Woods Megan: Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoods Megan: Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:16951. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram):I just want to pick up on where my colleague Grant Robertson left off in terms of Part 2 of the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill specifically clauses 25 and 26. As my colleague has raised this is the part of the bill where the Education Act is amended and the fees are set. I just want to consider what some of the submitters came and talked about. They talked about how it was that those fees were going to be utilised. My colleague Grant Robertson has set out very well what the function of and the relationship between the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the industry training organisations is. I think we heard some very considered responses to what that relationship is how these fees that are gathered under Part 2 of the bill are going to be used and what the regulatory concern about that is. In fact it would be fair to say that part of the concern that we expressed in relation to Part 1 of the bill in terms of how it was that non - industry training organisations were going to be able to have access to the direct funding that had previously been solely for industry training organisations is actually about the lack of regulatory compliance and the lesser amount of regulatory requirement that is there for non - industry training organisations.Returning to Part 2 and specifically what this bit of the legislation is doing I think one of the most powerful statements was when we had one of the industry training organisations come to us and talk about the nature of the relationship between an industry training organisation—Careerforce in this case—and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. It talked in a very compelling way about the need for a partnership between these two organisations. My colleague Grant Robertson has already talked very eloquently about the need for there to be this scrutiny and transparency of our industry training organisations and I do not think that is something we would ever question but I think that one of the things that we are seeing is that the industry training organisations really had a considered way in which they were going to work in with the authority.I think another very compelling submission we heard on this was from the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions which had some very interesting things to say about the legislation. As we have already talked about in the debate on Part 1 of this bill the other aspects of its submission are something the Contractors Federation agreed with absolutely wholeheartedly. The council talked about whether or not “the Bill provides that the NZQA can set quality assurance requirements ‘without limitation’ in respect of the management operation and governance of ITOs. These provisions come on top of requirements already in the Act in respect of governance and other matters.” The council considered that that was a step too far. Its main concern was that this provision represented a tipping point for industry training. Given the significant restructuring of industry training organisations that has already occurred and that we have seen over a number of years the new performance standards that are in place for industry training organisations the reduced funding and now a major review that in many ways some of the changes that we are seeing in this legislation are coming out of there is a risk that the visibility of industry training organisations as an organisation is now under threat. That is what the council argued.It was in this context that the council proposed that the quality assurance aspect that role of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority should be less burdensome for the industry training organisations should have less discretion and should not duplicate or extend quality assurance requirements that are already provided for in the Industry Training Act or through the role of the Tertiary Education Commission. So in the rush to open this up and let other players in there is a real danger that in the words of the Careerforce submission we are going to lose that partnership that we really need to be seeing between our industry training organisations and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority.If we are going to have quality skills training in New Zealand and if we are going to have quality apprenticeship training in New Zealand I think all of us in this House agree that there has to be some rigorous monitoring of what that teaching is—as with any part of our education system—and that there are standards. We need to be assured that people who are undertaking that education are being taught according to that standard and that there is a monitoring authority. It is simply the way in which we prefer to see education run in this country. But it is not clear what role the New Zealand Qualifications Authority will have in respect of quality assurance in relation to the funding agreements of the non - industry training organisations. I think that that is something that is a real concern for us and something I would like to hear a Government member take a call on.