Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I would like to join with other members of this Government in celebrating what is the third and final reading of this vocational education reform bill. I want to touch on and address a few of the points that have been raised by members of the Opposition. I think it makes sense primarily to firstly address the contribution by Dr Shane Reti. It is very much in his characteristic style to which I've become accustomed which is deeply thoughtful and very creative actually. I think that's the furthest that I've ever seen anybody in this House go for a gag—to register a company—and I think that we have seen the equivalent of the Green Party members bringing protest signs into the House; for the National Party it's registering a company. It's funny to see that that's where we land in terms of how we are representing our respective demographics out there across Aotearoa New Zealand.I also want to touch on a number of the points that are being raised by the likes of Nikki Kaye and the honourable Parmjeet Parmar. I really want to dig into these primarily because I think it is important to address what appear to be some very deep inconsistencies and I don't do this for the sake of doing that typical political tit-for-tat thing.Matt King: Of course you do!CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I find it quite frankly Matty King—Matt King—rather distasteful and unnecessary and a waste of everybody's time. But ultimately what we're talking about here is how much we can trust what is being put forward by the respective political parties and by their talking points.So in talking about that kind of trust and faith on the points that have been raised by the honourable Dr Parmjeet Parmar there was this kind of what felt a bit like crocodile tears around job losses. The National Party was saying that they deeply care about employment. I can totally empathise with them on that point. But on the issue of what we inherited with regards to polytechnics and the state that they were in and having to inject that $100 million when we first came into Government—the first year in which none of our policies had yet at that point in time come into effect—we inherited that when we opened the books and saw what was happening in the polytech sector. To say that we should somehow keep all of what's been going on on a lifeline while the National Party figures out what kind of solution they want to put forward is really quite confusing.They also spoke about—and I'd like to agree with Dr Parmar that Auckland is special. I agree that Auckland is special and this is the opportunity that's provided by the likes of the workforce development councils: for regions around the country to no longer unnecessarily and wastefully compete with each other but actually to specialise and to showcase why they're special and to attract people to their regions because of that specialisation.So too I'd really like to touch on—again as I have done in pretty much every single reading of this bill so far—and address the localism point that's been raised by members of the Opposition. And I'd like to acknowledge my colleague across the House Lawrence Yule who was indeed the head of Local Government New Zealand who I note was opposed to many of the measures that the former National Government undertook around removing localism—the likes of for example the amalgamation of different regional and city councils into the Auckland super-city. So I'd just like to state upfront that I'm really excited about the newfound passion for localism within the National Party and I look forward to their support of a number of Green Party measures when it comes to things like revenue-sharing and otherwise between local and central government. And I'm sure Lawrence Yule will be on board if he can't get the rest of his party on board.So now to address the bill itself not just the critiques that have been levelled which I hope I've kind of showcased seem to be rather baseless not least because there isn't any form of solution from the National Opposition. But I just want to touch on three key points. The first is to address and unpack what we're actually doing here and why we're doing it. The second is to note that change was inevitable not least because this sector was run down demonstrably by the previous Government. And the third is to state that this is not going to be a static transformation. There is much more to come; it doesn't end after we pass this piece of legislation. And as many of the local members from the National Party Opposition mentioned during their committee of the whole House contributions yesterday this is going to be a process undertaken over the next few years and I hope that they engage collaboratively and creatively and constructively to ensure that we get the best outcomes for our communities.So to the first point: what are we doing here? Why are we doing this? The first point of course is to improve outcomes for learners. And I'll note that I'm being heckled at the moment around that point of improving outcomes for learners. So it's probably important to state that it was the National Party in Government in their former term of Government who removed the right of staff and student representatives to be on boards of tertiary and polytech institutions—and I will return to it later. This decision by the former National Government was noted by a number of submitters not least by staff and students from the likes of Unitec who stated that as a result of these decisions under the former National Government we ended up with poor decisions under polytechs because their voices weren't taken into account. So forgive me if I feel as though what we're currently hearing from the National Party are crocodile tears.The second important thing following improving outcomes for learners is greater coordination in the workforce. And surely if the National Party is going to consistently bring up the need for employment this is a good thing. We're talking here about providing a nationwide roadmap of the kinds of jobs that are going to be available and where people can study in order to get those jobs. That is a practical measure which I would have thought everybody in Parliament could support.And the third point around why we are doing this is to ensure that we have joined-up thinking that isn't just some highfalutin kind of ambiguity but is about reducing or actually intentionally trying to end unnecessary competition between polytechs across the country many of which I'm sure the National Party as well as my colleagues in Government have spoken to and found many challenges under the funding situation that they had to operate in prior to these proposals. That's not to say that these proposed changes were at all met with huge celebration across the country. Change is hard and we will happily acknowledge that as this Government. The other important point around that joined-up thinking is to allow regional specialisation and the championing of what each region around the country does well. So to my second point: that change was inevitable. As I stated earlier when we came into Government opened up the books and looked across sectors at the challenges that were being faced I am astounded that the Nats appear to be in favour of us continuing to allow polytechs to be kept on this lifeline—the can kicked down the road—to the tune of approximately a hundred million dollars a year. It's astounding. We've also heard from polytechs—a number of whom submitted to the select committee—that they felt as though they were being run down under the former Government to the extent that they felt as though they were perhaps being edged slowly into privatisation or into having to close down. I'd also like to touch on the point raised by Dr Shane Reti around the olive branch that was extended particularly to the New Zealand First Party. Throughout the committee of the whole House stage the National Party spoke about all of the Supplementary Order Papers that they had tabled which were to do with every single polytech that's listed in this legislation. I'd like to remind the National Party that the Greens too are always happy to work across the aisle when you are willing as Dr Shane Reti is aware—we worked together on things like medicinal cannabis. There is much better opportunity to do so in other massive reform areas. Just in my final minute I think it's important to state that this is not the end of the road; we don't pass this legislation and everything's clamped down and that's that. This is going to be an evolving process and relationships here are going to be critical. And I really hope that with the passage of this legislation today at the third and final reading after it passes Royal assent and then everything kicks into gear the National Party are able to work constructively with their local polytechs with their communities to make sure that we get the best outcomes across the board. We are not going to get that from resistance for resistance's sake. It is about trying actively and proactively to ensure that we get the best possible workforce development councils for example that represent the best of our regions across this country. And I'd just finally like to state that so too the success of this depends on the ongoing involvement of communities and their new entities; success relies on collaboration.