SIT
With the Minister for Tertiary Education, Penny Simmonds announcing a restructure of Te Pukenga, our city now has a local voice on the future of SIT.
The restructure provides for two options; a standalone institution or being part of a federation model (being grouped with other institutions).
My view is we should head towards a standalone institution. SIT previously showed it was a leading institution with nationwide innovations like zero fees.
The key again will be to attract international students, as we only have a small number post-Covid and the centralisation under Te Pukenga.
Those students are fee paying and also help with casual and part-time work while studying. This helps support our hospitality sector.
I was also pleased with the announcement the ring-fenced reserves of $18million will be returned to SIT.
Recently, I had a Chinese delegation of education providers who were looking at different cities in New Zealand (places for their students to study in).
When it came to our city, they asked three key questions: How safe is your city? Do you have specialised shops that sell Asian food supplies? And how much night life do you have? The last question was a bit of a surprise.
I said "not much but we do have events in the streets with live music and food stalls".
That seemed to please them, as the parents of these students want to know we are safe and do not have an image of large student parties, as our nearest neighbour is known for.
One of the delegates represented 1million students in China.
I’ve also had interest expressed from the Indian ambassador to New Zealand, given India is now the most populated country in the world and has a developing middle class, some of whom want to gain international qualifications.
So, we now have two very large markets in which to promote SIT.
Recent government statements
I’ve been asked to comment on the recent statements by the prime minister and the minister for local government that rate increases are too high in a time of pressure on families from high cost of living and that such increases should be close to the level of inflation.
I’ve always been a supporter of low rate increases and that is not just an election pitch from me.
I’ve worked in social services most of my life and know the hurt of increasing, compounding rate increases. Each year, I’ve pushed management and my elected colleagues to be aware of the impact of compounding rate increases.
So, I support the government views.
But it is not just as straight forward as putting a cap on rates close to the rate of inflation. It is also too easy to talk about core business (waste, water, roads, pot holes etc) as opposed to "nice to have" projects.
This council has a proven track record over many years of prudent financial management, so we can afford an improved quality of life — like Invercargill Central (the mall) and our new innovative museum.
But rates are only part of the revenue picture. The other parts are dividends from investments we have, money we receive for services provided (e.g. entry to Splash Palace, cost of dog licences, consenting fees etc).
We also have interest from funds in the bank and some external government grants.
If that combination is not enough to cover our operational costs, then we face the need to reduce services (and thus staff). For example, does a library need to be open seven days a week, could a swimming pool be open less than seven days, should we subsidise poorly patronised bus services ...
These are all tough areas to review for any politician, including local body elected members.
My view is that (a) we have assets, including surplus parks and reserves that should be sold to increase revenue and future proof our revenue needs and (b) we should look at our staffing levels annually, to ensure they are at a sustainable and affordable level.
And finally, should the government set performance standards and review councils (another layer of bureaucracy) or should that be left for ratepayers to decide every three years ?
The answer is we should be driven by ratepayers’ expectations and their desire to pay rates.
The government is supportive of localism, but we have too many small councils that need to amalgamate into larger, more cost-effective councils (unitary authorities).
- Opinion by Nobby Clark
