Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise today to lead the National Party opposition to this bill a bill that heralds the biggest upheaval of the largest number of public entities in the last 30 years and a bill that I believe and that we believe will irreparably damage the polytechnic sector industry training and regional communities. In this contribution I will speak to three parts. In the first who says these reforms will fail and what is the independent analysis; in the second part what does failure look like; and in the third part I have a proposal for Tracey Martin and New Zealand First. To the first part then: who says these reforms will fail? I have four independent Government entities that I'll draw information from who all say these reforms will fail. First of all the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) and the programme business case. Here is what their view and their summary the Minister of Education's own department his own people—here's what they say about the risks of these reforms. The risk of workforce disruption is Almost certain". The risk of participation in vocational education dropping is "Almost certain". The risk that the needs of industry and employers are not being met is "almost certain". The risk that the needs of the regions are not met is "Almost certain". Finally and here's the most damning part the likelihood that the new model does not achieve the desired outcomes is "Likely" and the impact of all of these is "Extreme"—the Tertiary Education Commission. At select committee last week the chief executive of the Tertiary Education Commission said that they had advised the Minister not to proceed with the reforms initially. I think that's a damning indictment of these reforms as well. The second body I'd point to is the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the TEC through their regulatory impact assessment and they assessed the likelihood of several attributes around these reforms. They said that the likelihood of achieving cost efficiencies was "Low" the likelihood of achieving productivity gains was "Low" the likelihood of achieving a stronger voice was "Low"—this is the regulatory impact assessment from the MOE and TEC. The third independent body is Treasury who led a quality assurance panel who also assessed the reforms and assessed the regulatory impact assessment (RIA). Here is their verbatim quote—their assessment—of the regulatory impact assessment: "the Panel does not find the RIA fully convincing … The costs are subject to some uncertainty and the monetised value of the benefits appear highly indicative."—the third body saying that these reforms will fail. The Auditor-General is the fourth independent assessor saying that this will not succeed. They also confirm that this is the largest change to public organisations and here's what they say. They have "concerns about the timetable for the reforms." and it is not clear how non-vocational education delivery will become more sustainable. Four independent entities are all saying that these reforms will fail. Our team have looked at this and many who have been in the political domain for many years have not seen such a damning report of a proposed programme as these reforms are putting up. I will turn to the second part of my discussion and that is: what will failure look like—when these reforms fail what does that look like? Well what it looks like first of all is that industry training will be less robust with less participants. Small industry training organisations like the Hair and Beauty Industry Training Organisation (HITO)—the hairdressing industry training organisation—will be amalgamated into large workforce development councils and their voice will be lost. Today we place a stake in the ground for hairdressers and the industry training organisation HITO. We place a stake for them. IT will be merged with manufacturing and that does not seem like a natural partner. Gas distribution will be merged with manufacturing engineering logistics and technology—again not a natural partner—to go into the workforce development councils. Remote pastoral care especially for primary production will be less and not more. Today we place a stake in the ground for farmers and primary production training. There will be less learners in vocational training. We know from the TEC's own programme business case that in the short term there will be 18000 less vocational learners. In the medium term—maybe it gets better in the medium term? No it's still bad: 23000 less vocational learners in the medium term. There will be less learners under these reforms and again this is their own information. The one mega polytechnic will have absorbed all the assets from regional polytechnics and they will have spent it on the cost of the reform and their own ideological agenda. Under failing reforms out-of-region provision for polytechnics will cease and that'll cause a huge loss of morale and hope across the sector and indeed worsened financial viability. The statement was made at the second reading that the well-performing Southland Institute of Technology (SIT) was only supported by its Auckland campus. That is not true. We have it on good authority that there were a total of 46 domestic equivalent full-time students (EFTSs) in Auckland in 2019 and eight international EFTSs—hardly a large number—and outside of the mains which the SIT took off Tai Poutini Polytechnic as a gesture there are very few students from SIT in Auckland. They are not propping up SIT but I think failure will also look like out-of-region provision disappearing from the purview of polytechnics. Regional autonomy academic freedom and the ability for every region to determine what they will teach where they will teach it and how they will teach it will be at the command of the all-powerful workforce development councils. We will fight against these. Now I want to come to my third and final part and I want to propose a question in the shape of a proposal. It's a question to New Zealand First and to Tracey Martin specifically. I want to thank her for her kind words. I too can work with you Tracey Martin and I think you're very thoughtful in this domain. I have a proposal for you and it looks like this: today you and I—let's purchase the whole polytechnic sector. We own it. We've assessed what the fixed assets are on the balance sheet. It's $2.5 billion of assets and I'll go you halves. You and I—$1.25 billion each. In fact let's do more than that. This is the Shane Reti & Tracey Martin Buy NZ Polytechs Ltd—that's what we'll call it. That's what we'll call ourselves. Hon Tracey Martin: "Martin & Reti". Dr SHANE RETI: Well it's too late because I've already reserved the name with the Companies Office. Those of you who are online search the Companies Office. We're company registration No. 14800883 and I want to thank the Companies Office for their help. I said I'd give them some profile around the excellent work that they do. So we're now a company. We're the Shane Reti & Tracey Martin Buy NZ Polytechs Ltd. I'm not 100 percent sure where I'm going to get $1.25 billion from but that's another matter. So here's the question—we'll talk later—that I ask you to ponder very deeply on: you and I now own the sector; if we had this skin in the game are these the reforms on this timetable that we would undertake? Would this be the solution? If you and I owned the polytechnic sector would this be our solution? I would say to you it would not be my solution. I ask you to ponder that question because even though it's sort of an example—we don't have skin in the game—we are the stewards of taxpayer money so we're speaking on their behalf.I just do not believe—I know you've thought from this space—that if we were partners in a joint venture you would say "This is the right path forward Shane. This is what we need to do and this is the time frame we need to do it in." I think we would take more time. I think we would come up with other solutions. There may be parts of what we see in front of us that may make sense but what we're signing through as a bill today I do not believe would be what you and I would come up with. I think if that statement is true then New Zealand First has the opportunity to get this right by voting against this bill today. If that's what your heart tells you if that's what your business head tells you—that yes there is a better way than what this bill is proposing—then vote against it.This is not the solution I believe and so in summary we are opposing this bill. The National Party in opposing this bill speaks for all the regional polytechnics and industry training and today we say no. Thank you."