Education Amendment Bill

Mr Chairman, I ask you to excuse my quiet speaking; I have a touch of the flu and my voice is not functioning as well as it might normally. That does not diminish the importance of the issues that we will deal with in this legislation. We intend to lay down a number of amendments to this legislation, because although there are aspects of it that we support—for instance, the change in the funding for the regulatory environments in early childhood care—we believe this is an opportunity for the New Zealand education system to take another step forward.

In that respect, National will table amendments in this part that legislate for national standards in literacy and numeracy. We believe that every child and every parent in New Zealand should be provided with the information that tells them what progress is being made in the fundamental competencies of citizenship. At the moment a wide range of testing mechanisms is used in New Zealand schools. Generally, they are used in a positive way to lift the achievement of our young people. We do have some instances of national standards already. For instance, in the National Certificate of Educational Achievement one of its positive aspects has been the institution of national standards in literacy and numeracy, so that someone aged 15 or 16, for instance, can get university entrance only if he or she has achieved a certain standard of literacy as defined by the tests laid out there.

National’s amendments will provide for the maximum flexibility. They will write into the National Education Guidelines a requirement for national standards and also a requirement in the annual reports of schools for a statement in which schools provide an analysis of the progress of students, measured against those standards. I emphasise “progress”, because it is the progress of the child in which we are vitally interested, not the standard or the testing system in themselves. The amendments are couched within the National Education Guidelines, because that is where the Minister will determine the national standards.

I imagine there will be a fairly extensive debate within the education sector should these amendments pass, because there will be a range of views over whether it is appropriate to set the national standards at year 4 or year 8—the middle of primary school or the end of primary school—and over just which mechanism should be used for those standards. I myself would prefer that the Minister designate benchmarks within the existing tests, because some of those are widely used. Progressive achievement tests and asTTle are well known to teachers, and are used extensively. They generate useful data, and are understood and often welcomed by teachers. If the Minister designated benchmarks within those existing tests, that would meet the definition of national standards as laid down in this legislation. That is why the term is used in the legislation in the plural. There does not have to be one particular standard; there can be a range of national standards.

Some of my other colleagues will introduce amendments to other aspects of this legislation. I hope the Minister will welcome a sensible discussion, in particular around the regulatory regime for early childhood education, because we believe that can be improved. The Education and Science Committee looked at that issue in some detail and there is now an opportunity, as a result of that reflection, to improve the regulatory structure so that we can maintain the variety and the choice of provision in early childhood education. We will also provide an amendment about the use of the National Student Number. We are broadly supportive of the concept, but we believe it can be more effectively used.

I, too, want to congratulate the people who have been behind some of these amendments. I would like to cut to the chase, as it were, and speak about the National Education Guidelines and the amendment to insert new clause 5A that the Hon Bill English is moving to amend section 60A by inserting after paragraph (b): “(ba) national standards, which are standards for literacy and numeracy applicable to all students in an age or year group:”.

How can it be that we should not be supporting this? In a modern world we need to know how our kids are doing in literacy and numeracy first and foremost. So it goes without saying that we should have at least something in the Act, something in the regulations that this auspicious organisation here—the Parliament of New Zealand—sets out. But have we got that? No, we have not. We do not have any guidelines. We do not have any standards of literacy or numeracy—the two key things that have allowed young people through the ages to get on in life, make choices, have options in front of them, go ahead, go to work, have families, bring up their children, and so on and so forth. Literacy and numeracy are the two things that make a nation full of educated people go on, get jobs, and do the things that we take for granted. We owe it to these young people to make sure that there are standards for literacy and numeracy—and that they are applicable not just to some, but to all age groups.

So we in the National Party do not have any reason to believe that we should not be supporting these amendments from the Hon Bill English. It is absolutely crucial that we do. We also say upfront that we will be supporting the Māori Party’s numerous amendments. It goes without saying, for me especially, that we should take on board the Māori Party’s amendments in terms of the use or the finished use of Māori land given over for educational purposes. I think that that is an honourable stance, and we will certainly be supporting that.

There are others issues that we must debate during the Committee stage. Section 317, in clause 43, deals with early childhood regulations, and we will be getting to that later on. I can tell the Committee that we will be supporting the amendment from the Māori Party, essentially for one reason, and one reason only. Many people in the Māori Party and the National Party have had experience in running early childhood centres. They have had operational experience in kōhanga and the like, and we know that at the end of the day, if there is one thing we can do to inhibit a young person’s education, it is to throw more regulations at the centres. If more and more regulations are thrown at the centres, then all that the teachers and the people who run the centres will be doing is walking around with a clipboard making sure that their regulations are covered and checked off. By the end of the day, when they have finished all the bureaucratic nonsense, the children at the centres—whom we are all supposed to be there for—will not be educated in any way, shape, or form.

There is a need for standards, and there is a need for regulations, but over-the-top, bureaucratised and sanitised places of learning will not do anything for the young people or for our communities.

I want to pick up where the Hon Tau Henare left off, and that is section 317 in clause 43—subsection (2)(b), I think—about the prescribed criteria. I have to note first of all that at the Education and Science Committee there was no minority report from National over this particular issue. Only one group brought it to the attention of the Education and Science Committee, and that was the Early Childhood Council. Even that group—and I have its submission here—explained that currently, before this bill goes through, there are major powers to set minimum standards by Order in Council, and these are expanded in section 317(2)(a).

The new powers largely incorporate what is already in the Desirable Objectives and Practices. The Ministry of Education is talking about collapsing the Desirable Objectives and Practices, but the interesting thing—or the ironic thing—about the member who has just resumed his seat is that the last Desirable Objectives and Practices went through a Cabinet where that member was actually sitting around the table and where the same sorts of prescribed criteria as in this particular bill were talked about. The fact is the issue was not raised very strongly at the select committee, although it has been brought up since. In fact, I was the person who raised the issue during the second reading debate—that there were inherent dangers in the bill, because we were actually giving the bureaucracy, the ministry, extraordinary powers so that it could have in fact said that all early childhood centres had to be painted blue.

New Zealand First said no—that that was going too far and that we did need to do something about this. So we talked to the Minister of Education and we said it should not be the Secretary for Education who promulgates the prescribed criteria—it should be the Minister. Secondly, we said it has to come under parliamentary scrutiny, and to do that I have put forward an amendment that will ensure that it comes under the purview of the Regulations Review Committee but does not have to be drawn up by parliamentary counsel. In other words, we want to steer clear of the “lawyer-ese” that may be there.

I refer now to the Māori Party’s amendments. I know full well that the ultimate agenda of the Early Childhood Council was to get to that point—that is, to get rid of prescribed criteria altogether. I have talked to people about self-locking gates on pools. The Education Review Office, when I was the Minister responsible for it, used to run around and check these in schools, but, in fact, schools did not require them by regulation. It picked up many schools that did not have self-locking gates and, in other words, posed a danger to students. New Zealand First is not prepared to have a regime in which there is the necessity for some prescribed criteria in order to ensure that students are protected. If we are talking about guidelines only, then early childhood centres can choose to ignore them or pay lip-service to them.

I have to talk about the discussion document that is out there. It talks about most of the criteria actually being descriptions. But there is still a need in some cases to be prescriptive, and I have just given members the example of self-locking gates. Some of the draft criteria will have to be prescriptive in nature—and this is in the Desirable Objectives and Practices. For example, the ratio of toilets to children. Should that be prescribed or just described? Should there just be a general standard—centres can have as many children per toilet as they like—or should the number to prescribed? What about having an approved fire evacuation scheme? Should that be prescribed or should it just be set down as best practice? What is actually happening—and it has been going on for a number of years—is that this draft code is being developed, and it is a combination of descriptive and prescriptive.

I will give members an example. One of the things required is that there be a space for a sick child, where that sick child can be temporarily isolated from other children, can lie down comfortably, and can be supervised. The prescriptive part of that is that there must be a space available for that sick child. The descriptive part, which can be done in a variety of ways according to the particular provider, is the next three bullet points, and there is no prescription on those—how the child is to be temporarily isolated, how the child can lie down comfortably, or how he or she is to be supervised. They are the descriptive parts.

New Zealand First has negotiated with the Minister, and the Minister has certainly played ball. He has seen that there is an issue here and put up an amendment whereby instead of the secretary being the person responsible for the prescribed criteria, the Minister is. We believe that will mean people will be a whole lot more careful and we will not get silly prescriptions. Secondly, if our amendment is passed, the criteria will come under the purview of the Regulations Review Committee, and that will mean there will be a level of scrutiny.

I rise to speak in opposition to the bill, but in doing so I commend the chairman of the Education and Science Committee for the outstanding job he has done, at least in getting the bill to this point. I believe that if the Government is willing to listen carefully to what members on the Opposition side of the Chamber have to say, the Government will find that useful.

I would like to address a number of issues in Part 1. The first is the National Student Number, the proposal that every student passing through the schooling system should have a number that goes along with that student. I will be moving an amendment to that, because I think the problem with the provision is typical of where Governments of the left consistently get it wrong when they deal with education. They forget about parents and the interest they have in their children’s learning. In terms of the National Student Number, my amendment seeks to expand the definition of “authorised user” to include parents, guardians, or caregivers of children.

The interpretation clause provides for all sorts of agencies, such as the Ministry of Education, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, the Tertiary Education Commission, Career Services, and goodness knows which other agencies to have access to that information but not for parents to have access. It strikes me there is a huge irony in all of that. The groups of people who control the Government schooling system and who now seek to control, I have to say, the early childhood education sector, such as the ministry, the Government bureaucracies—like the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Education Review Office—the teachers unions, and the teacher-training providers do not have the same aspirations and ambitions for children that their parents have for them.

A really interesting situation has been allowed to develop over the years, whereby now it is the parents who are expressing academic ambition. It is parents, from all backgrounds and in all communities, who, to use a phrase often used by critics of mine against me, have an “elitist” view of what they want for their children. Parents want there to be academic excellence in learning, reading, mathematics, science, and history. Those aspirations and ambitions are not matched by those that exist in the Government bureaucracies. For that reason, I believe it is important that parents have the same standing as those bureaucracies in having access to information.

My amendment also proposes a new paragraph itemising the measuring of students’ educational achievement in literacy and numeracy as a specific purpose for which an authorised user may use the National Student Number. None of us doubts the absolute importance of literacy and numeracy. All of us, on both sides of the Chamber, are concerned about the statement made by the Education Review Office in its June 2005 report to Parliament that up to 20 percent of children are not experiencing success at school. We may argue as to whether the figure is 20 percent, 15 percent, 18 percent, or whatever percentage it may be, but the fact is that 1 percent would be 1 percent too much.

The Minister has stated in the Chamber—and I agree with him—that at long last, with the National Certificate of Educational Achievement and the provision for minimum literacy and numeracy standards, we have a measure as to how well our students are doing. For the first time, we have a measure. For the first time, we have data that tells us, for example, the percentage of students in a particular school that is achieving minimum level 1 standards in literacy and numeracy. It is vital that that information is readily available to parents, just as it is vital that it is used to inform teaching practice and to ensure that just having the data on its own is not an end in itself. We must actually do something with that data to ensure that children who are not achieving success at school do so. I am one of those educators who believe that all children are capable of learning. I am one of those people who believe that if a child can learn to talk, he or she can be taught to read. It cannot be acceptable on either side of the Chamber that we continue to allow whichever figure it is of our children to pass through the education system unable to do that.

I turn my attention to the early childhood education provisions in Part 1. I think the same thing is happening as has happened in the schooling sector: a consolidation of power and authority in Wellington. Just as that has happened with regard to schools, and just as we are seeing the initiative, innovation, and creativity being squeezed out of schools because of the compliance-driven requirements of the Government, so we will see the same thing happen to early childhood education centres. That must be resisted. We know that in whichever educational authority one looks at anywhere in the world, one sees that centralisation promotes mediocrity. It never has and never can promote excellence. Yet once we start that process of centralising a system and see that it does not work, we centralise it further, and then more and more. We must avoid doing that.

I have a question for the New Zealand Educational Institute, the union that represents kindergarten teachers. I ask where it is speaking in support of kindergartens. My wife and I had four children, and they were kindergarten kids. I pay tribute to the teachers at Waterloo Kindergarten in Lower Hutt and Taradale Kindergarten in Napier, where our sons and daughters went. I think of the number of times we dug the sandpit and painted the roof. We did our share. We became involved in the community, because it suited our family’s circumstances. Let us be very, very careful that as a result of what is proposed in the bill, inadvertently or otherwise, we do not squeeze kindergartens out of the system. The kindergarten provision works for a lot of families. It works for those families that want to have their children at home with a parent for some of the day.

I cannot help but reflect—and if Government members were quiet, they might like to reflect as well—that if it were a National Government that was proposing this provision, people like me would be burnt in effigy on the forecourt of Parliament. I ask the teacher unions why there is such selectivity. We know the answer to that: unfortunately, the teacher unions have let themselves be sucked into the business of supporting political parties of the left. They have let themselves get caught up in trade union agendas, and that has become more important than the quality of learning for children.

I also want to refer to the provision for the protection of teachers. That protection is very, very much needed. The Minister, in a very good speech made at lunchtime today honouring the excellent teachers of New Zealand, commented that individual teachers—

I rise to support, with all the sincerity I can, the amendment to insert a new clause 5A, which is proposed by my good colleague the Hon Bill English.

I suppose I have a real interest in this matter because the National Education Guidelines and the National Administration Guidelines were matters that I was very heavily involved in in the early 1990s as Minister of Education. Over the years it has been a cause of some concern to me that although the new school curriculum documents established at the time set out achievement goals across the core school curriculum, the concept of developing those into standards that, in certain of the key areas, could be perhaps more appropriately monitored was something that I am not sure ever developed quite to fruition. I think most schools continue to say that the National Education Guidelines and the curriculum statements that form part of them are still pretty useful bases for our curriculum, but I think many people feel it is time now to see whether we can find a way, in the key areas of literacy and numeracy, to move forward.

I note that the amendment my good colleague the Hon Bill English is moving is very wisely worded to make sure it does not try to impose inappropriate standards on schools. This amendment is a very generalised statement. It states: “national standards, which are standards for literacy and numeracy applicable to all students in an age or year group:”. It leaves to further development the actual specific identification of those standards. What is also vital is his amendment to insert a new clause 6A, which proposes that “schools provide an analysis of the progress of students measured against any national standard in literacy and numeracy published under section 60A(ba):”. That is the bit covered by the first part of the amendment.

So I urge the Committee to give the amendment its support. I think it is a carefully worded amendment. It is not trying to impose a whole new thing on our schools. It is a sensible development out of the existing National Education Guidelines. It leaves flexibility for appropriate standards to be developed out of the current national curriculum statements—the relevant ones for literacy or English language, and for numeracy. I think it has been very carefully thought through. I would like to congratulate my colleague Bill English on the work that has gone into it. I hope members will see fit to support it.

This issue is so fundamentally important. So much learning is simply limited if students do not develop at an early age capability in literacy and numeracy. I do not think that is being in any way unrealistic. Most people who think sensibly about education would accept that education is very important. Let me give an example to show what I mean. If one thinks about it, one realises that one cannot think without language. Someone once said that it is only through finding the words that one discovers what one thinks. I suggest that the Minister of Education tries to think without language, tries to think without words. It is not possible. If we want a thinking citizenry, if we want people who are able to think and work through their lives, and to lead their lives to the fullest, they must have literacy—they must have language. The sophistication of one’s ability to think, and think clearly, depends totally on one’s language. We cannot think in a vacuum of language. Likewise, we cannot think about mathematical concepts without having the numeracy framework within which to think.

I am not saying this based on some obscure view of someone who has not been involved in education. I was Opposition spokesperson on education for 3 years, and Minister of Education for almost 6 years. On the basis of all that experience, and also 13 years at university myself, I urge the Committee to give this amendment its support. It is a wise amendment.

The Māori Party has a Supplementary Order Paper on the Education Amendment Bill, and I would like to speak to some of the matters raised in it. Clause 6(1) inserts new section 70A covering education lands. The Māori Party amendment adds three new provisions: firstly, when the Minister of Education declares that land is no longer needed for educational purposes, it is a requirement that the Minister offer the land back to the former Māori owners; secondly, if the land was gifted it must be returned at no cost or charge; and, thirdly—and this is quite an interesting one from Judge Eddie Durie—if the land was not gifted, the chief executive of Land Information New Zealand must take into account the circumstances in which the land was acquired from the Māori owner. As acknowledged by Eddie Durie, the circumstances are critical as, for many whānau and hapū, the land was given because of the importance of education. It was not given as a sale contract in the normal sense.

I would like to talk about section 154A(5), inserted by clause 30. We are seeking support for a new subsection (5), but I will quote the existing new subsection: “No school may have its designation as a Kura Kaupapa Maori removed unless the Minister has first consulted with te kaitiaki o Te Aho Matua (as identified under section 155B).” The question of the diagnostic criteria for kura kaupapa Māori has been debated for some time now—since it began—and it has been the cause of some concern to those who have created this model of school for New Zealand.

In order to establish kura kaupapa Māori, kōhanga whānau went outside the education system at incredible cost to themselves financially, physically, and spiritually. They have built schools outside the system, and were given no assistance at all initially. For 5 years we existed outside the school system, before Tomorrow’s Schools, and the change of our educational arrangements, when we became a bona fide school under the Education Act of 1989. But, after that, once a school type becomes legislated for, the Minister then owns it and can prescribe criteria for the school.

The whole reason we stayed outside the education system to establish the school was to establish the special character—that is, Te Aho Matua. Te Aho Matua is a set of Māori philosophies that guides the teaching of the school. Essentialy, kura kaupapa Māori is an alternative education programme for all New Zealanders, but it is specially designed for Māori to cater for the other Treaty partner—the Māori people, their culture, their beliefs, their spiritual system, their knowledge, their language, and their customs.

We found that Ministers and other people were designating schools to be kura kaupapa Māori when they did not meet the criteria by which the Act described them, so we took Te Aho Matua and brought it here, to the House. The Hon Tau Henare, when he was Minister of Māori Affairs, pushed it through so that we could get Te Aho Matua passed into legislation. This meant that the only people who could approve a kura kaupapa Māori as being bona fide were those who were in charge of that philosophy, Te Aho Matua. Te Aho Matua philosophy is very broad. It can be applied to various tribal customs, and so on, but it is essentially from the knowledge basket of Māori. It was really important that that be legislated for, and it was legislated for. As a result, schools that want to become kura now have to adhere to Te Aho Matua in order to be a bona fide kura kaupapa Māori.

So we would like to propose that the amendment be that no school may have its designation changed from, or to, a kura kaupapa Māori unless the Minister has first sought the approval of the kaitiaki o Te Aho Matua. That is in section 155B, “Te Kaitiaki o Te Aho Matua” of the principal Act. Really, it is a way of protecting that school type. Otherwise, why did our people stay outside the system for 5 years, at great cost to themselves, to create this model? That is a very important concern for us.

The other concern is about kōhanga reo, and we support the Early Childhood Council’s call—in opposition to what has been described over here—for an amendment to section 317(2)(b) in clause 43 to ensure that criteria are not prescribed but are merely guidelines. We have heard the arguments for them being prescribed, and there are some good ones—safety and things like that. But, at the end of the day, prescription stifles innovation and development, especially things Māori—things that Māori people know but those who are in authority do not know. Therefore, we often find ourselves being shut out by prescription.

Finally, I refer to sections 309 and 310 in clause 43. These amendments are about properly recognising the unique identity of kōhanga reo in the early childhood sector. Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust are concerned that the unique identity of kōhanga reo is compromised in this bill, because it categorises kōhanga reo as being early childhood education providers, when their scope and purpose is wider than education and is whānau centred. We had a great deal of difficulty when we set up kōhanga reo. When we said: “This is kōhanga.”, we were told: “No, you’re a play centre.” When we said: “No, we’re kōhanga.”, we were told: “No, you’re an early childhood centre.” When we said: “No, we’re kōhanga.”, we were told: “Well, you’re a kindergarten.”, and we said: “No, we’re kōhanga.” The essential thing about kōhanga is that it is a Māori concept. Kōhanga means a nest. It is a nest concept, a whānau concept; it is a concept that nurtures the child in a different knowledge base. So we are concerned that the identity of the kōhanga remains distinct to that Māori definition. The proposed amendments mean that kōhanga can be recognised as being part of the sector without their being categorised in definitions that do not fit.

Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust also has an issue with the regulations that will come out of this bill, particularly in relation to playgroups being funded for only 4 hours per day. Currently, kōhanga have an exemption to be open for 6 hours each day, and we ask whether this exemption will continue or whether the hours for funding will be cut. An amendment is being proposed to ensure the ongoing entitlement of kōhanga to receive funding for 6 hours per weekday. Also, under section 316 we propose an amendment that kōhanga reo can choose to be licensed as service providers, thus qualifying for funding, rather than making the licensing mandatory for them.

What we are really putting forward here is, in fact, the Māori knowledge point of view. Kōhanga and the kura kaupapa are Māori concepts. Let them live and breathe as Māori concepts without over-regulating them to become what they are not.

I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the Committee stage of this bill. First of all, I would like to comment on the amendments proposed by Bill English and the Māori Party. United Future has some real sympathies with some of the areas they cover, although there are shades of grey within one or two of them, particularly in one that Bill English is putting up. Our concern is about process, and as United Future is not represented on the Education and Science Committee, I made some inquiries about what the committee had covered. This Education Amendment Bill is a bit of an omnibus bill. It covers a whole lot of different things, tidies up a whole lot of areas, and brings in some new initiatives that are, of themselves, a bit disconnected. I can see what has happened here. Because of the diverse nature of the bill, the temptation has been for other parties to use the Committee of the whole House as an opportunity to slap on a whole lot of their own ideas and policies. I can understand that temptation, but it is very bad process.

Some of the things being suggested were never canvassed at the select committee. Submitters never had the chance to address them, or to comment on them. Here, late in the process, we are trying to bring about changes to things that were never discussed in the select committee. Nor were submitters able to make submissions on them.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Do you agree with them?

Well, I could tease those things out. But let me explain. I got an early draft of Mr English’s ideas on this, and, because United Future has some real sympathies around making sure we teach to standards, and that standards are available in schools, I rang some key leaders within the education sector who have some serious reservations about what is being proposed and who, as key stakeholders in this matter, would certainly appreciate the chance to discuss with the select committee what is being proposed. They feel that this process is completely side-stepping that opportunity for them.

One of the things that always concerns me on this matter when we hear it discussed is the assumption that teachers are teaching without any standards and with no sense at all of where children are at. When I was at primary school, just before the mid-year and end-of-year writing of reports, children went through a series of literacy tests with the principal or the teacher of the class in order to assess word recognition skills. Some of those are still used as indicators. This testing occurred once or twice a year to measure children against some standards, and the outcome determined what was written on one’s report. A few years later, after I had gone through high school and teachers college, I was a primary school teacher myself and found that the situation had changed dramatically. Some radical things had happened with the teaching of literacy in Zealand. We were world leaders in that regard. We were teaching children individually, with running records that were updated virtually on a daily basis. In fact, it was an extremely onerous part of the teaching process. Most of us were grabbing kids before school to try to fit in this very, very rigorous assessment of how children were learning, what their instructional level was, and what their reading level was. Any parent or guardian who walked in off the street to ask where his or her child was at would have been told very accurately, in any given week of the year, exactly what level he or she was performing at.

Also, in the area of numeracy a whole lot of rather neat approaches were being taken, including pre-testing children at the beginning of a particular area of learning to determine which maths group they would be put into, assessing what their learning needs were, testing at the end of each unit to see how they had progressed, and determining whether they had understood what was being taught. We were teaching to a very rigorous set of evaluations that had been put in place. I have been a trained primary school teacher for nearly 30 years, and those evaluations were in place for the whole time I was in education. I find it almost offensive at times when people imply that teachers teach in some sort of haphazard way and with no idea of where the children are at or where they are taking them. So we are very supportive of the fact that there are some very clear standards available in the primary sector, and in the secondary sector, as well.

I move, That the question be now put.

I rise to support the amendments that have been proposed by our spokesperson on education, Bill English, and I will tell members why. I think that what we really need in education, as parents, as parliamentarians, and as members of the community, is to know how well our kids are doing at school. I talked some years ago to the headmaster of an Ōāmaru school I am very familiar with, and he said to me he wanted his kids to leave the school knowing, at the very least, how to do their times tables. That was the target, the standard, he set for that school in Ōāmaru, and I have to say he set all sorts of other very high standards in terms of behaviour, homework, reading, and kids learning their numbers.

Therefore, I support the amendment to insert new clause 5A, which has been proposed by Bill English: “Section 60A is amended by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph (b): (ba) national standards, which are standards for literacy and numeracy applicable to all students in an age or year group:”. How exciting a thought it is to know that the kids who leave that excellent school in Ōāmaru at the age of 12 and then go on to the next step in their education at high school, which is a wholly different ball game, will at least perhaps know their times tables, and at least have standards in literacy. They will achieve at whatever level is determined, but at least they will go forward with those standards.

Mr English’s amendment to insert new clause 6A follows on from that. It states: “Section 87(2) is amended by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph (e): (f) a statement in which schools provide an analysis of the progress of students measured against any national standard …”. Yay! Now we will know how our kids are doing against that standard. As the mother of two boys and a girl who went through school, and as a parent who was involved closely in their education from probably the very moment they went to day care, I know that that kind of information about the school and about how our kids are measuring up in that school is hugely important and hugely valuable. So I support wholeheartedly those two amendments as proposed.

Other aspects of Part 1 of this bill concern me, and they are to do with early childhood education. Again, I have experienced early childhood education as an involved parent, two of my children having been through day care, as it was called back then—a while ago—so I have concerns about some of the provisions in this bill. I believe that some of the provisions in Part 1 are all about unnecessary regulation—in fact, about too much regulation. Surely, our top priority in education and in day care is actually the kids. The issue is about the care of children; it is not about systems, so much. The issue is not about the ministry or the bureaucrats; it is actually about the children. I think that parts of the bill do not focus on the needs of children whatever their age, but just add more bureaucracy and more regulation to early childhood education, and add yet more sanitisation to our children’s lives.

Under new Part 26 inserted by clause 43 of the bill I make the following points, and I refer to new section 317(2), which states: “Regulations made under subsection (1) may do all or any of the following: (a) prescribe minimum standards relating to premises, facilities, programmes of education, practices in relation to children’s learning and development, implementation of the curriculum framework …”—

The only excitement in this Committee stage of the debate is being provided by the proposed amendments. Any political parties that fail to support the amendments proposed by the Hon Bill English and Allan Peachey to measure the performance of students are failing parents and failing our children. I want those political parties to listen and to reflect very carefully. Our children are our future, and I say an education amendment bill should endorse amendments that put in place provisions to assist parents to know the potential of students and keep abreast of the progress of their children.

The late Rt Hon David Lange, the visionary Labour Prime Minister, gave New Zealand Tomorrow’s Schools. He knew that parents and children are the people who really matter, and that the educational standards of schools should be tailored to meet the needs of parents and children. But this Labour regime has turned the late Rt Hon David Lange’s vision of Tomorrow’s Schools into “Yesterday’s Schools”. It has taken the initiative from parents and from assisting children, and given it back to the bureaucracy. It is saying that Wellington, the Ministers, and the bureaucrats know what is best for parents and children.

I challenge political parties like United Future, the Greens, the Māori Party, and New Zealand First to explain to their constituents, when they go back to them, why they have failed to support amendments to make sure taxpayers’ money is put into education and into schools to help our children. It is not to give jobs to bureaucrats, or to enable bureaucrats to continue to demand compliance costs and tie up our teachers in filling out forms. Their job is to help our children—our future generation—to get the best possible education and to know their progress. So I cannot see how those political parties can face their supporters and say they will not support these important amendments. They are the only amendments to inspire me to come down to the Chamber and take a call, to say that I am excited about our education system. Because the Tomorrow’s Schools scheme was started by the inspirational late Rt Hon David Lange, I challenge the Labour Party to honour its previous leader by saying it understands, as he understood, that parents are important and that they want the best education for their children.

I have another question for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Steve Maharey, apart from the major one: when did we exempt education amendment bills from the requirement that compliance cost statements be furnished? I want the Minister to take a call and tell us when Labour declared that compliance cost statements did not have to accompany an education amendment bill. I want to know by how much this bill will increase the compliance costs met by schools, but that is a lesser point compared with the lack of acceptance of the amendments so correctly and rightly proposed by the Hon Bill English and my colleague Allan Peachey. I do not think that anybody can challenge the statements made by Allan Peachey, who does not just talk the talk. He is actually a successful and an accomplished principal who knows what is best for students, and who has come to Parliament with a single purpose: to inspire politicians to put forward amendments and champion bills that ensure our children get the best possible education. I think the Minister owes it to us to explain why he would not even reflect on those very worthwhile amendments.

I move, That the question be now put.

It is a pleasure to be speaking to the Education Amendment Bill. I recognise the chair of the Education and Science Committee and the work that has been done over the period of time that this bill has come forward; it is now in the Committee stage. I take on board Judy Turner’s comments with regard to embellishing and broadening out. But in a sense I will talk about something that was discussed within the essence of the select committee process, around adding a bit of comfort and safety to our teaching fraternity, recognising that they do perform their very, very best in a safe environment.

I believe that even since the introduction of this bill into the House things have moved progressively in the wrong way. When I was speaking to a number of my teaching friends in Blenheim, it was quite clear that they are aware they do have systems in place that are actually very negative towards the school as a whole in handling abusiveness, intimidation, and suchlike. But there needs to be more structure around those issues.

So I am proposing that we make an amendment, and ask for the support of members in the Committee. Supplementary Order Paper 26 recommends that people under the criminal age are not subject to those requirements, but those who are over 14 years may be charged with offences of insulting, abusing, or intimidating a teacher or a member of staff of a school, and that it is clarified that such an offence may also be carried out by electronic means. I believe this is very important.

This afternoon at lunchtime we enjoyed rewarding 20 of the very best teachers we have in New Zealand. There were 560 nominations for the ASG National Excellence in Teaching awards. I was absolutely delighted to see that one of those 20 was, in fact, a lady teacher from Fairhall School, Pauline Graham. It is great to see them being recognised. But I do believe there are very solid grounds for students to face charges—even though the select committee through the process decided to go with the flow that, in actual fact, a student would not have to face a charge for an offence such as insult and abuse. I would like to see this strengthened. That would show that we take our teachers seriously, that we treat their profession honourably, and that they are professionals. So I really beseech members to be supportive of that amendment, because I think it is long overdue, and we have to empower our teachers to be excellent.

With regard to the measurables of education, my expertise comes from the point of view of dealing with the failures of literacy and numeracy. So I am greatly enthused when I see that there is the potential for the Minister of Education to be able to set literacy and numeracy standards. We do not know just how serious this situation is; we do not know just how much it is costing our country. I can understand the sensitivities around the issue, but I believe it is as important as a good health system. A dollar invested wisely shows a maximum return. So I would very strongly support those recommendations put forward by way of amendment in new clause 5A, “National education guidelines”—that there are national standards for literacy and numeracy, applicable to all students of all ages and year groups. That would be very important. The expectation that schools will report on those standards will engage parents and give them the absolute confidence that their children are not dropping through the cracks.

I have noticed that there is growing dissatisfaction and a growing movement towards looking for excellence in education. I discovered, with some sorrow, when I approached the Minister on behalf of the Richmond View School, which wanted to move from a primary section into secondary up to year 13, that there was not the scope or capability within the ministry to see the wisdom of this. In Blenheim we have only a girls’ secondary school and a boys’ secondary school. There is a strong voice in the local community, supported by the mayor and many leading citizens, that we need the choice of a coed school. Those sorts of things, I think, are very, very important.

The Education Amendment Bill focuses very much on regulation and process, and I think there is too much concentration on that. It was interesting to see reported in the Press that there was surprise at where we are actually at in this process of the Education Amendment Bill. There are a lot of teachers out there who do not know that it is just about to be passed through the Committee stage. So from that point of view I think the new sets of eyes that have come on board with the Supplementary Order Papers—not overly expanding on things but, actually, fashioning the bill so it will take us forward in a constructive way—are very positive.

I just note that this part has a number of different areas that we would like to be able to traverse and talk through; it is not just purely and simply around early childhood. I think it is necessary to say that, to ensure that early closure calls are not accepted, because there are a lot of areas that we need to look at, including teacher housing, student numbers, and the issue that Colin King brought up about intimidation etc. We need to be able to talk through those issues because there are amendments around a whole lot of them. It would be a sorry case if we thought this was just about the early childhood regulations and a couple of Supplementary Order Papers around that.

I want to talk about Colin King and his amendments because I think there is a lot of merit and good thinking behind them. It is a little unfortunate, as I am noticing in the debate, that there are very few members here tonight who were actually on the Education and Science Committee at the time. That is not their fault, but it just means that they have not been able to explore some of the issues around the legislation.

I just want to talk about the offence of insulting, abusing, or intimidating staff. That was, I think, already in the 1964 Act, and it applied to schools. The amending bill said we wanted to apply that to early childhood centres. The select committee did, in fact, look at the issue in detail, because we were very concerned about some of the anxiety that staff members, principals, sole teachers, etc., in some of our rural schools are facing, particularly in Northland with the dangers of P these days, and there are anxieties around that.

But the issue is this. The offence is only if the intimidation is made in front of students. Insulting, intimidating, or abusing people comes under the Crimes Act. This is a protection only for the students themselves that this is in the Education Act, and then it was going to go down to the early childhood sector. In our explorations we actually asked about the students within the school. Can they be picked up now under the existing legislation, for abusing a teacher in front of their classmates? The answer was yes, they could.

The select committee looked at this and said: “Well, is this what it’s all about?”. The clause is really there to stop people coming from outside—parents, or visitors, or anyone else. I have been threatened by a parent who said he was going to come and shoot me—after a separation; that sort of business. I am sure Allan Peachey knows the situation pretty well. It is really about what happens in front of the students. Therefore, although I totally agree—I would love to see the amendment, particularly the electronic version—the problem is that it actually takes it outside the ambit of what this particular amendment is all about in this particular part of the bill. So we will not be supporting it, although we think there is some real merit along the lines of the member’s thinking.

The second thing I want to talk about is that Colin talked about parents needing to know how well their children are getting on. I absolutely agree with that. Not only do they need to know how well they are getting on, but they need to know how well they are getting on in relation to other students around New Zealand. They need to have that sort of reference point. It is all very well schools saying to parents: “Your kid’s proceeding satisfactorily.”, and then finding out when the kids get to fifth form—year 11—that, in fact, they are not doing particularly well against other New Zealand students. This amendment that Mr English is putting up has some merit—and we have already said we agree with it in principle—but the problem is that it does not give individual parents information about their individual kids. It gives information about the school, I say to Mr English, and not about the individuals.

The parents themselves now have that right to the information about how well their particular children are getting on. With the development of tools such as the assessment tool for teaching and learning, schools are in a far better position to be able to provide that information to parents. Any school that is not providing that information to parents I think should be caned—to use a pun—because it is a professional requirement to provide that information. In fact, it is a legal requirement that is already in the Act.

That is why I think the process is clumsy. I have only just seen this amendment, and I would like to be able to explore the implications of it, as I did as Associate Minister of Education with the New Zealand First - National Government, because I think it needs far more exploration than can be provided in this debate in this Chamber. I believe there is a great deal of merit in this amendment, but what it is talking about is not individual parents finding out about their children; it is about them finding out about schools.

I want to take the Hon Brian Donnelly up on something that he raised earlier on, which was the issue of the self-locking gates on swimming pools. Members on that side just love to trot this thing out. There are 180,000 kids in early childhood centres. Most early childhood centres, including kōhanga—if kōhanga have swimming pools—would lock the gates. It is natural.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: Self-locking.

Most swimming pools would have self-locking gates on them. Of the odd one that does not, I ask members how many kids in the last 12 months have been killed.

💬 Judy Turner: Quite a few, actually.

No, not quite a few. The same issue applies to the fencing of swimming pools. Two or three people die, and what happens? Those members over there go mad with the rule book and want to put a gate on everything. They want to make sure. Do members know why? It is because they are not bothered with looking after the kids; they just want to shut them out of places. I will tell members how to stop kids dying in swimming pools: we should educate them that water is dangerous and to look with their eyes. The same thing happened when the poor kid in south Auckland got run over in his own driveway. There have been far too many of those incidents. Then some bright spark from the Labour Party said: “How about we fence off people’s driveways?” Gee, that would be a great idea, would it not? Why do we not just go round the whole of the North Island, the South Island, Stewart Island, the Chatham Islands, and the Poor Knights Islands, and fence off the lot of it? For God’s sake, when are these people going to wake up? When are people going to wake up to the fact that the best part of it is true education?

I have another example, which is a current regulation that is being flouted by early childhood centres. Every childcare centre has to have a first aid kit up high, which the regulations state is supposed to be locked. One of the kids gets crook. Nanny Ma, who is supposed to be looking after the key for the first aid kit, is not there. She has gone down the road to buy some clay for the kids, or whatever. Judy, who is the assistant caregiver, cannot find the key for the first aid kit, which is out of the children’s reach. Nobody gets anything from the cabinet, because it is over-regulated. Most early childhood centres leave it unlocked just in case. Is that bad? Of course it is not, but the regulations state that the first aid cabinets must be locked and out of the way. It is a stipulation.

I want to bring up the issue of process. I really love how some of the parties that support the Government talk about process. I say that it has nothing to do with process. If members like the idea, they should get in behind it. If they do not, they should say so. But members should not have the temerity to get up in this House and say that they really like this idea—it is a great idea—but the process is wrong. Come on! Members should pull their heads in. This is about making sure that there are standards, making sure that the kids have—[Interruption] Well, Harry Duynhoven would know. He knows a lot about this. It is amazing. People on this side of the House have worked in kōhanga and in early childhood education for years and years. They have not just taken their kids to early childhood centres, they have actually worked in the industry.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Name one.

Myself, Dr Pita Sharples, Tariana Turia—where does one stop? Does the member want me to keep going? No. Most people on this side of the House know what it is like when the workplace is over-regulated. Who does not get educated? [Interruption] Well, the member can take the Lord’s name in vain. That is OK. That is fine with me.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I have been subjected to a bit of sustained abuse from the other side of the House, and I certainly will not have the member alleging that I made comments that I have not. I take offence at his last comment, and I hope he will withdraw it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Are you raising that as a point of order?

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Yes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you. The member has taken offence.

I withdraw and apologise. He mumbled something; unfortunately, it was not very audible. All I want to say is let us get on with making sure that our kids get the best start in life, because if we do not then people like Harry Duynhoven are to blame.

I rise to support the amendments from the Hon Bill English and the National Party members Allan Peachey and Colin King. Surely, it is time for teachers to be allowed to teach, and for parents to be involved in the decision process. This bill does nothing to assist teachers in the daily practice of their profession. But when it comes to regulating, this particular Labour-Progressive - part-time New Zealand First - part-time United Future Government, and when it comes to churning out regulations, this Government has surely reached the zenith of regulation-forming practice. One does not even need to drop a hat before new regulations are brought about in an endless array. Regulation making under this Government has become so dominant that it is practically an art form, and indeed the limp legacy of Labour—once it has expired, and that will not be long—will be that it has established a horrifying level of limiting regulation.

Why has it done this? Because the Government considers it knows best—better than parents and better than teachers. Oh yes, that is what it believes. This Government, and its bureaucracy, know best in their view, and the way they impose that on the public is through regulation. This particular bill really does need the amendment from the Hon Bill English. Education is, sadly, not the only area of our lives where Government regulation has been flourishing, but it is one of the most crucial. Education is the ladder out of the pit of poverty for many people. Education creates opportunities of equality for individuals to be individuals. We need less regulation, not more.

The benefits of the bill, particularly when one has heard all that has been said this afternoon from this side of the Chamber, are to be found in the amendments proposed by the Hon Bill English and by National members Colin King and Allan Peachey. Early education is when the adult is produced. “Give me the child until they are seven, and I will give you the adult.”

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Who said that?

I believe the Jesuits said it.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: It was St Francis, actually.

Was I right, then?

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Yes.

Thank you—I did not claim it as my own. I even have it in quotation marks in my notes, and I will show the member afterwards.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: But you didn’t attribute it.

I had some hesitance because I have adapted it away from “Give me the child until he is seven, and I will show you the man”, which would be the correct quote.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: We thought it was remarkably learned of you.

Thank you very much indeed, I say to Mr Duynhoven. In early childhood, when young children have an astonishing capacity to absorb information and their brains are totally receptive, they need nurturing—as my colleague Mr Pita Sharples pointed out. They do not need to be prescriptively regulated—as my colleague Tau Henare indicated. There needs to be creative fluidity in practice, and perhaps Governments have to be more trusting in the professional expertise of the teachers and in the experience and involvement of parents, siblings, and grandparents. But trust is not an easy medium for the present Government to operate in, because it does not deal in that particular currency; regulation is safer for it.

This Government is not particularly comfortable in office. That is my observation, having been a member since September. When pressured, the Government has two areas of comfort that it rushes to when it senses any reversal. One, as we see in this bill, is over-regulation. The Government feels safe creating a box-ticking environment for us to live in—safe behind a barrage of rigid regulation. The other area occurs every day in question time. I watch and I listen. As soon as Ministers are under pressure, they rush to their comfort zone of the 1990s, when Labour members were a happy lot and nothing was their fault.

I will take just a brief call to explain further why we will not be supporting Mr English’s amendments, and I want to make it clear that we are not trying to use process as some sort of “out” on this matter. We are interested in hearing this issue debated, but we want it done properly. We have indicated to the Māori Party members and to the National Party members that if they are prepared to move for this bill to be returned to the Education and Science Committee so that the proper process can be followed, we would support their amendments on the basis that the bill would then be given the proper treatment by the select committee, which it very deeply needs.

I accept what Mr King said, which was that not every amendment put forward by National is out of left field—or right field, in this case—from the original bill, and that his amendment is in keeping with what was discussed at the select committee. But with regard to Mr English’s amendment, which I think is being touted by the National Party as one of its key amendments, submitters have not been given an opportunity to address it, and we believe that they should have been. We would be prepared, and would be very willing, to support the amendment if we are able to return this bill to the select committee. We have indicated that to the National Party and to the Māori Party, and we think it is appropriate for an issue that has not been canvassed at the select committee.

The amendment addresses quite an important issue, and could have serious implications for schools, teachers, parents, and students. The opportunity for a full select committee scrutiny needs to be offered on these sorts of issues. It is important for the public, and particularly for educational specialists and leaders, to make submissions on those very issues. So I want to make it very clear that we have communicated with those two parties very clearly that we would be prepared to support their amendments if they are prepared to return the bill to the select committee. I have yet to see any indication of their willingness.

I move, That the question be now put.

The reason I am taking a call is that I think United Future has made a fair offer to deal with a couple of amendments, and particularly the significant amendment regarding the introduction of national standards that has been put down in my name. From the process of getting these amendments before the Committee, it is clear to me that there is significant support in the Committee for such an amendment. Some members have expressed the intention to vote for this amendment. I know that members of one party have given it quite a bit of consideration, but they are still concerned that the issue has not been as widely discussed as it could have been, and I think they would probably support the Education and Science Committee having a discussion about it.

Interestingly, the select committee is in the process of starting up an inquiry into achievement in literacy and numeracy—or, more correctly, underachievement in literacy and numeracy. The inquiry was proposed by the Māori Party, and is, I think, supported by all parties on the select committee.

So I would invite the House to move, at the end of the Committee stage—which is, I understand, the right procedure—that this bill, with the amendments, if that is the advice the Clerk gives us, goes back to the select committee to be considered. I think the House should seriously consider doing that, because it is clear that a majority of members want to consider the issue. It has come through in the Committee stage that a majority of members would like the issue to be looked at again. I would be quite open, as the proponent of both amendments, to having an extensive discussion in the select committee. I happen to think this amendment gives the maximum flexibility to get the right answer, because over time the Minister of Education—who promulgates the National Education Guidelines—would have the time to engage with all sorts of groups about what those national standards ought to be.

Clearly, there is an obstacle here in the Committee to the amendment passing now, and I hope we can discuss with other parties the proposition that this issue is referred back to the select committee. The select committee does not have other legislation before it. It could probably deal with this issue fairly expeditiously, and the bill could be back in the House within a matter of 3 or 4 months. I would invite the other parties, if they are interested, to discuss that matter with us.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you for raising those issues, Mr English.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just to clarify what Mr English is proposing, would the vote on whether the bill was returned to the select committee happen before or after his amendment was put forward, because that would make a big difference as to how we voted?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Neither. That issue must be dealt with by the House. That would be the proper time to do it—after the Committee has sent the bill back to the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Clearly, what is in the mind of the United Future member is the consideration of the amendments relating to this issue. I take it that if the amendments are put to the Committee and are defeated, then it is really in the hands of the select committee to consider what amendments it would make to the substantive bill. But there is no connection between what happens to the amendments here and what the select committee is invited to reconsider if the bill goes back to it. I would be interested in your view from the Chair on that, Mr Chairperson. Could you see the point I was making?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Yes, and I agree.

Are you able to inform us about the effects of actions we might take here?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I understand the proposition you are putting forward, but it is still something that has to be dealt with by the House, not by the Committee. You have flagged the issue, and the proper time to deal with it would be when the House resumes. You, of course, can try to do that, or you can leave it until the House resumes, after the conclusion of the Committee stage, which is the proper time to do it—in fact, it is the only time to do it; the select committee cannot consider anything referred back to it by the Committee of the whole House.

I move, That the question be now put.

The Committee of the whole House is at a very interesting stage tonight. The Education Amendment Bill is important legislation. The number of amendments that different parties in the Chamber have put forward on the bill show its degree of importance to members. So we can establish that the bill is important to them.

The next point I make is that for a bill that has been through the full select committee process, the number of amendments now before the Committee is quite unusual—even from the Minister of Education. Parts of the bill are now facing significant amendment—even amendments proposed by the Minister—that have not been through the select committee process. There is a real issue here. The bill was considered by a previous Education and Science Committee, and, as the Hon Brian Donnelly pointed out, a number of the members of that select committee in the previous Parliament are not in this Parliament. So not many members of this Parliament have actually had the chance to consider the bill at the select committee. That would not be a huge problem, perhaps, if it were not for the fact that so many members of this Parliament want to make amendments to it—not just one party but a number of parties, including the Minister’s, want to make amendments to the bill.

That is why the Committee would be wise to consider the possibility of sending the bill back to the select committee. Very important issues are at stake. As a former Minister—and I was a Minister for many years—I find it problematic that so many amendments have been brought to the Committee. They are pretty detailed, and there has been no chance for any select committee to consider the issues. For example, a number of detailed issues in Minister Maharey’s Supplementary Order Paper 25 change totally what the previous select committee was reporting back to Parliament. The select committee in the previous Parliament reported back the bill, and now, suddenly, the Minister comes in with some major amendments that no select committee has considered. It is not as if these things are hugely political issues; they are detailed issues. I would argue there is very good, sound reason for the bill—given the particular circumstances surrounding it—to be sent back to the select committee.

Certainly, if that helped the United Future Party to consider further the amendments of the Hon Bill English, it would be hugely valuable, because it would give the chance for those very important and serious amendments to be considered further. I think a number of parties in the Chamber would welcome that opportunity. I realise that as the Committee we cannot do that—it is a matter the House has to determine. But I would certainly urge members who are involved in this debate in the Committee to talk to their parties so, when the House resumes, the bill can be sent back to the select committee, because a number of amendments—not just the excellent amendment of my colleague Bill English but also amendments from other parties in the Chamber—would benefit if the Education and Science Committee of this Parliament had the chance to consider them.

So I want to make it very clear that National will be supportive of that move, and, obviously, United Future will be supportive of it. I am sure the Māori Party would be supportive of it, and I suspect New Zealand First might be supportive of it, because I am sure the chairman of the previous select committee, Mr Brian Donnelly, has some concerns about the extent of the modification to the bill. A number of amendments have been brought forward since his committee had the chance to hear the bill. This is important, serious business, and I hope the House can treat it with the seriousness that it is due.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to point out to the Committee that the reason the amendments to the boards’ reporting are actually in the Education Amendment Bill at all is that the intention of the bill was to remove the requirement for boards to have an AGM. The AGM has become a bit of a farce with boards, so we said that was fair enough. Those structural, operational requirements around boards were made back in 1989. Times have changed, so we said we could look at that. But the one thing we insisted upon was that boards had to report to parents. That is why the reporting part of the legislation was in there. At no time was there any mention at all—it was not even raised—that there should be a highly complex issue around reporting against standards. That was never brought up at all, so we never even started to get our heads around that particular issue.

Of course, our concern with regard to the amendment is that we simply do not have the time to address that particular capacity—it is a very complex issue. The former Minister of Education will know that when the New Zealand First - National Government got together, it found that the previous National Government had a national testing programme all ready to go. New Zealand First opposed the programme, because it thought it was simplistic and would not give the information that would be required to move our system forward. The programme was canned, we put out a green paper on assessment, and I travelled to Toronto and England and looked at their systems. Some of the recommendations that were made ended up being implemented as the asTTle type of thing, because we strongly believed that parents need information about the progress of their children that is based around norms—national norms.

But that does not mean national testing; it means providing some sort of tools that are, in fact, standardised, such as asTTle or the progressive achievement tests. That is already in the legislation—it was in the Act of 1989. As a principal, I always operated under legislation that required me to report regularly on the progress of students. Some of the deficiencies in that reporting were around the deficiencies in the tools that schools had to operate with. But they did not come around by comparing one school with another. Once we start to get into those sorts of comparisons, we start to get into real fish-hooks. Therefore, the asTTle stuff, which was an upgrade and a modernisation of the progressive achievement test stuff, took into account the way that the national curriculum structure was built. Rather than the norm being based around the standard distribution curve, it was around levels that Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith had put into place. So it gave a measure against the particular levels that were there.

We believe very strongly in that, and we believe there is a real need for a debate. But, certainly, this Committee at this particular moment does not have the capacity to go through all the complexities of that particular debate—whether or not the issue goes back to the Education and Science Committee. In some respects I believe the Opposition is actually catching a bus that has gone by, rather than having utilised the opportunity to bring up those particular issues when the legislation was in the select committee. Nevertheless, we believe very strongly that the issue being raised is a very important one and needs to be fully debated in the environment of a select committee, rather than in the environment of the Committee at this particular stage.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Bill English to Part 1 be agreed to:

to insert the following new clause:

5A National education guidelines

Section 60A is amended by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph (b):

(ba) national standards, which are standards for literacy and numeracy applicable to all students in an age or year group:.