Uncertainty abounds over Te Pūkenga
Past and current staff at Te Pūkenga have heard little about the future of the organisation which National has promised to disestablish.
Te Pūkenga-New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology was formed three years ago to run the country’s 16 polytechs – including Ara in Christchurch – and nine ITO (industry training organisations) and has about 270,000 students. It has been beset with financial problems – reporting an $80 million deficit last year – and high-profile senior resignations, with five executive members leaving less than two years into their roles.
In a report to council report, chief executive Peter Winder noted the intentions signalled by new Tertiary Education and Skills Minister Penny Simmonds, also former head of the Southern Institute of Technology (SIT), to disestablish Te Pūkenga.
“It is not yet clear what would be put in place, or the timetable for any change.”
A spokesperson for Simmonds did not answer questions about the organisation’s future, but said the minister would issue a media release before the end of the week.
Te Pūkenga has spent close to $2.5m in legal fees to complete the transfer of 24 organisations into the single organisation and is progressing a restructure in which 200 fulltime roles are set to be cut.
Winder said staff needed to ensure it could continue to operate and meet the needs of students in the interim. “Work is continuing to complete the transition from the old division structure to the new structure.”
Based on the “conventions of the election process, the current letter of expectations, and the operational needs of the organisation”, Te Pūkenga would continue to make appointments to the recently established and vacant management roles, he said.
The public portion of its last council meeting of the year lasted little more than 15 minutes, before going into a public excluded session yesterday.
Former deputy chief executive Merran Davis, who left in mid-2021 over concerns about how it was being run, knew little about its future, describing it as “eerily quiet”. She felt it was important its governance and senior leadership be held to account. Pevious suggestions included a Crown commissioner being appointed and a public inquiry. “I think the risk of continuing to do things poorly is quite high if that accountability and understanding of what’s happening doesn’t occur.”
With many previous leaders having already left the organisation, Davis also questioned who would be left should local decision making be restored. “There seems to be a lot to unpick.”
Davis hoped, whatever the outcome, lessons had been learned from previous criticisms the operating model wasn’t clear, and that staff hadn’t been consulted enough. “Otherwise staff and stakeholders are just going to continue to be footballs in all of it.”
Dr Wei Yuen Loo, senior lecturer in civil engineering at Te Pūkenga’s Unitec campus in Auckland, supported the return of local decision making and an end to the unified funding model structure. It was important to retain current staff and keep students coming in. He felt there should be a pause on decisions about any changes or new projects. A proper business case was needed before more taxpayer money was spent. He said the basis of of Te Pūkenga’s justification was that employers would train students relevant to their needs. “The problem with that is there’s been no real research done on whether employers have the capability, capacity or the willingness to train our students and educate them.”
There had been “no improvement” in achievement rates or student numbers, which dropped 9% or by about 5200 students in 2022.
In the meantime, facilities and services were degrading and collaboration across the organisation had actually decreased, he said.
“This money is being spent with no clear direction of what’s being tried to achieve.”
A South Island-based academic manager, who asked not to be named, supported the dissolution. “There’s a tremendous number of issues associated with Te Pūkenga.”
They hadn’t seen any real change apart from the rebranding, and budget pressures on programmes through the restructure.
They agreed local decision making was important, especially because of community connections with industry partners, but wanted to see collaboration continue.
Another said there had already been a huge loss of staff, and morale amongst those remaining was very low.
“I don’t know where they are gonna start.”