Despite a flawed and inadequate funding system, Otago Polytechnic was a thriving institution, even generating surpluses, thanks in part to its Auckland campus for overseas students.
In February 2019, Labour Education Minister Chris Hipkins, concerned about several polytechnics running large and persistent deficits, triggered upheaval by beginning the centralisation of the 16 polytechnics. This led to the creation of Te Pūkenga and a costly Hamilton-based bureaucracy.
The plan was poor, and the execution was a shambles. By July 2022, about $200 million had been spent on reorganisation, and the projected deficit of $110m far exceeded the net deficits before the upheaval.
The promises of economies of scale, reduced course duplication, greater expertise, improved consistency and less waste on marketing were alluring. In practice, however, such reforms often lead to additional layers of highly paid management, the dead hand of bureaucracy, and diminished innovation.
Compromised were speedy responses, local pride, genuine local community involvement, and even a touch of healthy inter-polytechnic competition.
Regional polytechnics will be better attuned to local needs than branch offices operating under Te Pūkenga.
The government and Vocational Education Minister Penny Simmonds have since taken a ham-fisted approach to dismantling Te Pūkenga. Crucial courses have been cut, and many valued staff lost, while restructuring drags on.
This week finally brought announcements that 10 polytechnics would return to regional governance. Yet what should have been a positive step for Otago has instead been met with confusion and criticism.
Although Ms Simmonds insists Otago Polytechnic will have its own council governance structure with local representatives, it has been placed under a "federation model." Executive director Megan Pōtiki says she has no idea what this will actually mean.
In extraordinarily strong criticism, Dr Pōtiki said she feared the federation model would dilute Otago’s high learner completion rates and damage its reputation. Its independence and viability as a regional institution were at risk.
Ms Simmonds said that being part of the federation — anchored by the Open Polytechnic and including the Universal College of Learning (UCOL) — would enable collaboration in areas such as online learning resources, IT, procurement, and specialist services. This, she argued, would reduce duplication and support financial sustainability.
Ideally, such co-operation could occur under regional governance across all 10 "autonomous" polytechnics, not solely through Otago’s imposed federation membership.
As Tertiary Education Union general secretary Daniel Benson-Guiu said, no-one asked to be part of the federation. Is this simply a "race to the bottom"? Will it lead to excessive reliance on online learning?
Surely it would have been helpful if Dr Pōtiki had been consulted on both the federation and the supposed "autonomy", which resembles more a halfway house for her polytechnic. As of Wednesday, she said she still had not been contacted by Ms Simmonds about the changes.
How can Otago be truly autonomous while the Open Polytechnic leads and provides services to it? It is bound to be both confusing and unwieldy.
Given Ms Simmonds’ background as a successful head of the Southern Institute of Technology, one might have expected her to bring more of the sector onside as the system reverts towards its earlier structure.
At least, Labour leader Chris Hipkins acknowledges the turbulence endured by polytechnics and their staff. He acknowledges that a return to Te Pūkenga-style centralisation would be unwise for that reason if the coalition loses power at the next election.
Inadequate funding and a crude "bums-on-seats" model underpinned earlier deficits. For any system to succeed, sufficient resourcing is vital.
Otago Polytechnic has a long and proud history. It must be granted genuine autonomy, adequate funding, and space to rebuild its strength, resilience and innovation.
