Trades split on training reform

Trades within the construction industry are split regarding the government’s proposed work-based training reforms to replace Te Pūkenga, a collection of 16 polytechs and nine training institutions

Following the disestablishment of Te Pūkenga, regional polytechnics will be re-established, and institutes of technology and polytechnics (ITPs) will be established as autonomous entities.

“Decisions on which polytechnics will be established, and in which form, will be made in the first half of next year. These decisions will consider the needs of local communities, learners and industry,” said Tertiary Education and Skills Minister Penny Simmonds in December 2024.

A consultation on the work-based learning reform closed on 21 February 2025. It considered two models for work-based learning.

• Independent work-based learning. In this model, the work-based learning divisions in Te Pūkenga would be moved to a separate transitional entity, then become a number of separate providers with industry or other private ownership.
• Collaborative work-based learning. In this model, all apprenticeships and traineeships would involve both a provider to manage the education of the learner and an Industry Skills Board (ISB) to provide pastoral care. The work-based learning divisions of Te Pūkenga would be dissolved, with their programmes and learners moving into the ITPs established from Te Pūkenga (or, in some cases, to a PTE or Wānanga). Their assets and staff would be split across a provider and an ISB.

While the Master Electricians said the collaborative model is the better option, Master Builders and New Zealand Certified Builders (NZCB) released a joint statement in support of the independent work-based learning model.

The joint statement said, “This model allows industry leaders to set standards that reflect current and future workforce demands, rather than relying on external decision-makers who may not fully understand the nuances of the building and construction sector.”

The two organisations also said the preferred option would:

• Maintain a direct link between training providers and employers.
• Ensure national consistency of outcomes for industry.
• Reduce disruption and ensure stability.
• Allow funding to follow the learner.
• Support small trades and niche industries.

Strong support from builders

“Master Builders and New Zealand Certified Builders strongly encourage the Government to implement the Independent Work-Based Learning Model to provide a stable and effective vocational education system,” said Master Builders CEO Ankit Sharma and NZCB CEO Malcolm Fleming. “This model, which was the preferred industry training approach during last year’s consultations – as reflected in the Cabinet paper – ensures that industry-led training remains central to the VET system. It also maintains strong alignment with the needs of both employers and learners, fostering a workforce that meets real-world industry demands.”

In opposition, the Master Electricians argued that a collaborative work-based learning approach would better serve its members.

“It is the association’s preference [for collaborative work-based learning] as this provides industry with the most influence at a governance level. A seat at the table allows industry to shape its future and also provide a clear pathway for a future-ready workforce,” it said in a statement.

A repeat of a failed system for electricians?

Additionally, the Master Electricians argued that its preferred option “restores the feedback loop between training and standards-setting that existed under the previous industry training system. The reforms give Industry Training Boards a monopoly on arranging training that would also ensure national consistency for employers, apprentices, and trainees wherever they are. This is important for industry confidence in qualifications.”

Additionally, Master Electricians CEO Alexandra Vranyac-Wheeler told Stuff the independent model would result in a continuation of a system that has not served the organisation well.

“Our industry has been poorly served by that model, because there are limited providers and a [workplace development council] which has been focused on the loud, grumpy industries, and the apprenticeship they’ve been driving for us hasn’t changed in 20 years.”