Jo Luxton."