Submission: Consultation on Industry Skills Boards’ coverage

IT Professionals, along with TUANZ and WeCreate all submitted to the government via the consultation on Industry Skills Boards’ coverage process.

We have previously publicly shared our views on this proposal. And provided other submissions on Vocational Education reforms.

The consultation submission was via a survey form. Below is ITP’s response to the core questions, multi-choice questions are not represented below.

——————————————-

Survey Question #3: “What aspects of the proposal do you support, and why?” 

IT Professionals New Zealand supports the following aspects of the ISB proposal: 

1. The Intent to Strengthen Industry Leadership in Vocational Education 

We support the principle of establishing industry-led statutory bodies to drive qualifications, standards, programme endorsement, workforce planning, and investment advice. This is a vital evolution, provided governance structures remain genuinely representative, inclusive, and transparent. 

By aligning training systems more directly with the needs of employers and industries, ISBs have the potential to deliver more relevant, responsive, and future-focused education outcomes for learners. 

2. The Emphasis on Consistency and Strategic Alignment 

We welcome the intention for ISBs to endorse programmes before they reach NZQA and the integration of strategic workforce planning. However, we note that some Workforce Development Councils (WDCs), including Toi Mai, were already demonstrating excellent practice in this regard — especially in creative and digital domains. The progress made by WDCs in these sectors should not be discarded or overlooked as part of the transition. 

3. The Transitional Support for Work-Based Learning 

We support the plan for ISBs to temporarily manage work-based learners currently enrolled with Te Pūkenga. This continuity is essential, and we see the transitional period as an opportunity to develop and scale new apprenticeship pathways, including for sectors like digital technology that have traditionally not had ITO coverage. 

However, we do not support the exclusion of digital technology and creative industries from the ISB framework. Excluding fast-growing, economically vital sectors like ours — which are central to innovation, productivity, and transformation across all industries — is short-sighted. This model should be a vehicle to enable the development of apprenticeships and structured work-based learning in digital, not a barrier to it. 

Survey Question #4: "What aspects of the proposal do you have concerns about, and why?" 

ITPNZ has significant concerns about several aspects of the proposal, particularly as they relate to the exclusion of the digital technology and creative sectors from the Industry Skills Board (ISB) framework. 

1. Exclusion of Digital Technology from ISB Coverage 

We are deeply concerned by the proposal to exclude digital technology, creative arts, and business sectors from ISB coverage and transfer them to NZQA. This decision effectively removes these sectors from the scope of strategic workforce planning, programme endorsement, and investment advice — the very mechanisms designed to ensure vocational education meets the needs of industry. 

Digital technology is not a niche or peripheral sector — it is a $17 billion contributor to GDP, generates $13.4 billion in exports, and underpins productivity and innovation across every part of the economy. Excluding it from ISB coverage ignores both its economic weight and its cross-sector importance. 

This is not just a missed opportunity. It actively undermines the Government’s own stated ambitions to grow a digitally enabled, high-value economy, as voiced by the Prime Minister and senior Cabinet Ministers. We are concerned that this decision reflects outdated assumptions about what constitutes a vocational career and who vocational education is for. 

2. Contradiction with the Purpose of the Reform 

The decision to exclude sectors like ours also runs counter to the rationale for the ISB model itself — to streamline, coordinate, and align vocational education with industry needs. Handing digital qualifications back to NZQA risks a return to fragmentation, slow responsiveness, and a lack of meaningful industry voice — precisely the issues the RoVE reforms were intended to resolve. 

We would also note that Toi Mai WDC, under the current system, has made substantial progress working alongside ITPNZ and others to improve responsiveness and co-design new work-based learning models. That progress is now at risk. 

3. Lack of Recognition for Future Workforce Needs 

By prioritising coverage only for sectors with existing apprenticeships or ITOs, the proposed model fails to prepare New Zealand for future workforce needs. It penalises industries like digital that have lacked structural support in the past, rather than empowering them to build modern, fit-for-purpose work-based learning solutions. 

We believe the ISB model should enable the creation of new apprenticeships and cadetships in future-focused industries — not simply entrench what exists. ITPNZ strongly urges TEC and the Minister to reconsider this fundamental flaw in the proposed coverage model. 

4. Insufficient Flexibility or Pathway for Emerging ISBs 

Finally, there is no clear pathway for sectors like digital to establish their own ISB in the future, even if there is clear demand, scale, and a viable governance model. This rigidity risks institutionalising inequality between sectors and stalling innovation in how vocational pathways are developed. 

Survey Question #8b. You indicated that your sector is proposed to be shifted to NZQA. How much do you support this proposal? 

Not supportive at all 

Please tell us more about the reasons for your answer. 

ITPNZ strongly opposes the proposal to shift digital technology qualifications and standard-setting responsibilities to NZQA. 

This move would exclude our sector from the strategic functions that ISBs are intended to deliver — including workforce planning, programme endorsement, and investment advice. It would leave one of New Zealand’s most important, fastest-growing, and cross-cutting industries without a structured mechanism to influence or co-develop the vocational education system. 

Digital technology is not a standalone sector — it is foundational to all industries’ productivity, competitiveness, and innovation. Shifting it to NZQA: 

• Ignores the scale and economic contribution of our industry (over $17 billion in GDP and $13.4 billion in exports annually). 

• Discards progress made under Toi Mai WDC to co-design work-based learning models alongside industry partners like ITPNZ. 

• Undermines the Government’s stated ambition to prepare New Zealanders for a digitally driven economy. 

• Reinforces a system where only legacy industries with existing apprenticeships are structurally supported, leaving future-facing industries to fend for themselves. 

• Risks returning us to the pre-RoVE environment, where the digital tech sector languished without an ITO, was fragmented across agencies, and had little ability to influence or shape vocational education. WDCs began to address this gap — this proposal would push us backward, not forward. 

NZQA, while effective in its regulatory functions, is not a substitute for an industry-led body. It does not have the mandate, structure, or industry engagement mechanisms required to lead workforce transformation or deliver agile responses to skills development in a fast-moving sector. 

We believe digital tech must remain within an industry-led framework, either through its own ISB or a phased pathway to one, supported by a feasibility study and business case process. 

Survey Question #9: You indicated that you do not support the proposal for NZQA to oversee your sector - Information Technologies. If your sector were instead assigned to an ISB, which one of the seven ISBs would you prefer? 

I chose Manufacturing and Technologies (under duress) 

Survey Question #10: Do you have any other feedback about the proposal? 

Yes — ITPNZ urges the Ministry of Education, Tertiary Education Commission and the Minister to reconsider the strategic implications of this proposal for digital technology and creative sectors. 

The decision to exclude these industries from ISB coverage is not a neutral act of administrative tidying — it has serious long-term consequences for New Zealand’s ability to build a resilient, future-facing workforce. The digital technology sector is not emerging — it is already pivotal, contributing over $17 billion to GDP, generating $13.4 billion in exports, and driving productivity across every sector. 

We are concerned that the proposal reflects a legacy mindset — one that supports only sectors that already fit into an apprenticeship framework, rather than using ISBs as a tool to enable new work-based learning models where they are most needed. This approach locks out precisely the kinds of high-growth, skills-shortage sectors that the reforms should be prioritising. 

Furthermore, the proposal overlooks the progress made by Workforce Development Councils like Toi Mai, which had begun to foster stronger collaboration between digital and creative industries and the vocational education system. Disbanding that work without a clear replacement risks wasting hard-earned momentum. 

We reiterate our call for: 

• A feasibility study into a national digital apprenticeship model, led by ITPNZ 

• A pathway to a dedicated ISB for digital technology 

• Greater recognition of sectors like digital and creative that are transforming work, not simply replicating legacy models 

ISBs should be about preparing New Zealand for the future — not preserving the past. We are ready to partner with government to get this right.