New Zealand’s Vocational Education System: The Story So Far

New Zealand’s education system has been changing rapidly in the last few years with significantly more change to come. In this first article in a new series, Stuart G. A. Martin, Founder of George Angus Consulting, is exploring the New Zealand vocational education system.

The Pre-2019 Landscape

Prior to 2019, New Zealand’s vocational education system operated through a well-established dual structure that had evolved over several decades. The system comprised of Industry Training Organisations (ITO’s), Polytechnics & Private Training Establishments (PTE’s), and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA).

The ITO’s were industry-led bodies with two primary functions: standard-setting (developing qualifications and establishing unit standards that reflected industry requirements) and training arrangements (facilitating workplace-based learning by coordinating with employers and trainees). These organisations had governance structures typically dominated by industry representatives. This arrangement was developed to ensure training remained closely aligned with workplace needs but sometimes resulted in fragmentation across sectors.

The educational side comprised several types of providers. Sixteen polytechnics spread across New Zealand offered both pre-employment training and higher technical qualifications. Private Training Establishments (PTE’s) provided specialised programmes in specific industries. Three Wānanga delivered education grounded in Māori knowledge systems and cultural contexts. These educational organisations primarily delivered classroom-based learning, complemented by practical components but had varying levels of connection to workplace settings.

This system featured several strengths, including usually strong industry connections, significant regional presence, and organisational specialisation. However, it also suffered from financial challenges (particularly for regional polytechnics facing declining enrolments), as well as inconsistent approaches to quality assurance and to the development of standards and qualifications.

The Reform of Vocational Education (RoVE)

In February 2019, the government announced the Reform of Vocational Education (RoVE), which represented the most significant restructuring of New Zealand’s skills training infrastructure in decades.

The most visible and controversial element of RoVE was the creation of Te Pūkenga (the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology), a single national institution formed by merging all 16 existing polytechnics. This unprecedented consolidation aimed to create a unified network with consistent policies, financial sustainability through economies of scale, as well as maintain regional responsiveness whilst operating as a coherent national system, and bring together both on-campus and work-based learning under one organisational umbrella.

RoVE also transferred the standard-setting functions previously held by ITO’s to six newly created Workforce Development Councils (WDC’s), each covering certain subject areas: Construction and Infrastructure; Community, Health, Education and Social Services; Manufacturing, Engineering and Logistics; People, Food and Fibre; Creative, Cultural, Recreation and Technology; and Services. These bodies were tasked with working with industries and employers within their sector, including Māori industry, to develop and set unit standards (and their replacement version- skill standards), provide skills leadership for their sectors, advise on investment in vocational education, and to develop qualifications and micro-credentials.

A particularly significant change involved transferring the training arrangement functions from ITO’s to education providers, primarily Te Pūkenga. This meant workplace learning would be coordinated by the same organisations delivering classroom instruction, with field staff previously employed by ITO’s largely transferring to Te Pūkenga’s Work-Based Learning divisions.

The reform also established two Centres of Vocational Excellence (CoVE’s) with one covering construction & infrastructure, and the other, food & fibre. These were developed with the aim for them to drive innovation in teaching, learning, and research, as well as to strengthen connections between education and industry.

Lessons from RoVE

The RoVE implementation followed an ambitious timeline:

• April 2020: Legislation passed to formally establish Te Pūkenga
• 2020-2021: Design and development of Te Pūkenga’s organisational structure
• October 2021: Standard-setting powers transferred from ITOs to the newly established WDC’s
• 2022: Transitional Industry Training Organisations began transferring functions to providers
• January 2023: Formal merger of all 16 polytechnics into Te Pūkenga, completing the structural transformation

Here in 2025, with RoVE fully implemented for about two years, the results present a mixed picture. The creation of Te Pūkenga demonstrated both the potential benefits and significant challenges of large-scale consolidation in education. While economies of scale were achieved in some areas, the complexity of managing such a large organisation created new inefficiencies, and cultural integration of previously independent organisations proved challenging with the merger process having consumed substantial resources—with costs in at least the hundreds of millions NZD—and has created significant organisational complexity.

The tension between industry-driven and educationally-focused approaches to vocational training remained a central challenge. The RoVE experience also highlighted the importance of careful change management in educational reform, as the ambitious timeline created pressure that resulted in operational challenges.

Political Change and Redirection

The RoVE reforms were initiated by a Labour-led government elected in 2017, the political landscape shifted significantly however, during the implementation period. In the October 2023 general election, Labour was voted out of office and replaced by a National-led coalition. By December of that year, the new government had announced its intention to disestablish Te Pūkenga and begin a consultation process to design a replacement model. At the end of April 2025, the government confirmed that a new, industry-led system would be launched on 1 January 2026.

The trajectory of RoVE highlights the vulnerability of large-scale structural reforms to New Zealand’s short political cycles, with general elections held every three years. Meaningful educational reform often requires a sustained implementation period that exceeds a single term in office. Without bipartisan support, reforms are at constant risk of reversal before their full benefits can be realised. Such frequent change can be profoundly disruptive—not only to institutions and systems, but to learners, employers, and educators alike. The decision to introduce yet another major reform just months before a scheduled election, and to mandate its implementation by the start of the following year, reinforces the perception that vocational education in New Zealand is being reshaped for political reasons rather than for long-term benefit. This raises important questions about the appropriate role of government in structuring vocational education and about how best to strike a balance between centralised coordination and local responsiveness.

While RoVE introduced some valuable structural changes, the reform lacked sufficient planning and readiness at the time of implementation. Most critically, it failed to build the political consensus required to ensure long-term stability. That failure may be RoVE’s most enduring flaw. In a system where coalition governments are the norm and where the policy cycle is constrained to three-year terms, any reform—especially one that seeks to overhaul long-standing structures—must be grounded in broad political agreement. Without it, reform becomes politicised, and the consequences are serious: wasted public funds, disruption to learners and industries, erosion of international credibility, and a loss of continuity that undermines the quality and integrity of the education system. Incremental improvement within a stable system is both achievable and desirable. But sweeping, ideologically driven reform that changes direction with each election cycle serves no one. It damages the country.

Next up, an exploration of the proposed 2026 model: New Zealand’s Vocational Education System: 2026 Vocational Education Reform

By Stuart G. A. Martin is the Founder of George Angus Consulting