Tinetti JanJAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm absolutely delighted to be standing here to speak in the second reading of the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill. I just want to start though by saying that we've just heard a speech talking about the different components of the bill but what we didn't hear in the previous speaker Shane Reti's speech was a solution to the issues that are currently facing the vocational training sector.Matt Doocey: Well you're the Government.JAN TINETTI: What would the solution have been from that previous Government? Thirteen of the 16 current polytechs are running deficits; the enrolments have been declining since 2010. I heard someone over there—I'm not sure who it was but they said Oh you're the Government." That's right. That's why this side is doing something about it because by doing nothing the previous Government had already put vocational training under serious threat—serious threat. If we as a Government on this side of the House continued to do nothing we would see the vocational sector go further into decline and we've already heard the Minister of Education say that he refuses—he refuses—to take that position.Now this is an exciting bill. This is a day where we are putting vocational education back on the map. I'd have to say that I was actually really delighted—you would think that we had actually sat in different select committee hearings and I can actually say even though we split up into subcommittees that I sat with Dr Reti for most of those same select committee hearings but you would think that we were listening to different people in those select committee hearings. Most of those 236 submitters many of them individuals some organisations were actually in support of the intent of this bill. Even those organisations and people who wanted to see changes made in the bill most of those people and organisations were actually fully in support of the intent of this bill.This bill addresses the four challenges with the current system. Our skills shortages across sectors—we hear about that a lot and we heard about that a lot in the submissions during the select committee process. That's the first one. The second one: the untenable split in vocational systems. It was confusing. You had people or organisations that were competing against each other. So this is a bill that will consolidate those particular systems. The inequity of some polytechs doing well and others not—as I said we have 13 of the current 16 polytechs that are running deficits; only three that are not running those deficits. There is a huge inequity there. We've been told in this House that "Oh no maybe we should be looking at this quite differently because there are three that are doing all right." Well I don't think it's OK that inequity exists like that. So this is what this bill is addressing. The fourth issue that this bill addresses is the lack of industry input in the current system and that was something that we heard time and time and time again from industry saying that they want that tidied up. So the select committee did that.Now I actually want to thank the Education and Workforce Committee the full committee in the work that they did. Due to health and my forced absence in the end I wasn't there for the final deliberations in this bill. But I was very very glad that I was able to be part of the committee up until that point and hear the many submissions that we heard. I'd have to say that of all the bills that we've had before us as a select committee in the Education and Workforce team I think this is one that we probably put a heck of a lot of diligence into the work that we did. You can see that looking at the departmental report. It is extensive and the changes that were recommended are ones that the subcommittees went through and deliberated on and talked about and our officials in those subcommittees were amazing. They were incredible because they came back time and time and time again—so thanking all those members of the select committee but also the officials who were so diligent in the work that they did as well.We've heard today that this bill is around modernising the learning of the sector. We're actually starting to look outside the square looking to the responsive changes in the world. Learning doesn't just have to keep happening the way it's always been because that's the way we've always done it. We need to look at the issues we need to hear from the sectors and we need to change up what we're doing to make it better. Now we heard all of those points that Dr Reti took out and said "These won't work." Well I challenge Dr Reti that we actually went through as a committee and based these changes on evidence. We based them on evidence of learning and modern learning and changing up that way of how the world is existing. And we based it on the needs of the sector and what the sector asked us to look at.As Dr Reti rightly pointed out there are lots and lots of changes that were made from select committee. I've already pointed out that the departmental report is extensive but a couple that I just want to briefly briefly touch on because I know that I've got colleagues here that are touching on the rest is that a number of submitters expressed support that the workforce development councils be industry owned and led. As I said before that came through time and time again: industry were really concerned that that had to be a major component. So as a committee we looked at that and the Minister outlined the changes that we made but we were responsive to the needs of industry and those changes can be seen having come through from the select committee process.The other important consideration was the one that Dr Reti talked about right at the end of his contribution—around the important consideration given to the concern shown from submitters that industry training organisations (ITO) staff would lose jobs in the transfer of the new system. We heard that we'd taken our eye off the ball. I would actually challenge that because if you read the original bill as it stood clause 33 in that bill already had the provisions for the transfer of polytech staff to the NZIST. So it already existed. What we were told though was that this didn't cover the transitional ITO transfers and even though there was the intent that that would happen under clause 33 it wasn't transparent enough in people's minds. So that was where the changes were made. And yes that's a great thing because we now have that protection for those staff members.I have heard from people who are working in the sector who are absolutely delighted at this change around the surety that it gives them in their positions going forward. So I'm absolutely delighted to see this bill come through to the second reading. I'm delighted to also see the ongoing work that we heard from the Minister about the Supplementary Order Paper that he has expressed will be coming through when this bill gets to the next stage. So without any further ado I commend this bill to the House."