Taskforce calls for training overhaul
The automotive sector has united to call on the government to restore training to the industry.
A taskforce of 20 organisations led by the Motor Trade Association (MTA) has given Penny Simmonds, Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills, a blueprint of the future of automotive training in a post-Te Pukenga environment.
James McDowall, pictured, the MTA’s head of advocacy, describes a submission by the group in response to proposed changes to the vocational education and training system as “clear and unequivocal”.
He says: “The current Motor Industry Training Organisation [MITO] must be transitioned into an industry-led, industry-owned entity.
“Only then can learners get the right training and career pathways, businesses get skilled and trained new staff, and all New Zealanders get a robust, efficient and future-facing automotive sector.
“At the end of the day, if we don’t have enough Kiwis joining the industry it affects everyone – longer waits for repairs, maintenance and service, or businesses forced into closure because of the staff shortage.”
New Zealand’s car industry is undergoing a significant lack of workers with skilled migrants having been brought in many cases to plug gaps.
“Our members tell us regularly they would prefer to hire local and give young Kiwis a chance,” says McDowall.
“The current system is convoluted and difficult to navigate, doesn’t always provide enough practical experience for new technology and puts a financial burden on employers hiring apprentices.” The group’s calls include:
• Industry-owned MITO: Transition the current MITO into an industry-owned and led entity, ensuring training programmes are more responsive to industry needs.
• Work-based learning focus: Advocate for work-based learning as the preferred training method for the automotive industry.
• Industry-led standards: Empower the industry to set its own training standards, ensuring they remain relevant and up to date.
• Increased funding for employers: Request increased financial support for employers training apprentices.
• Centres of excellence: Establish a network of well-equipped centres of excellence to deliver off-job training.
• Streamlined programme development: Advocate for a more efficient process for developing and updating training programmes.
“We appreciate the minister has faced a massive undertaking in unwinding Te Pukenga,” adds McDowall.
“But in the case of the automotive sector, the way forward is clear. MITO made a substantial financial return to the government, which can be restored at the same time as building a better model.”
The submission lodged by the MTA is supported by and produced alongside an industry taskforce led by the association.
Collaborating organisations include the Collision Repair Association, Motor Industry Association, Imported Motor Vehicle Industry Association, NZ Trucking Association, Bus and Coach Association NZ, National Road Carriers’ Association, Tractor and Machinery Association and Ia Ara Aotearoa Transporting NZ.
Others are the NZ Auto Electrical Group, Rental Vehicle Association, Hire Industry Association of NZ, I-CAR NZ, Collins Automotive, European Motor Distributors and the Giltrap Group, Rutherford & Bond, Repairhub, CablePrice, Norwood and Tandem Smash Repair.
“Together, we represent the diverse spectrum of the automotive industry, including associations, employers, and the broader interests of motorists,” states the submission. “We also encompass heavy transport and agriculture, and emphasise the scale and importance of the primary sector.
“By involving employers alongside associations, we have gained valuable direct feedback from those who provide a significant number of apprenticeships in the automotive industry.
“Our taskforce collectively represents approximately 90 per cent of the training that MITO, currently part of Te Pukenga, provides.”
Challenges facing industry
New Zealand’s motor-vehicle industry faces “ongoing challenges” that impedes its ability to grow and maintain a skilled workforce.
“Our industry is navigating a time of unprecedented and rapid technological advancement, meaning the need for relevant qualifications developed and delivered at pace has never been greater,” says McDowall in the submission to government.
“The industry is facing significant labour shortages, exacerbated by the high costs employers incur when training apprentices. Employers are now more hesitant to invest in apprenticeships due to the associated risks and costs.
“This has led to a greater reliance on skilled migrants, which has been further complicated by frequently changing immigration policies.
“During the days of the 8,000-hour training model, apprenticeships were commonplace. If an employee left, they could simply hire a competent replacement, ensuring a smooth transition.
“However, variability in competencies within the current model – due to the multiple pathways to learning – necessitates that employers invest additional time and resources to ensure new apprentices are up to standard.”
Based on the submitters’ collective experience, they say they are confident that industry ownership can address this issue by standardising training and ensuring consistent competency levels across apprentices.
“Our industry is deeply disappointed that the government’s proposal fails to acknowledge the significant investment and inherent risks involved in training apprentices for employers.
“Compared to a fully trained employee, an apprentice is significantly less productive during their training period. We’re concerned the proposal documents do not recognise the substantial financial contributions employers make to the vocational education system.”
In collision repair, for example, calculations show that providing a three-year apprenticeship can cost a business up to $90,000. This includes losses in productive hours for those supervising, signing off modules, administration, public holidays, leave, and direct costs of both internal and external training.
The government is the minor contributor, while employers bear most of the costs by a substantial margin.
“The role of the government should, therefore, be to create a legislative framework that grants industry training the freedom to choose what success looks like and how it succeeds.
“Crown ownership creates a system that is one step removed from industry accountability, which does not serve industry well. Further, we note that industry has found providing feedback challenging due to the system’s unnecessary complexity.
“The structure is highly convoluted, especially considering that training almost exclusively happens in the workplace.
“The government should seriously question why the system needs to be so complicated. Ownership of MITO should lie with industry as this allows for direct accountability to the customer – industry.
“By extension, this would mean more responsive and relevant training programmes that directly address our needs and challenges. With industry ownership, we can ensure qualifications are closely aligned with industry practices, fostering a competent workforce that’s ready to adapt to rapidly changing technology.”
The submission explains that while this model may not be suitable for all industries, MITO and automotive stand out as being well-organised, fiscally sustainable and supported by industry.
Currently, 16 institutes of technology and polytechnics (ITPs) provide pre-trade education for the motor-vehicle industry. Many operate at a significant deficit and lack modern resources.
“Consequently, employers face high costs retraining ITP-only graduates, who often have significant student loans to contend with. Unfortunately, many graduates either do not enter the industry or leave soon after as classroom learning cannot replicate real-world environments.
“The automotive industry attracts individuals who excel through hands-on experience, making work-based learning the preferred choice for employers. This approach supports intended learning outcomes and provides better social and economic benefits for learners, allowing them to earn while they learn.
“As such, we would be uncomfortable with any system that promotes ITP-based education over, or in direct competition with, work-based learning.
“The objective of the system should be to produce workers that industries need, not to fill seats to reduce polytechnic operating deficits. The real victim of such an outcome is the learner, who may leave unemployable and burdened with student loan debt.”
