A Govt or a Bunch of Ideological Hawkers of Hubris?

At the beginning of the third decade of the third millennium, we ponder the fate of our country. We ponder our Parliament being forced to declare a dangerously warming state of “climate emergency” as snow and hail dashed the hopes of many South Islanders for a sunny summer run-up to Christmas. We think that we couldn’t expect anything sillier but then we find ourselves assailed with crazily impractical socialist ideology carried to an even more ludicrous degree. I am referring to the seemingly innocent-sounding Workplace Development Councils (WDCs). They are to implement this Labour Government’s Reform of Vocational Education. Its full title is Te Whakahou i te Matauranga Ahumahinga, the Reform of Vocational Education (RoVE). 

The well-proven, world-class and extremely efficient and cost-effective New Zealand apprenticeship system, which also included a successful specific Maori apprenticeship scheme, was destroyed in the early 1990s. Attempts at correcting this damage over the last 25 years have failed.  But that failure is nothing compared with what the current government is proposing.  

What is required is a straightforward apprenticeship scheme, controlled by local boards made up of skilled tradesmen, with administration by a skeleton crew as before, and a set curriculum that must be taught well by polytechnics, under the auspices of a technically competent new Ministry of Building and Construction.  

What is being proposed is a scheme with multiple layers of bureaucracy, from the Ministry of Education (which knows nothing about trades) to the new ‘superpolytechnic,’ with Workforce Development Councils, Centres of Vocational Excellence, Te Taumata Aronui and Regional Skills Leadership Groups piled on.  

The stated aims of this scheme are firmly in the realm of social engineering and indoctrination – technical training and competence are barely mentioned. 

This is evident generally in their published promotion of WDCs and particularly in what is said about that most basic of trade fields: construction and infrastructure, which will rejoice in the grand title of (wait for it!): Waihanga Ara Rau Construction and Infrastructure Workforce Development Council.

(You can read the full details here.)

For a sense of the bureaucratic mindset behind this approach to what ought to be a matter of simple practicality, look at these extracts from the purpose and functions as set down in the draft Order-in-Council (OiC):

Summary

Includes a purpose statement that outlines the Workforce Development Council’s broad contribution to New Zealand Society. Includes accountability provisions such as a statement of strategic direction and an annual report to ensure the Workforce Development Council is fulfilling its purpose over time.

The purposes of the Waihanga Ara Rau Construction and Infrastructure Workforce Development Council are:

• to use its industry voice to contribute to the creation of a sustainable, globally engaged and adaptive Aotearoa New Zealand;
• to contribute to an education system which provides opportunities for all people to reach their full potential and capabilities, including those who have been traditionally underserved by the education system;
• to contribute to an education system that honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi to help ensure fair and equitable outcomes for all;
• to plan, implement and support the responses to Aotearoa New Zealand’s current and future workforce needs, taking into account:
• the transition to a low-emissions and climate resilient Aotearoa New Zealand;
• new global challenges;
• emerging technologies;
• global sustainability goals;
• the changing nature of work, and
• the skills, knowledge and qualifications learners need in future to achieve success for themselves and their communities

Performance of functions

• The Council in the performance of its functions must give effect to:
• the purposes of the Council; and
• the Tertiary Education Strategy issued under section 7 of the Act.
• The Council must consult with persons or bodies who, the Council considers on reasonable grounds, represent Maori in relation to the performance of the Council’s duty [in section 369(2)(b) of the Act] to have regard to the needs of Maori in the performance of its functions.
• The Council must consult with persons or bodies who, the Council considers on reasonable grounds, represent specific population groups in relation to the performance of the Council’s duty [in section 369(2)(b) of the Act] to have regard to the needs of those population groups in the performance of its functions.

It is a sad commentary on the presently troubled state of our New Zealand society, that I feel compelled, before making my first comment below, to anticipate a need to deny any hint of racism in my thinking with these two personal statements:

(i) During the presidency of the Maori Party, 2014-2017 by Dame  Rangimarie Naida Glavish, I was honoured with an invitation  (which I happily accepted) to join a five-person advisory team formed to help her in her leadership of that party.

(ii) Last year, I joined classes that former broadcaster Danny Watson initiated in te reo Maori and te ao Maori at his marae, He Manu Hopukia in Bayswater Avenue in Auckland’s North Shore, and was pleased to be able to make my first official korero in te reo at a powhiri recently at Waiheke Island’s Piritahi marae.

Our country is known internationally as New Zealand, a name now well respected through the world for the quality of the wines that I had the honour and duty of promoting during my earlier years as inaugural CEO of the Wine Institute of New Zealand 1976-91. My interest in te ao Maori ensures my full acceptance of the significance of the name Aotearoa, and I am perfectly comfortable with the use of either name as attaching to the land of my birth and citizenship as a proud Pakeha. What I take issue with is the coupling of both names as not only being PC and oxymoronic, but as plainly silly as my Irish ancestors calling their country Eire Ireland would be. PC politicians wanting to make fools of themselves with this oxymoron is one thing, but compounding the stupidity in our official documents is something we do not need.

Nor do we need the Maori or gender tokenism prescribed by those who drafted the proposed OiC. When we talk of vocational training we should be focusing on a system in which established craftsmen mentor young people aspiring to follow them in careers devoted to carpentry, plumbing, the engineering trades (including construction, toolmaking, fitting and turning and motor), electrical installation and repair as well as new fields of digital communication and computation. Trades are fields of practice, including limited theory, requiring practicality, certainly not the flannel of bureaucratic-speak. The people responsible for interpreting and implementing vocational training should be craftsmen who know what they are taking about.

Let’s hope that as many thinking Kiwis as possible, brought up in our traditions of No. 8 wire practicability, will defy this Government’s attempt to use the summer holiday period to divert attention from the response deadline of 5 February, and make submissions here:

Let’s hope also that, although they are out-numbered in our temporarily lop-sided Parliament, the Opposition parties, National and ACT will vigorously oppose Labour’s hubris hawkers, and that, for once, at least, the churnalists in the Press Gallery representing our mainstream views media will feature that opposition in their reports.

Please share this BFD article so others can discover The BFD.