7. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this
to the Minister for Tertiary Education
How does removing $55 million from industry training help the growth of the productive economy?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education) Link to this
The Government has a view that it wants to get value for money out of every dollar it spends on behalf of taxpayers. I appreciate that that is still a novel view in some quarters. As part of securing value for money in the tertiary sector, we have reviewed the industry training budget and found $55 million over 2 years not being used effectively in that sector. That money is now being used to fund almost 3,000 more full-time student places, with little, if any, effect on industry training because the funding was under-utilised or in some cases not being utilised at all. This, I believe, is a sensible, prudent use of taxpayers’ money that will help the growth of the productive economy.
In making its decision to cut $55 million from industry training, was any consideration given to the Government’s role in avoiding future skills shortages; if so, did that include using the money to provide incentives to employers to take on more trainees?
The member may not be aware, but the Government has an incentive in place where it pays roughly 70 percent, or in some cases more, of the cost of industry training—the cash version. The member may be interested to find out that roughly 100,000 of the registered industry trainees in New Zealand achieved no credits in 2009, 100,000 of them achieved no credits in 2008, and 44,000 of them achieved no credits across 2008 and 2009. I think it is appropriate for the Government to review that situation and spend the industry training budget more wisely.
Carol BeaumontWhat impact does the Minister think cutting $55 million from industry training will have on lifting the skill levels of those already in work who will make up 80 percent of the workforce in 10 years’ time, and what new initiatives has this Government implemented to lift the skills levels of those already in work?
If the member had been listening to the answer to the previous supplementary question she would know that something like 44,000 of the people who were paid for out of the industry training budget across 2008 and 2009 achieved no credits whatsoever, and therefore removal of that funding will have absolutely nil impact on the training and skills going forward. I also point out to the member that some of the money in 2010 and 2011 is not currently being allocated. So shifting it to where it can be used makes a reasonable amount of sense.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked in that question what new initiatives has this Government implemented to lift the skills levels of those already in work, and I do not believe that the Minister even began to address that.
Mr SPEAKERWhat makes it extraordinarily difficult for me is that the level of interjection from the member’s own colleagues in front of her meant I could not hear clearly that question. I nearly intervened but I thought it was the responsibility of her members to let her question be heard. Under those circumstances I cannot assist her, and her colleagues should be a little more thoughtful when their own backbench members are asking questions.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was some noise from my left—
I will deal with these matters, not National front-benchers, including the Leader of the House. I made my decision because the deputy leader of the Labour Party was interjecting very loudly while her colleague was seeking to ask a question; I could not hear the detail of the question. Members will learn to be disciplined. If they want Ministers to answer their questions, then they should make sure the Speaker can hear them. I always try to make sure that the discipline falls in the right place in this House and that I am not interfering all the time. If members want their questions heard, then they know the best way to remedy that.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not in any way challenging that ruling, but I do note that each of the answers the Minister has given to the relatively straight questions today has begun with a flick at the Opposition, and I ask for consistency in that ruling.
When I went through these questions, the member may be interested to know, the one primary question today that I put a political connotation beside was this particular question, and I am not surprised the Minister has taken a small flick in answering it. The member does not need to have been in this House a long time to see the political implications of this question.
Does he agree with New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association chief executive, John Walley, that “trade skills are one of the main drivers for productivity, especially for a country like New Zealand with a small population.”; if so, how does he think cutting $55 million from industry training will help drive productivity?
Although I do not often agree with Mr Walley, I can agree with that statement. But I note for the member that it is actually a truism. Yes, building skill levels is important, but it makes absolutely no comment on the correct amount to spend. Quantity does not necessarily imply quality, and what the member seems to be suggesting is that any amount of money is better than any less amount of money no matter what it is spent on, and that was the problem with the previous Labour Government.