Education Amendment Bill

This part has a number of innocuous and fairly inconsequential amendments to other enactments—the State Sector Act and the Student Loan Scheme Act—consequential amendments to other enactments, and repeals and revocations. What is interesting about this part and the schedules is that they are the last parts of any significant education legislation that we will see for the rest of the life of this Government. Schedule 1 tidies up some loose ends to do with the definitions of early childhood service and makes other inconsequential changes like omitting the words “management of” and substituting the words “employer at”. Is that not a damp squib on which the Labour Government’s legislative programme in respect of education comes to an end? The Minister in the chair, Steve Maharey, will not come up with anything smarter than changing the definition of “early childhood centre” to “early childhood education and care centre”. That was the last good idea of Trevor Mallard, but at least he had one, even if the last one was not much. This Minister has none.

The House should debate this bill at some length, because we will not get to debate another piece of education legislation under this Minister or under the Labour Government. This is the end; this is the tail end. If the best they can do is devote legislative time to changing the definition of “early childhood centre” to “early childhood education and care centre”, then there is nothing else to be said. The select committee has no legislation in front of it. The Government finds itself increasingly on the wrong side of a number of arguments and a number of directions in respect of education that the public are headed in, and it cannot take the risk of bringing to this Parliament any more education legislation of any significance. I suspect we may see some legislation to fix mess-ups, because that is part of the normal business of Government—although this Minister, of course, is an expert in messes, and unfortunately he will ruin the tail end of Dr Cullen’s career in trying to fix up his tertiary education mess. But we will not see anything significant.

Some of these definitions do flow from a fairly wide-ranging change in early childhood funding. The reference in clause 48 to the kindergarten movement is a signal of that. The kindergarten movement is only now really beginning to understand the scale of change that this change in funding brings about. I am sure that if a National Government had brought about the changes in this bill, there would have been protest marches in the streets about the end of free kindergartens—because free kindergartens have ended. This part talks about free kindergartens. Kindergartens can charge. If parents send children there now they are eligible for the childcare subsidy. Kindergartens are now writing to parents and saying that, thank God, fund-raising is now over, because they will charge parents and the parents will get it back through the childcare subsidy. That is all going on right now.

So kindergartens are no longer free. They are also starting to figure out that they will lose their distinctiveness as kindergartens. That is something that many New Zealanders do not yet understand but will come to understand over the next few months. This bill, of course, does not trumpet that change; nor does the Minister, I might say. I was waiting for him to get up and give a lyrical speech somewhere about the end of free kindergartens, the destruction of a New Zealand icon, and the nasty right-wing forces that brought it about. But, funnily enough, he has not done that because, of course, compared to Steve Maharey, Trevor Mallard is a nasty, right-wing force and the early childhood funding in this bill is his brainchild.

I want to make a few comments. It is very interesting that a couple of impassioned speeches have been made by National members about kindergartens, and the need to protect kindergartens and their iconic status. I ask members who it was who took kindergarten teachers out of the State Sector Act, back in 1997. It seems to me that there is a bit of tension between what was done in 1997 and some of the statements that are coming out in the debate this evening.

The only other thing I want to make a point about is the Student Loan Scheme Act, because it is really the guts of this part. It refers to scholarships, which is something I have a bit of personal pride in because it was a policy that I put through the coalition Government initially. The incoming Labour Government, in 1999, saw there was merit in expanding it, in terms of gaining additional teachers in various areas of particular need, so I have a particular interest in that matter.

All that this measure does—as I think everybody in the Committee would agree—is to ensure that if somebody who gets a scholarship does not fulfil the requirements of it, then the funds can be extracted back under the Student Loan Scheme Act in the same way as student loans. I think most people would agree that if somebody signs up to one of the scholarship schemes and fulfils all the requirements of it, then that person should keep the dough. But if a person does not fulfil the requirements, then surely he or she has a responsibility to refund the money to the State. This legislation provides a sure-fire mechanism for that to happen. I am sure that all members of the Committee would see that as the responsibility to the taxpayer referred to in clause 49.

The rest of it is really just nuts and bolts stuff. I think the Hon Bill English was correct in saying that, and I do not think it is worthwhile to spend a large amount of time debating this particular part. It would probably be better to spend that time traversing the whole tenor of the bill when we get to the title clause.

I rise once again to oppose the Education Amendment Bill and to speak to Part 2. Part 2, as previous speakers have said, is a nuts and bolts part, but it is actually very important. It is important to repeal outdated legislation and to revoke regulations that are no longer relevant. Some of us in this Chamber, particularly those of us on this side, are of the view that much more legislation could be repealed, that many more regulations could be revoked, and that New Zealand schooling would be the better for it. Sometimes it is fanciful to contemplate what schooling would look like if we got rid of 85 percent of the legislation that affects schools.

But I think the more serious point is that this amendment bill takes as its principal Act the Education Act 1989. It is with great sadness that I observe that Parliament did not hold its nerve and stick with the 1989 Act and give it a chance to work. It could not resist the pressure from bureaucracies and interest groups to interfere, to regulate, and to control. This bill is just one more step in that process. It is one more step that says that centralisation is how we solve the underlying problems of education.

Well, I have to make clear to the Government that I am not aware of one child, anywhere, who has learnt anything in the office of a bureaucrat, a Minister, a politician, or a review officer. Children learn in classrooms. I think that those of us who were principals—and my New Zealand First colleague was one, as well—in the years straight after 1989, in the era of Tomorrow’s Schools, were fortunate. They were years when we could actually make a difference. We were genuine educational leaders, and those of us who had the courage to seize the opportunity to be innovative, creative, and brave, transformed schools.

But, increasingly, as more and more legislation came out of the House and more and more regulations came out of the ministry, we suddenly realised we were not being creative and innovative in finding solutions for children’s learning needs; we were becoming obsessed with compliance and with ticking the right box. Our teachers suddenly began to work it out—take no risks, be safe, comply, get a tick from the Education Review Office and it would be all right. It did not matter whether children were learning to the maximum of their capacity, because teachers just had to get the right boxes ticked and it would be all right. All this legislation is taking us to an obsession with process—get the process right and nothing else matters. It does not matter that maybe 15 or 20 percent of children are not experiencing success at school. Teachers will not be criticised for that if they get the right boxes ticked. That is where the successive bits of legislation that have been coming out of Parliament since 1989 have led us.

Let us contemplate for a moment what the schooling scene would look like if we could wipe away everything that has happened in the last 16 years and go back to the purity of the 1989 Education Act—to the vision and plan of Tomorrow’s Schools. Let us just think about what it would look like.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Part 2.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: You have just used up your title speech.

I am afraid they are not letting me have another speech; I have to get it all into this one. The reference in Part 1 to the Education Standards Act 2001 is a typical example of the type of legislation I am referring to. It is legislation that gets in the way of what really needs to happen. If the Government is to bring in an amendment bill, then let us do the job properly.

It is significant that the second part of this incredible Education Amendment Bill is such a small part. However, other amendments have been covered by other members, the Hon Bill English and Allan Peachey, and that is relevant in the sense that from time to time it is necessary to tidy up aspects that are covered within the body of a bill.

In speaking to Part 2, I would like to take the opportunity to say that as far as the definitions go, some clarification is added to the meaning of the intent of the bill. But changing the word “management” to “employer” in schedule 1 is inconsequential.

The whole range of amendments required by this bill is significant, in that education does span an enormous range of subjects and it is appropriate to keep it all in order. It was said before that it was as though the National Party was catching the last bus from the rank, and, as a member—along with Allan Peachey, Bill English, and Jacqui Dean—of the Science and Education Committee, I do feel a bit like that myself. This was our last opportunity, along with the Māori Party, to have an input into education, going forward.

I say to my chairman, with great respect, that only two members of the previous Education and Science Committee are actually still in Parliament. Over 60 percent of the present Education and Science Committee members who have actually spoken and put forward amendments—[Interruption] The lady member had no voting power.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: Ashraf is out there with Bill English himself.

Ashraf is not here.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): We are talking about Part 2, and I ask the member to please not use members’ first names. The full name should be used.

I will steer away from that, Mr Chairman. I must commend those members for their efforts on and input into this bill.

We see this bill fading into the sunset. I just trust that when the opportunity comes again, we will not lose our nerve and will grasp the nettle with regard to the education of our children. I hope we will do something far more constructive than we are doing with the amendment bill in front of us.

Clause 50 deals with consequential amendments to other enactments. It was quite interesting to go through my PC in the dinner break, to try to catch up on the history of those enactments. We see reference to the Revocation of Soldier Teachers Grading Adjustment Regulations, and to the Revocation of the Combined Secondary and Technical Schools Regulations, and on and on it goes. I suppose they all served their purpose. However, they will now pass into history.

From that point of view, I have no doubt that when the Education and Science Committee next has the opportunity to look at this legislation, we will wonder why so much time was spent on it. The bill came forward to the committee in November 2004 and has had a moderate gestation period. I do not see that it will be one of the things that stands out in my mind as having achieved an enormous amount other than far more bureaucracy, far more regulation, less innovation, and more costs. By and by, it will be the bureaucrats who will tell us how we want our children to be brought up, not their parents.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to Part 2 be agreed to.