Our new coalition government.

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Our new coalition government.

1 | ... | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | ... | 182

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2177669 13-Feb-2019 14:17

GV27:

If what I am reading is correct, all of National's questions on the first sitting day were about China. Nothing about Kiwibuild or the PGF or the stalling Light Rail proposals.

That's a pretty massive lack of awareness; they're perceived as being too pro-China and there are other slam dunks they could have talked about. Until they can figure this out, they pretty much deserve to be in opposition.

I just dont get why KB is a slam dunk and why. Is it a policy that was never needed? If it was near target or had a lower target that it was near, would it then be deemed as good? All I see hear is the low numbers so far, and nothing else. KB is far from just about a set of numbers. The only deduction I can make here is that its a great topic to mention every day. I assume if it was on target the words Kiwibuild would never have reached this thread?

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2177676 13-Feb-2019 14:26

wsnz:

gzt:

This does seem very short. On the other hand it looks like there is a broad consensus for it already. Something like a supercity proposal for the polytechnic sector.

It's exceptionally short.

Integration issues with the "supercity" are still dragging on. IT integration and consolidation project schedules blew out significantly, costs rose significantly, and management could not access the data sets they required to manage the city. These are the tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes to massive consolidation projects such as these.

But the fundamental question is, will consolidation of the Polytechnic sector in the fashion proposed, deliver the results that the government expect? That is, lower cost, better outcomes.

IMO it will take stakeholders more than six weeks to properly evaluate this and craft their response.

How can you compare less then 20 institutions to Auckland? Its a massively smaller scale and one function. The article said last year, so surely there has been a large amount on viability done on this? Or is it 3 weeks of meetings at Parliament, 6 weeks for a few others to look at it then turn it all upside down? I think the jury has made its decision based on assumptions and hope that it breaks. In any case I will look for some facts

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2177678 13-Feb-2019 14:29

tdgeek:

GV27:

If what I am reading is correct, all of National's questions on the first sitting day were about China. Nothing about Kiwibuild or the PGF or the stalling Light Rail proposals.

That's a pretty massive lack of awareness; they're perceived as being too pro-China and there are other slam dunks they could have talked about. Until they can figure this out, they pretty much deserve to be in opposition.

I just dont get why KB is a slam dunk and why. Is it a policy that was never needed? If it was near target or had a lower target that it was near, would it then be deemed as good? All I see hear is the low numbers so far, and nothing else. KB is far from just about a set of numbers. The only deduction I can make here is that its a great topic to mention every day. I assume if it was on target the words Kiwibuild would never have reached this thread?

TD, this has been done to death, but why not. They were repeatedly challenged on Kiwibuild being an unrealistic campaign promise during the election lead-up and they insisted it wasn't. They didn't campaign on the vibe of Kiwibuild, they said it was urgent and used it as a platform to attack the Government over multiple election cycles for years. Then once they were elected they apologised for their costings being out of date and the climbdowns have just kept coming; including failing to meet their own, updated revised targets.

This isn't new, this has been going on since 2012:

https://www.interest.co.nz/property/62226/where-labour-got-its-numbers-nz300000-cost-build-affordable-homes-delighted-govt

Honestly TD, if you want to argue Kiwibuild isn't a black mark for Labour after what they've been campaigning on for years then you should probably put yourself forward for selection for CWC2019. God knows I can't handle your spin.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2177680 13-Feb-2019 14:32

If they had met the target we would have thousands of houses sitting empty instead of dozens. They were never going to meet the target, anyone with a brain could see that (well apparently not). The claim that it's capital that will returned is false. Some will, but MUCH money has been spent on things that will never be recovered. The administrative cost of this project will be massive. Unless they somehow make pretty decent profits they will be subsidising people to buy them by extension.

I believe it was a policy that should have been killed in it's infancy. Not because it's a Labour policy, but because it's poorly thought out, planned policy that by the time they were in a position to make a reality wasn't the best way to solve the problem.

I know a couple who qualify for KB houses, but they went and had a look at them and didn't want to live in them. Instead they paid 53K more and went down the road and bought what they said was a more practical larger home without all the paperwork, hassles and headaches that came with signing up for Kiwibuild homes.

I predict that there will continue to be a lack of demand and some of these homes will be converted to State housing.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2177692 13-Feb-2019 14:56

GV27:

tdgeek:

GV27:

If what I am reading is correct, all of National's questions on the first sitting day were about China. Nothing about Kiwibuild or the PGF or the stalling Light Rail proposals.

That's a pretty massive lack of awareness; they're perceived as being too pro-China and there are other slam dunks they could have talked about. Until they can figure this out, they pretty much deserve to be in opposition.

I just dont get why KB is a slam dunk and why. Is it a policy that was never needed? If it was near target or had a lower target that it was near, would it then be deemed as good? All I see hear is the low numbers so far, and nothing else. KB is far from just about a set of numbers. The only deduction I can make here is that its a great topic to mention every day. I assume if it was on target the words Kiwibuild would never have reached this thread?

TD, this has been done to death, but why not. They were repeatedly challenged on Kiwibuild being an unrealistic campaign promise during the election lead-up and they insisted it wasn't. They didn't campaign on the vibe of Kiwibuild, they said it was urgent and used it as a platform to attack the Government over multiple election cycles for years. Then once they were elected they apologised for their costings being out of date and the climbdowns have just kept coming; including failing to meet their own, updated revised targets.

This isn't new, this has been going on since 2012:

https://www.interest.co.nz/property/62226/where-labour-got-its-numbers-nz300000-cost-build-affordable-homes-delighted-govt

Honestly TD, if you want to argue Kiwibuild isn't a black mark for Labour after what they've been campaigning on for years then you should probably put yourself forward for selection for CWC2019. God knows I can't handle your spin.

OK appreciate the response.

There is no doubt it was unrealistic. I have always said that.The arguments here was that there is no one to build them. Thats incorrect, there is due to the now house prices, no one to afford them. I never said it wasn't a black mark but that it still has value. The July figure will be 300, that 1/3 of target, thats been done to dinner at the Coalition and deservedly so. But that's 300. If the 100,000 ended up being 30,000, and it will be more, thats 30,000 houses sorted, and to me thats something.

So, yes its a fail but it has value and National will continue it, as highly implied by Collins. "If its working, we might continue it" My impression here is that it should be cancelled right now. Ok, we do that, do we leave these people renting forever or what do we do?

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2177696 13-Feb-2019 15:05

networkn:

If they had met the target we would have thousands of houses sitting empty instead of dozens. They were never going to meet the target, anyone with a brain could see that (well apparently not). The claim that it's capital that will returned is false. Some will, but MUCH money has been spent on things that will never be recovered. The administrative cost of this project will be massive. Unless they somehow make pretty decent profits they will be subsidising people to buy them by extension.

I believe it was a policy that should have been killed in it's infancy. Not because it's a Labour policy, but because it's poorly thought out, planned policy that by the time they were in a position to make a reality wasn't the best way to solve the problem.

I know a couple who qualify for KB houses, but they went and had a look at them and didn't want to live in them. Instead they paid 53K more and went down the road and bought what they said was a more practical larger home without all the paperwork, hassles and headaches that came with signing up for Kiwibuild homes.

I predict that there will continue to be a lack of demand and some of these homes will be converted to State housing.

Thanks for yours also

All the building capital will be returned. The setup and management, no, thats correct. If this was brought in earlier or house prices hadn't got out of hand as much, there would be more buyers, but many are now left behind. As to how much of that was obvious 2 years ago, thats hard to say, but clearly data they took from wherever they took it from, showed it was viable, at least then. For you one example, I'm sure that's not uncommon. For KB or any new homes on offer. If that is typical then they will sell very very few from here on. I can't really see that, I see it has value for 30000 families over time. Perhaps I rate home ownership too highly as a good starting point. I guess it all depends if it does continue to sell homes over time or not. I cant really see any other options for those on the border of affordability. Perhaps they just build to rent as I have suggested much earlier and leave it at that.

wsnz

649 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2177775 13-Feb-2019 16:38

tdgeek:

How can you compare less then 20 institutions to Auckland? Its a massively smaller scale and one function. The article said last year, so surely there has been a large amount on viability done on this? Or is it 3 weeks of meetings at Parliament, 6 weeks for a few others to look at it then turn it all upside down? I think the jury has made its decision based on assumptions and hope that it breaks. In any case I will look for some facts

The issue is very similar. We have around 20 public institutions (Polytech's + Institutes of tech) responsible for around 150K student and 110K vocational learners, using various student management systems, delivering both similar and dissimilar units towards both similar and dissimilar qualifications, all at varying levels on the NZQA framework. Each institution has developed local relationships with other tertiary providers (some public, some private), secondary schools (to generate pathways to higher learning), ITO’s (which are also profoundly affected by the proposal), local businesses/industries, and courses are at least to some extent tailored to local needs.

To set up an overarching authority, those disparate entities will need to be merged – albeit over time – into one, with granular reporting on student achievements and financial performance needing to be made on a regular basis to the new structure. At the moment, the systems in place are tailored for localised reporting, aside from the student achievement information filed with the NZQA and the various other reports required by the TEC. The information contained in those two latter pieces of the puzzle won’t provide the full picture needed for the new structure to operate.

The local management structures Labour are proposing will also need to be implemented, existing teaching positions will need to be reviewed, with potentially negotiation of new employment agreements made. The unions will also become a formidable opponent if these negotiations and sector-wide changes are not communicated and negotiated in a professional and timely manner.

This is also potentially very disruptive to students given the uncertainty around the future of courses and institutions.

It is a massive, multi-year undertaking, with as-yet unquantified levels of risk and (according to treasury) cost.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

wsnz

649 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2177781 13-Feb-2019 16:43

gzt:This does seem very short. On the other hand it looks like there is a broad consensus for it already. Something like a supercity proposal for the polytechnic sector.

There must have been some considerable internal discussion within Labour, and the decision made that this is the strategic direction to move in. Will it deliver lower costs and better outcomes? I hope they publish the evidence to back up their stance.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2177785 13-Feb-2019 16:51

wsnz:

tdgeek:

How can you compare less then 20 institutions to Auckland? Its a massively smaller scale and one function. The article said last year, so surely there has been a large amount on viability done on this? Or is it 3 weeks of meetings at Parliament, 6 weeks for a few others to look at it then turn it all upside down? I think the jury has made its decision based on assumptions and hope that it breaks. In any case I will look for some facts

The issue is very similar. We have around 20 public institutions (Polytech's + Institutes of tech) responsible for around 150K student and 110K vocational learners, using various student management systems, delivering both similar and dissimilar units towards both similar and dissimilar qualifications, all at varying levels on the NZQA framework. Each institution has developed local relationships with other tertiary providers (some public, some private), secondary schools (to generate pathways to higher learning), ITO’s (which are also profoundly affected by the proposal), local businesses/industries, and courses are at least to some extent tailored to local needs.

To set up an overarching authority, those disparate entities will need to be merged – albeit over time – into one, with granular reporting on student achievements and financial performance needing to be made on a regular basis to the new structure. At the moment, the systems in place are tailored for localised reporting, aside from the student achievement information filed with the NZQA and the various other reports required by the TEC. The information contained in those two latter pieces of the puzzle won’t provide the full picture needed for the new structure to operate.

The local management structures Labour are proposing will also need to be implemented, existing teaching positions will need to be reviewed, with potentially negotiation of new employment agreements made. The unions will also become a formidable opponent if these negotiations and sector-wide changes are not communicated and negotiated in a professional and timely manner.

This is also potentially very disruptive to students given the uncertainty around the future of courses and institutions.

It is a massive, multi-year undertaking, with as-yet unquantified levels of risk and (according to treasury) cost.

I agree, some stuff they analyze to death, other things are done almost in a knee jerk way. The fact these institutions are losing money should't be a primary factor. The amount of money being lost whilst they properly assess this will pale in comparison to the consequences and expense if they screw this up. The review should be done with due haste, not hastily.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2177789 13-Feb-2019 16:58

wsnz:

tdgeek:

How can you compare less then 20 institutions to Auckland? Its a massively smaller scale and one function. The article said last year, so surely there has been a large amount on viability done on this? Or is it 3 weeks of meetings at Parliament, 6 weeks for a few others to look at it then turn it all upside down? I think the jury has made its decision based on assumptions and hope that it breaks. In any case I will look for some facts

The issue is very similar. We have around 20 public institutions (Polytech's + Institutes of tech) responsible for around 150K student and 110K vocational learners, using various student management systems, delivering both similar and dissimilar units towards both similar and dissimilar qualifications, all at varying levels on the NZQA framework. Each institution has developed local relationships with other tertiary providers (some public, some private), secondary schools (to generate pathways to higher learning), ITO’s (which are also profoundly affected by the proposal), local businesses/industries, and courses are at least to some extent tailored to local needs.

To set up an overarching authority, those disparate entities will need to be merged – albeit over time – into one, with granular reporting on student achievements and financial performance needing to be made on a regular basis to the new structure. At the moment, the systems in place are tailored for localised reporting, aside from the student achievement information filed with the NZQA and the various other reports required by the TEC. The information contained in those two latter pieces of the puzzle won’t provide the full picture needed for the new structure to operate.

The local management structures Labour are proposing will also need to be implemented, existing teaching positions will need to be reviewed, with potentially negotiation of new employment agreements made. The unions will also become a formidable opponent if these negotiations and sector-wide changes are not communicated and negotiated in a professional and timely manner.

This is also potentially very disruptive to students given the uncertainty around the future of courses and institutions.

It is a massive, multi-year undertaking, with as-yet unquantified levels of risk and (according to treasury) cost.

Ok, you are obviously in the industry.

Ive gone over what been reported from the various news sources, to avoid bias. From what I see is that admin and programming will be centralised, thereby giving more consistent management and education. The interraction with business is already there and its a key issue, and will be strengthened by the local groups. There was one article where the other stakeholders apart form one were cautiously happy with this, they all say something has to change

The implication is that the consistency and provision across these institutions is not there as it should be. Its cost us 100 million so far to prop them up, plus those that have gone, thats disruptive, as is being on one today and its gone next week, from a students point of view.

Lets say they decided each of the 16 is intact. The courses will remain or change as follow, cross credits apply (I dont imagine they would actually change much, and if they were, later) I dont see that the merge would be too bad. Teacher will teach while its going on. There may well be changes that will occur, but later.

Right now its not working and aside from Bridges making up a story that it will merge to 4 hubs, and another MP making up a story that it will cost 1000 jobs, as I see it, most everyone is in favour. If it doesn't go ahead we will spend millions every year on bailouts and they will still shut down, that was the response to Treasury.

Central head office, central course programming team, a local group to manage local interractions with businesses, and any other local issues, it seems normal to me. You cant educate if its shuts down. And also the goal was to increase numbers.

I am in favour. It makes sense to almost everyone. While the centralised merge would not be hard to implement, other factors such as programming may evolve over time. In business this is what happens as BAU.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2177793 13-Feb-2019 17:08

networkn:

wsnz:

tdgeek:

How can you compare less then 20 institutions to Auckland? Its a massively smaller scale and one function. The article said last year, so surely there has been a large amount on viability done on this? Or is it 3 weeks of meetings at Parliament, 6 weeks for a few others to look at it then turn it all upside down? I think the jury has made its decision based on assumptions and hope that it breaks. In any case I will look for some facts

The issue is very similar. We have around 20 public institutions (Polytech's + Institutes of tech) responsible for around 150K student and 110K vocational learners, using various student management systems, delivering both similar and dissimilar units towards both similar and dissimilar qualifications, all at varying levels on the NZQA framework. Each institution has developed local relationships with other tertiary providers (some public, some private), secondary schools (to generate pathways to higher learning), ITO’s (which are also profoundly affected by the proposal), local businesses/industries, and courses are at least to some extent tailored to local needs.

To set up an overarching authority, those disparate entities will need to be merged – albeit over time – into one, with granular reporting on student achievements and financial performance needing to be made on a regular basis to the new structure. At the moment, the systems in place are tailored for localised reporting, aside from the student achievement information filed with the NZQA and the various other reports required by the TEC. The information contained in those two latter pieces of the puzzle won’t provide the full picture needed for the new structure to operate.

The local management structures Labour are proposing will also need to be implemented, existing teaching positions will need to be reviewed, with potentially negotiation of new employment agreements made. The unions will also become a formidable opponent if these negotiations and sector-wide changes are not communicated and negotiated in a professional and timely manner.

This is also potentially very disruptive to students given the uncertainty around the future of courses and institutions.

It is a massive, multi-year undertaking, with as-yet unquantified levels of risk and (according to treasury) cost.

I agree, some stuff they analyze to death, other things are done almost in a knee jerk way. The fact these institutions are losing money should't be a primary factor. The amount of money being lost whilst they properly assess this will pale in comparison to the consequences and expense if they screw this up. The review should be done with due haste, not hastily.

Ok, normal transmission has been resumed. Why don't you just come out and say you hope they screw it up?? The issue isn't just money, its that they are shutting down all over the place, thats great if you are a student. And if you want to get precious over a typical "knee jerk" comment, why are the in this situation? Perhaps if someone else did a bit of knee jerking over the last decade there wouldn't be yet another problem. Yet another.

At least since last August this has been in the works, thats no knee jerk. Maybe a working group, then that a problem as well. Totally predictable comments. I actually thought, hey this is a making progress move, what can come of this? The usual BS that has nothing to do with an issue. Its ONLY about anti Labour.You cannot help yourself

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2177811 13-Feb-2019 17:21

Right back at ya.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2177820 13-Feb-2019 17:35

Don't waste your time. You cannot get past your bias, that has been stated by many here, and not just your usual suspects. At least I try to go with the issues with reasons, right or wrong, and not the default bagging.. Obviously for you, this thread is just a venting thread, others seem to do fine who also align with National by being capable of having mature discussions. Venting threads are fine I guess for those that need it. Enjoy the RWC

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2177843 13-Feb-2019 18:58

wsnz:

gzt:This does seem very short. On the other hand it looks like there is a broad consensus for it already. Something like a supercity proposal for the polytechnic sector.

There must have been some considerable internal discussion within Labour, and the decision made that this is the strategic direction to move in. Will it deliver lower costs and better outcomes? I hope they publish the evidence to back up their stance.

It wasn't "within Labour". The review has called on expertise from all over - non partisan. The partisan part is Hipkins having the guts to turn something seriously broken on its head

As for the ITOs bleating, which I expect will ramp up. If the measure of the success of that model was in providing an adequate skilled workforce to meet NZ present and future demands, then they're f*rting against thunder, with massive shortages of qualified tradespeople etc - which is projected to get worse, the average age of qualified builders, plumbers etc is about 55, in 10 years time when they're retired, what's the plan? Import tradespeople from (third world countries) overseas? Encourage our own young people who weren't top of the class from the day they started pre-school to work as bell-hops and wait staff?

So far, what I've seen seems okay/good.

The entire education sector needs to be overhauled. Bring it on. They do measure outcomes and look at costs. The system has been broken. National - had they been in power - would have been facing the same stark dilemma.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2177900 13-Feb-2019 19:28

Fred99:

wsnz:

gzt:This does seem very short. On the other hand it looks like there is a broad consensus for it already. Something like a supercity proposal for the polytechnic sector.

There must have been some considerable internal discussion within Labour, and the decision made that this is the strategic direction to move in. Will it deliver lower costs and better outcomes? I hope they publish the evidence to back up their stance.

It wasn't "within Labour". The review has called on expertise from all over - non partisan. The partisan part is Hipkins having the guts to turn something seriously broken on its head

As for the ITOs bleating, which I expect will ramp up. If the measure of the success of that model was in providing an adequate skilled workforce to meet NZ present and future demands, then they're f*rting against thunder, with massive shortages of qualified tradespeople etc - which is projected to get worse, the average age of qualified builders, plumbers etc is about 55, in 10 years time when they're retired, what's the plan? Import tradespeople from (third world countries) overseas? Encourage our own young people who weren't top of the class from the day they started pre-school to work as bell-hops and wait staff?

So far, what I've seen seems okay/good.

The entire education sector needs to be overhauled. Bring it on. They do measure outcomes and look at costs. The system has been broken. National - had they been in power - would have been facing the same stark dilemma.

That what everyone is saying as below, its not rocket science unless you support National, in which case you will disagree by default.

"The proposals have been cautiously welcomed by the Tertiary Education Union (TEU), The Employers and Manufacturers Association, and the Canterbury Employers' Chamber of Commerce, which saw them as an opportunity to better align tertiary education to industries' needs.

"Honestly it would be hard for it not to be an improvement on the current situation," TEU president Michael Gilchrist said.

"We know there will be people who say 'we will lose our autonomy and ability to respond to local circumstances' but that's not what we see in the proposals."

Despite the Unions, employers and manufactures of the industries that want trained staff, agreeing, National knows better than any of them. For a party that spent 9 years in power, they either have forgotten, or are opposing for the sake of it, despite universal consensus, and the benefit of these stakeholders and New Zealand.

[That theme does ring a bell...]

"National tertiary education spokesman Shane Reti said regions would suffer under a single polytechnic structure.

"Businesses and the regions know what demand there is for skills in their own backyard. But this Government wants all of the decision making to be done by a centralised body in Wellington," he said."

1 | ... | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | ... | 182