10. Question No. 10—EducationPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 10—Education10. PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Education: What is the unaudited draft financial surplus or deficit for Te Pūkenga for the financial year ended 31 December 2022?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): As projected the deficit is both unaudited and draft; it is subject to change while the auditing process is under way. As at 16 May 2023 when I wrote my letter of expectation to the chair of the Te Pūkenga board the draft deficit was $86 million for 2022. That letter is publicly available. Audit New Zealand and Te Pūkenga are working towards completing the auditing process by the end of this month and I will receive the final figure after that.Penny Simmonds: So is the Minister saying that against a budgeted deficit of around $68 million the actual Te Pūkenga deficit for 2022 is likely to be $86 million—half as much again?Hon JAN TINETTI: As I said in the primary answer the projected deficit is both unaudited and draft and it is subject to change while the auditing process is under way.Penny Simmonds: What specific factual evidence supports the Minister in select committee yesterday stating regarding Te Pūkenga We have something that is developing really really well and I feel a lot more comfort."?Hon JAN TINETTI: As the Minister responsible for a Crown entity I have set my expectations to the board very clearly. In the next 12 months I have outlined three urgent strategic priorities which I expect Te Pūkenga to focus and deliver on: (1) delivering quality education and training for all learners; (2) developing a plan towards financial sustainability including a viable operating model; (3) strong leadership and governance. I have confidence that Te Pūkenga has the leadership and tools to realise the benefits for the new model for students staff industry and communities. But rest assured I'll be monitoring this progress very very carefully.Penny Simmonds: Does the Minister consider that Te Pūkenga the Government's mega-merged polytechnic with a draft deficit of $80 million failing to meet its financial statutory obligations failing to meet its unification of programmes target failing to present a sustainable operating model failing to be responsive to regional needs falling student enrolments and hundreds of redundancies signals an entity in serious trouble?SPEAKER: The Minister can answer any part of that—or not answer it if she doesn't want to.Hon JAN TINETTI: I've been very clear that the progress in the last three years has been slower than anticipated. But what we aren't doing here is running a "bums on seats" model. What we do want is a high-quality education that is responsive to market conditions and sector needs. Would I like it to be faster? Yes of course. But I understand that the level of transformation that we're talking about takes time and it must be done well.Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that in 2018 when the Government came into office 80 percent of New Zealand's polytechnics were facing losses on current trends that a Cabinet paper was required to bail out Tai Poutini Polytech to the tune of $33 million and that was followed by another bailout for Unitec in the margin of around a hundred million dollars?Hon JAN TINETTI: Absolutely I can. That is why this Government wasn't prepared to put their head in the sand and do nothing about it. We wanted to take action we did take action and we are starting to see that now turn around.Penny Simmonds: At what point will the Minister accept that Te Pūkenga the Government's mega-merged polytechnic has reached such a precarious state that she must intervene and disestablish Te Pūkenga?Hon JAN TINETTI: Change is always hard and in particular during times of economic challenges. Overall the progress has been slower than anticipated over the past three years. However Te Pūkenga has now transitioned all former institutes of technology and polytechnic subsidiaries and the arranging training function from nine transitional industry training organisations into Te Pūkenga. I have confidence that Te Pūkenga has the leadership and tools to realise the benefits of the new model for students staff industries and communities and we will be watching this very carefully.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Thank you Mr Speaker. In your review of oral questions I wonder if you would reflect on whether Mr Robertson's supplementary question recently met the terms of Speakers' rulings 183/7 and 191/2 and if they did whether there's going to be a sort of a further Speaker's ruling in that regard.SPEAKER: I will do. I will point out that I will look at the whole question and all of the supplementaries and make a judgment on—as I have sat here in real time doing that I can point out the number of legs in the supplementaries; the assertions imputations. I'm taking all of that into consideration and not interrupting another question in the same vein. But I will go back and have a look.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point and accepting it entirely the House I think supports the interpretations of Standing Orders 390 and 396 as it relates to the number of legs; no question. This was different.Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to that point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: You may speak to it—I'm not going to change my ruling though.Hon Grant Robertson: No no Mr Speaker; I just wanted to make the point that Standing Order 390 obviously includes a great deal more than just a matter of legs of a question. It includes imputations inferences etc. which is what the Speaker ruled about and that has been a consistent feature of virtually every Opposition question today."