Education Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Education: I move, That the Education Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Science Committee to consider the bill.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before the Minister continues, could I ask members leaving the House, including the two members right behind the Minister on the National benches, to please not be so discourteous as to be talking while on their feet, behind the Minister who has the call. Could members leaving the House please leave quietly.

At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be reported to the House and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 188, and 191(1)(b) and (c).

💬 Introduction: the Government is committed to ensuring that every New Zealander has the skills and qualifications required to successfully participate in our modern society. Partnership schools kura hourua: the first objective of the bill is to provide for partnership schools. These schools are a new way of delivering public education. They will bring together the education, business, and community sectors to provide new education opportunities for our young people. The schools will help address one of New Zealand’s most urgent problems, which is the fact that our education system works well for most, but not for all.

Equality of education is a promise long held, but not quite delivered. A former Minister of Education, whom members opposite should recognise, once said: “… every person, whatever his level of academic ability, whether he be rich or poor, whether he live in town or country, has a right as a citizen, to a free education of the kind for which he is best fitted, and to the fullest extent of his powers.” That was a direct quote from Hansard and that was the Rt Hon Peter Fraser in this House in 1939.

Partnership schools are about delivering his promise that every young child has an opportunity for a world-class education in this country. The same ends, new means—same ends, new means. The bill sets out the framework for partnership schools and the topics that will be covered in the partnership school contract. It is a best-of-all-worlds model. It is informed by similar international policies that have been successful in raising achievement for disadvantaged students. A sponsor approved by the Ministry of Education will govern each partnership school. The Minister must appoint a body to advise on applications to be a sponsor. Each sponsor will be held to account through a fixed-term contract to deliver specific school-level targets negotiated with the Crown. The sponsor will be required to report learners’ progress to the parents and progress against the school-level targets set out in the contract to the Minister. The Secretary for Education will have the ability to manage concerns under the terms of the partnership school contract and the right to intervene directly, proportionately to the issues affecting the education or welfare of the students. A sponsor may deliver the New Zealand curriculum or Te Marautanga o Aotearoa or an alternative curriculum that is aligned with the existing foundation curriculum policy statements.

The school will report against national standards for year 1 to 8 students and will offer secondary qualifications agreed to in the partnership contract for students in years 9 to 13. The number of percentage of teachers registered with the Teachers Council required at the school will be agreed to in the partnership contract. All non-teaching and non-registered employees will be vetted by the police. Sponsors will be free to negotiate employment conditions, including salary levels, with their employees. Sponsors will be able to set their own school hours, student timetables, and term dates. All domestic students who apply will be enrolled, regardless of their background or ability. A ballot will be used if demand exceeds available spaces in the school.

The maximum number of students enrolled will be set out in the contract. This may be renegotiated annually with the consideration of evidence of parental demand for the school and successful delivery of agreed outcomes for the existing students. The contracts will contain more detail than the bill, which instead creates a framework enumerating the important issues that must be covered. In return for meeting the conditions of the contract, sponsors will receive funding and will be free to run their schools as the contract provides.

The second objective of the bill is to safeguard students by—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Can I just say to members that if they would like to look at Speakers’ ruling 60/5 they will note that running commentaries by members—constant heckling—is out of order. It amounts to a commentary, and the members will have an opportunity to make a speech shortly.

The second objective of this revolutionary piece of legislation being introduced into this Parliament today and making history is to safeguard students by establishing clear surrender and retention provisions for all State schools, including integrated and partnership schools. The proposed approach will contribute to safer learning environments. The objectives underpinning the amendment to the bill are to provide schools with surrender and retention powers that contribute towards learning environments that are both safe and conducive to positive student behaviour; balance the need of teachers to effectively manage their students and provide safe learning environments, with the right of students to be free from unreasonable search, surrender, and retention; and prohibit methods of search, surrender, and retention that are considered to be overly intrusive and/or invasive.

This bill contains a number of miscellaneous amendments not directly related to the partnership schools initiative or to surrender and retention. They are, firstly, National Student Numbers. The National Student Number is currently allocated when a child first attends an early childhood service or starts school. This amendment will allow for a National Student Number to be allocated when a child is identified who is likely to benefit from attending an early childhood service, but is unlikely to do so.

Flexible school timetables and alternative board constitutions: we are making changes to enable more flexible timetabling and students’ school days, and we also want to allow for alternative board constitutions, following a change to the school network, for example, following the creation of a school or after a merger of schools.

Boards of trustees: the bill will amend the Education Act 1989 to require every school board to perform its functions and exercise its powers in such a way as to ensure that every student at the school is able to attain his or her highest possible standard in educational achievement. This amendment sets out a clear expectation of boards and ensures that student achievement is a critical consideration. The amendment to the Act will also enable the Crown to grant a lease to a third party, with the third party then able to enter into a lease with a service provider. This amendment will allow the Ministry of Education to enter into direct contractual relationships with third parties. The amendment on the publishing of schools’ annual financial statements will allow the Ministry of Education to publish schools’ annual financial statements online instead of sending paper copies to relevant members of Parliament.

This is a revolutionary piece of legislation that will give the bottom 20 percent of kids who fall through the cracks, who leave school with no attainment, with no education, with no further school opportunities, with no work training, with no hope, and with no opportunity, and who are mostly on the dole and written off, an alternative to enter into a partnership school arrangement with a party provider through the Government, through the Crown, with great expectations for young people.

As Peter Fraser said in 1939 in this Parliament, as I quoted, every young person is entitled to a world-class education in Aotearoa New Zealand. This bill is going to put an end to the wrongs that have contributed to the 20 percent of kids in our education system who have failed. They have not failed us, they have failed themselves and their families because we have not grasped the nettle early enough, and we have not taken on board what Peter Fraser said in 1939: that every kid needs an opportunity for a world-class education. Partnership schools will deliver that world-class education opportunity for those kids who currently miss out.

I seek leave to ask the Minister responsible for charter schools a very specific question regarding charter schools.

Of course, the House is the master of its own destiny, and the member is perfectly entitled to seek leave. Whether it is given or not is another matter. Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is.

It is a shame that the Minister responsible for charter schools, the Associate Minister of Education John Banks, did not answer a question when he was present in the House and there was no one on the Government side available to answer properly in the capacity of Minister of Education on this particular policy. Had he taken on the challenge to answer the question, it would have simply been this: “Will the policy and procedures for how charter schools are run, are managed, and deliver educational benefits to students be open to public scrutiny and accountability, or will these terms and conditions be hidden away under sponsor contracts not accessible under the Official Information Act?”. The Minister is here and did not refer to it in his opening speech in respect of this bill, the Education Amendment Bill. We should be concerned.

I rise to speak on this charter school bill, which is ACT and National’s attempt to privatise New Zealand’s public education system. We have a fantastic public education system. Sure, more could be done, but not by way of charter schools. This will not be the solution to the challenge that faces this nation to lift achievement for all children, every child, in their communities, through their local schools. It will introduce competition. It will take money from the public purse and privatise the profit. How can that be good for every child in every local community, when they are faced now with charter schools?

It is the wrong thing to do in a country like ours. Despite the huge inequities that exist in our country, we sit among the top seven of the OECD countries in educational performance. Under Hekia Parata and John Banks charter schools will see New Zealand lead a race to the bottom of the OECD, because they have fundamentally ignored the systemic challenge in our society, which is to get things moving on the right track for every child. They deserve the best opportunity for education at their local school. Labour believes that a quality public education should be guaranteed—guaranteed—to every child from every community at their local school. This should not be aspirational, a goal, or an ambition. It is an expectation in a country like ours, if we want to assure ourselves that a small country can grow the potential of each and every child, no matter who they are, where they come from, or what their socio-economic background is.

Inequality in a developed country like ours has seen 270,000 children living in poverty, and it is not their fault. There is a growing number of hard-working families who fall into this category and rely on our local schools to deliver to their children an education of a high quality, from the time they start school to the time they finish.

Charter schools are a simple distraction. They take money from the public purse and privatise the profits, with little or no accountability to students, parents, or taxpayers at large. In considering this bill, why are the sponsor contracts not subject to the Official Information Act? Answer that. In considering this bill, parents should be concerned about the real effect of what the Government is proposing.

Setting up new schools where a sponsor, by way of contract, negotiates the terms and conditions for schooling provision may sound attractive, but the devil is in the detail. Under the bill the policies and procedures of a charter school are hidden in these contracts and will not be available to public scrutiny—not via the Official Information Act, and not even as a document tabled in this House. We as parliamentarians should be very concerned, because this is an experiment. It has failed overseas. The Government is bringing it into this country, and why are these contracts not being exposed to greater public scrutiny? It is a problem when taxpayer funds are being used to run these schools with little or no accountability for what they do or how they do it.

The Minister will approve sponsors of charter schools, which do not necessarily need an educational background to lead learning at those schools. An advisory group will be appointed by the Minister to monitor the progress of these schools in line with the sponsor contracts. It appears that these advisory boards may take over some role of the Ministry of Education. Who knows? These are just some of the aspects of the way in which charter schools will operate, and we should be concerned as parliamentarians and as parents about the way in which charter schools are intended to operate. No public scrutiny is available of them whatsoever.

Earlier this year the Minister of Education said that she believed that teachers made all the difference in improving learning outcomes. Yet in charter schools she is letting non-registered teachers deliver education. We heard the former Minister of Education in the House today acknowledge that non-registered teachers could teach at charter schools. She failed to make the connection that teacher training qualifications are a prerequisite to being registered, which guarantees that the quality of a teacher cannot be compromised. Yet there is to be one standard for those at charter schools and another for those in the public school system. How do they reconcile that particular dilemma?

Teachers in charter schools will get paid at a different rate. They are not subject to the same professional standards. Yet they still have the same critical influence on children’s learning, like any other teacher throughout the schools in New Zealand. But why are they being treated differently? My concern is that the Minister either believes that there is value in teacher training qualifications or she does not. Right now she says it is one law for teachers at charter schools and another for those in the public system. She speaks with a forked tongue.

The Government has put the education and safety of charter school children at risk by ignoring the advice of its own officials on who should be allowed to teach them. It is unclear what criteria will be used to fund charter schools, and the staffing levels that will be agreed to. Will she promote larger class sizes in those charter schools or smaller class sizes? Who knows? Who knows how those staffing levels will be funded? Will these schools receive the same establishment funding as public schools or more? Who knows? It is unclear. The bill does not speak to that.

There are more questions than answers and our children’s learning is far too important to be used as an experiment with charter schools. A model that has failed in other countries is being adopted here in New Zealand. Why? The international evidence suggests that charter schools do not work. In 2009—

💬 Hon John Banks: So we should do nothing?

That member says we should do nothing. No, what we should do is strengthen our public school system, and look to the exemplars and innovations that are already happening and are delivering outcomes for Māori and Pacific students, and all learners. We should strengthen the public school system, not suck money out of public schools, put it into a private model, and privatise the profits. We should do more for every child from every community at their local school.

Let us look to the international evidence. In 2009 the Center for Research on Education Outcomes, which is part of Stanford University, analysed the scores from across 16 charter schools. It found that although some charter schools do better than the traditional public schools, the majority do the same or worse—the same or worse. Almost one-fifth of charter schools do worse. It is not the way to go in New Zealand.

National’s agenda for charter schools poses a major risk to our public education system. Charter schools will not have to teach to the curriculum that every other child in the public school system has to learn by. In fact, I am very sceptical about the narrowing of the curriculum through the charter school process, but the devil will be in the detail, and we are looking forward to this bill going to the select committee.

I can only say, as a closing comment, that it is Labour’s sincere hope that if this Government is genuinely wanting to engage feedback from the public on this bill it will extend the period of time for which submissions can come to the select committee and not rush this bill through in urgency before the end of the year. We are in October, and it would be unfair for public citizens in New Zealand to try to rush through a submission process. Let us give them time—time to consider the impact of a charter school within the network of public education provision. Let us not rush them, and let us not put on a Clayton’s consultation round through the select committee. It is Labour’s hope that the Government will ensure that genuine time is given for submissions to come in, and extend that into the new year so that real engagement can occur. They are sick of being treated like the people of Christchurch, who are still fuming over the guise of consultation that happened down there, over being steamrolled over, and about radical reforms being proposed. All for what? So that the Government can introduce charter schools down in Christchurch. It is simply unacceptable. Charter schools are an experiment. They have failed overseas. They should not be here in New Zealand. Kia ora.

I am very pleased to be standing here and speaking on the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the Hon Hekia Parata and the job she is doing in the education portfolio, and also the Hon John Banks. This bill is incredibly important for our country, because what this bill is about is actually real policy to help some of our most disadvantaged children in this country. Too often we hear the rhetoric that we care about the one in five children who do not succeed in our education system. The fact is that there are many wonderful educational professionals in this country doing a great job. However, one in five children leave our education system not being able to participate in a modern economy, and what this legislation is about is saying that that is not good enough, and that we are prepared to put in place policies that will give parents and students greater choice and greater options for their learning.

We have already seen some improvements under our Government. At school level nearly 72 percent of school-leavers achieved at least National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2, compared with 66 percent in 2009. This is part of a wider range of policies that are about greater accountability in terms of our education system. That is why we have national standards. Through national standards we want to raise literacy and numeracy standards for those children in some very disadvantaged communities. We know where they are and we know how we can better support them, and we can target resource not only from a Government perspective but also in terms of their parents. When you look at the Manaiakalani Project, when you see how these kids are doing in very disadvantaged communities, it is because their parents are involved in their learning and it is because they decided to do something different.

Partnership schools are about actually recognising that one size does not fit all. We hear from the Opposition that this is about putting kids at risk. Well, the greatest risk in this country is to do nothing. What we believe is that through the design of the partnership schools model we are developing a model that is in the New Zealand context and that ensures that we are also requiring greater accountability in the sponsorship contracts. There is a range of provisions there, in terms of accountability. But there is actually flexibility to go into low-decile areas in particular and offer a different type of school for some learners. This is self-selecting, as well. I think that is a really important point.

The other point I would make is that the model has actually been successful. The charter schools model in other countries has been incredibly successful. We have heard recently from Mike Feinberg from the United States, but what we have tried to do in terms of this policy is say that we need to develop it for a New Zealand context. So I look forward to the select committee process, as chair of the Education and Science Committee, and I hope—it is my greatest hope—that the Opposition keeps an open mind. The greatest thing that we could do in this country is not to continue to do nothing with these children, but to develop another option. The other point that I want to make is that we do have varieties of schooling in this country. We do have single-sex schools. We do have kura kaupapa. So this is just another option for parents, in terms of schooling.

The other key aspect of this bill that I want to briefly touch on is about safer environments. We have a number of provisions in here regarding search and surrender. We also have a National Student Number, which is being recognised within this bill. This is part of our target to ensure that we have 98 percent of new entrants participating in early childhood education by 2016. The other aspect of this bill that is very important to mention is school boards of trustees. We will see, through this bill and through guiding this legislation through the House, a range of provisions that clarify the primary purpose of school boards, to ensure there are very clear expectations. I think that if we step back for a moment, what we are saying on this side of the House, through this legislation and through other mechanisms, is that we believe in greater accountability through mechanisms like national standards, and through mechanisms like partnership schools, which provide other options for parents. We believe in greater transparency, through national standards, and through things like partnership schools.

A key aspect of partnership schools that we believe in is that the State does not control the only mandate for the provision of education in this country. There are many community organisations—and the Opposition has focused on businesses that may be sponsors—that have an outstanding role in our community. We think they should be considered for the provision of education. We are not going to bring those kids up by saying that we are going to continue to do what we have always done. That is why this legislation is about choice. This legislation is about raising achievement. This legislation is about transparency. It is about greater accountability in terms of our school trustees and their boards. It is about safer environments, through the search and surrender provisions. This legislation is incredibly important for those one in five children in New Zealand whose opportunities have been snuffed out too often because people have not been prepared to try some things differently. I support this bill to the select committee.

If the National Party is so proud of this charter schools model, why did National not put it in its manifesto before the last election? Why did not National members tell New Zealanders before the last election that this was what they wanted to do, if they are so proud of it? We know that National was working on it before the last election. Even though after the election National tried to deny it, the paper trail is clear. This process of charter schools started well before the election, and well before the famous cup of tea that did not turn out quite so well in the end. This whole charter schools idea was National’s idea, and its members did not tell New Zealanders about it before the election. If National members are so proud of it, why is it that they do not want these schools to be subject to the Official Information Act? If they are so confident that these schools are going to be the model exemplars for how education should be delivered in the future, why is it that they do not want the public to understand how they are operating? Why is it that they do not want to have the same level of scrutiny applied to those schools as does currently apply to public schools?

There is an absolute double standard operating here. On the one hand we have got the Government saying: “Well, we want to focus on the quality of teaching.” I support it in that. I also think we need to focus on the quality of teaching. I do not think we should have unregistered teachers in classrooms. So on the one hand the State schools are all told: “Focus on the quality of teaching. That is the thing that matters. But you charter schools, do not worry, do whatever you like. It doesn’t matter if you’ve got registered, qualified teachers or not. We’re going to have a different standard for the charter schools.”

Then it says: “Oh, and we want national standards. We want every school to be doing the same thing. But you charter schools, don’t worry about that. We’re not going to apply the national standards to charter schools. Oh no, they are going to have something entirely different.” Then it says that “Every State school in the country needs to be reporting to parents, based on the national standards. Oh no, but not you charter schools. You charter schools can do whatever you like, and we’re not going to make you subject to the Official Information Act.” So even if charter schools did test their kids under the national standards requirements, they would not be subject to the same standards. If charter schools did test kids under national standards, they would not be subject to the same transparency requirements of State schools.

In this very same piece of legislation, the Education Amendment Bill, the Government is telling boards of trustees that they should have student achievement as their primary focus. Name a school board of trustees that does not. Name a school board of trustees that is made up of parents who go into it with a view not to improve the student achievement of their own kids. Name one school board of trustees that does not have that. Why is it that the Government wants to apply that standard to public schools, and yet private schools, these new charter private schools, will be able to do whatever they like? They will not have that requirement. In fact, they will be able to focus on making a profit. There is nothing to stop a charter school from taking taxpayer money that was destined for education and turning a profit out of it.

What is the single biggest cost in delivering State education? What is the single biggest cost? Teachers—teachers are the single biggest cost. So if they want to make a profit out of it, where are they going to get their money from? Unqualified, unregistered teachers is where they are going to get their money from. That is where they will extract their profit from. Funnily enough, this bill allows them to employ unregistered and unqualified teachers. There is a total and utter double standard here. On the one hand, this Government is willing to go into every public school in the country and apply all of these extra bureaucratic requirements to them. Then, on the other hand, it is saying to charter schools “Go off and do whatever you like.” That is what it says to charter schools, and they are not going to be monitored.

We could have the “Exxon Mobil School for Climate Studies”. We could have the “McDonald’s School for Nutritional Studies”, the “Monsanto School for Genetic Engineering”, or the “Destiny Church School of Scientific Discovery”, because they would not have to teach to the curriculum. Charter schools do not have to teach the New Zealand curriculum. If the Destiny Church wanted to set up a charter school to teach creationism with unregistered, unqualified teachers, that is OK. Under this legislation—[Interruption] There is nothing wrong with it, I heard one of the National members say. Under this legislation that is exactly what would be allowed to happen. They would not have to teach to the New Zealand curriculum, which is a fantastic curriculum. It is recognised as one of the best curricula in the world. Other people come from around the world to New Zealand and say: “You guys have got an absolutely fantastic curriculum. We wish we had something like that one in New Zealand.” Now the Government is saying: “You charter schools do not have to worry about that. Do not worry about teaching the same thing the public schools are teaching—teach whatever you like.” There is an absolute double standard here.

But let us go back to a really big concern that I have, and that is that the Government is going to use the earthquake recovery process in Christchurch as an excuse to impose these charter schools on the people of Christchurch. I think that is absolutely disgraceful. I think the public schools in Christchurch have done an absolutely amazing job over the last 2 years of providing stability, consistency, and vital support to those kids who have been affected by the earthquakes. When the earthquakes happened some of those kids were at school for an extended period of time, and the schools did not even know whether the parents were going to be coming to collect them because they did not know what had happened to the parents. Those schools went out of their way to look after those kids and to provide those kids with stability and consistency, and they do not deserve to be the subject of this disgraceful process that the Government is currently undertaking in Christchurch. There is no other description for it than disgraceful.

What we are going to see now is the Government turning round and saying “Why not have some charter schools in here as well?”. The Government is going to force these Christchurch schools into merger and closure proposals, but in the same areas and in the same sites where it is proposing to close or merge public schools, there is absolutely nothing that says that one of these private operators could not go and set up a charter school in exactly the same place. The Government could close a public school and then a charter school could open in exactly the same place. They could even potentially take over the same buildings if the Government hocks them off, and this Government says that is OK.

So how is that process in Christchurch that it is undertaking now, supposedly around genuine consultation—“We have not made up our minds yet; we are just going to go out and announce a whole lot of concrete proposals.”—supposed to have any integrity or credibility, when public schools could be closed to make way for charter schools? I think that is disgraceful. I do not think that the kids of Christchurch deserve that. I do not think that they should be made the guinea pigs for this Government’s charter schools experiment, one that it has been working on for some time, and that it did not tell the New Zealand public about before the last election.

I want to turn to the comments that the Prime Minister, John Key, has made. He said earlier this year: “It’s not the class sizes that matter; it’s the quality of teaching that we’re getting in our schools.” John Key said that. He said “It’s not the class sizes that matter; it’s the quality of teaching that we’re getting in our schools.” But that is OK. We will not have any requirements on class sizes in charter schools. We will not have any requirements on teacher quality in charter schools. That is all OK. Then he said “Don’t get too hung-up about it.” That is what the Prime Minister said. He said to people who are worried about having unqualified teachers: “Don’t get too hung up about it.” I am sure he is relaxed about it. I am sure he is very, very relaxed about it.

The Government’s education agenda is all at sea. The one idea that National has managed to come up with to improve teacher quality in the time that it has been in Government is to increase class sizes. That is the one thing that it has come up with so far to increase the quality of teaching. All of its other major education initiatives have been about testing, form-filling, and bureaucratic exercises. The only thing it could come up with to improve teacher quality was to increase the size of classes. It is no wonder that the New Zealand public—parents in particular—are getting concerned about the National Government. Its own officials—the experts who provided National with advice on this—have said the “potential for a negative impact on students’ education from teachers who do not meet the minimum standards for the profession is high.” That was advice that the Government received. It received further advice that says that these proposals around unqualified and unregistered teachers could “significantly damage the credibility of the Crown.” That was the advice the Government got before it brought this bill to Parliament, and yet it went ahead anyway.

We know what this Government’s modus operandi is around consultation. It is to tell people what you want to do, go out and ask them what they think about it, and then just go ahead and do it anyway—forget about what people think. There is no such thing as meaningful consultation under this National Government. It just does whatever it likes anyway. This charter schools experiment is totally unjust, it is totally unnecessary, and it will not improve the quality of education in this country.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The political parties often say that we all want the same thing for our children in this country: the opportunity to fulfil their potential. I do believe that that is true, but, unfortunately, right here and right now, that is where the common ground stops. That great New Zealander the late Bruce Jesson once said “Only their purpose is mad.”, and from that mad purpose flows a logical Education Amendment Bill, which advances the privatisation agenda of the National-ACT Government. This bill has so many obvious issues of concern for parents, teachers, and communities that it is going to take some months to decipher, but there is also some interesting, obscure, disingenuous language that is raising concern in the community.

I am going to devote some time to the core issue, which others have touched on eloquently, around charter schools and the failed model that the Government is attempting to adopt. There are many other issues in the bill, not the least of which are the clauses on merging schools, where Christchurch is the front line of an incoherent experiment at the expense of an already destabilised series of local school communities, and may well see these things being implemented against the wishes of the schools’ students and parents. That will be paid for, I believe, at the ballot box—that is when—but it will not help the children, who do not need any more destabilisation in their lives. That also goes for vulnerable children who struggle in education because of poverty, inequality, or the lack of cultural appropriateness in schools. We are not avoiding issues here; we are saying that we need to innovate in the State sector, but we do not need to privatise.

There are clauses in this bill around boards of trustees, which the School Trustees Association has already raised issues on, and it has raised concerns about what I am calling the “do your best or else” clauses around student achievement. As others have said, who goes on a board unless it is for the good of students? All of us who have been on boards or who are on boards are there for the good of student achievement; we are not there to eat our not particularly generous lunch. So are these rhetorical clauses or will there be consequences for so-called failure? I suspect that consequences for failure are implicit in the description of the board’s so-called new role. There are also mysterious, alternative constitutions and board models that minimise parental involvement, which are going to cause major concerns.

Some other clauses include those around search and confiscation for students. These clauses may be useful if they clarify and limit some of the current practices, but at the same time they may also normalise unnecessary behaviour in schools towards the human rights of students. We are looking more deeply at that one to see whether it is going to be necessary and helpful or whether it is going to normalise a more pathological approach to student and school safety.

Another fascinating clause in the bill is around early childhood education and the leasing of public land for private development, for the profitable side of the early childhood education sector. It is a disturbing development, aimed at removing, again—there is a theme here, people—public assets and allowing the private-profit sector to make money out of that land.

There is another very disturbing aspect of this called the National Student Number for families where people believe that a child is unlikely to get early childhood education. It sounds like colour-coding to me. Is it a tool for facilitating Work and Income to punish parents who are not enrolling their children in early childhood education, or is it just a statistical, practical thing they need to do? That is something we will be asking at the Education and Science Committee.

Then, of course, there is the beauty, the jewel in the crown: the charter schools. I had the privilege of meeting Mike Feinberg from the Knowledge is Power Program, who wears that shirt saying “Work hard. Be nice.” But when I asked him about critical thinking—pedagogy that involved questioning why so many people in our country and his experience inequality—he was not interested in that. You do not question the status quo. You go into a no-excuses environment as students and—I am sorry, Mr Chair; you do not, and I hope no one else does—sign a contract. This is all about the contract. This is like the mafia. You sign a contract and you do the contract or you are in trouble.

I had the privilege of hanging out with Karen Harper-Royal from New Orleans, where they have lost all but six of their state schools because of disaster capitalism, and now they are all in charter schools. It is not working for those kids it is supposed to be working for. They end up being counselled out of these charter schools because they cannot meet the contract. And the contract as written in this current bill is exactly the same. It says that they must be in school for the hours in their timetable, which could be anything from 7 in the morning on a weekday to a Saturday afternoon. Who knows? The point is that there is no scrutiny, there is no public involvement, and there is limited parental involvement. That is what I learnt from Karen, who runs this group called Parents Across America. Parents Across America is trying to deal with the failure of a model that we are trying to adopt. It is very bizarre that we would do that, given that the Finns, who are also in New Zealand, represented by Dr Pasi Sahlberg, focus on equity of achievement and equity of participation, and they get the results that we need. When I hosted Pasi Sahlberg here at Parliament, with the National Party, and we had a conversation, it turned out that Finland actually has indigenous people, and it has the same issues that we struggle with. It has Sami and Roma people who fall through the cracks unless more resources are put into their indigenous languages in schools, which is what Finland is doing, and that is how it is improving. But, no, we are not going to do that. No, no, we are going to privatise instead.

This charter school scheme, this “Pepsi-Cola High”, as Chris Hipkins so rightly said, is on its way, not to mention the Destiny Church homophobia classes. You know, it is all possible. This scheme is going to be more expensive, more risky, and lower quality. The Government will deny it, but we have already seen in this country that every single little religious group, particularly some very fundamentalist groups that have strange ideas about what it is to be a human, and other groups that feel they need more cultural responsiveness, will be flocking to set up their schools. The fragmentation of society will follow. We will be paying a price not only for individual students but for society. We support equity as a goal and the right of communities, especially tangata whenua, to develop kura based on tikanga and Pasifika, but this is not it. This is the contract, and when the contract fails, all it does is reinforce the vulnerability of people and families who are already vulnerable.

One of the issues that comes up under the charter schools but which may also be applied across the board—it is unclear—is timetabling. This appears to apply to schools other than charter schools. It raises the question about what is the problem. At the moment we have flexible timetabling at some schools. Schools can set earlier and later start times. Or is this multiple timetabling really a way to double-bunk school facilities? Again, is it for charter schools to have the opportunity to force students into longer hours and weekends so they can rote learn and meet the standard, so that they can fulfil the contract? That is how it works in the other charter schools. You can rote learn. You have to get students rote learning by keeping them in for more hours, and then they will perform in order to meet the technocratic neo-liberal reductionist model of education, which has got nothing to do with real learning. Dropout rates from this kind of regime are notoriously high, particularly in overseas charter schools, because this mechanism forces performance in a way that hinders success and reinforces failure. So we have many issues with this.

Although the Government is determined to merge schools in Christchurch to save money, on the other hand it is setting up charter schools that are going to suck children from the surrounding schools, putting pressure on the State schools. It is not only irrational; it is wrong. And the Government can hire whomever it likes to be a teacher. National members appear to think that any person can come into a classroom, plan a curriculum, engage the students, set learning goals, and create proper assessment options. You do not need any professional experience to do that! It is just something that you can make up as you go along. That will work for the most vulnerable! The heart of our system, which is why we are seventh in the world, is that only registered teachers with a practising certificate should be able to teach children on a permanent basis. We are not denying the role of school support staff and volunteers; we are saying that the leadership must be from people who understand pedagogy. I dispute the idea that somebody who happens to be enthusiastic can walk off the street and actually deliver the kind of evaluation and pedagogy required. They can support, but they cannot lead, and they should not be there as a school leader. And that is why, despite the fact that in international terms we are underfunded, we do have good schools. They can be better. The new charter schools have been given a blanket waiver, for the reason that we have had the success that we have had. That is arguably legislative vandalism. But the worst thing is the secrecy. The worst thing is this secret contract with the sponsor, who, again, does not need any qualifications. There is no accountability for that person. Again, it can be anyone. It could be anyone involved in the business community who might like to make money. That is fine.

So, in summary, I fear that we are looking at a giant Ponzi scheme that is going to fail our kids. We have a positive view of public education, and we will be fighting this bill to the end.

It is a pleasure to take a call during the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill. I must commend the Ministers Hekia Parata and John Banks for the way that they are managing the education system. I would use the words that Dr Stuart Middleton uses: it is about relevance in education. I see that this bill does address relevance. It also represents a Government that has got an unrelenting focus on achievement. It is so important that we get all our children off to a very positive start, that we then know how they are doing, that we give those parents choice, and that those choices are available to those most vulnerable children. The one disappointment I have is that it is very unlikely that we will have a partnership school in Marlborough. I would certainly welcome one. It would be wonderful to see, but I do think that they will have their opportunity within the cities. When you have those children, when you go to the various schools in the cities and they look at you, they all have that shiny aspiration. If you go and see them, they do have that shiny aspiration in their eyes and they want to achieve.

This bill is a serious step forward. I am so pleased to see that we have the opportunity now of using appropriately qualified individuals who may not be teacher-registered according to the Teachers Council, but who do have that ability to teach and inspire. If it is one thing for a person who has been affected a little bit by not being able to get those teachers in front of schools, and tradespeople, in actual fact we now do have that vehicle within the charter and partnerships schools situation. There is a lot of work to be done here. I am looking forward to working with the Science and Education Committee, and that will be wonderful. Thank you very much. I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora. I rise to speak on the Education Amendment Bill, and I want to start with something that I agree with. I want to start by saying that I agree with Nikki Kaye when she says that this bill is a pivotal bill for this country inside education. However, I think it is in the wrong direction. But I would also say that if Ms Kaye was actually the Minister of Education I would have greater faith and greater trust that open-mindedness would take part on both sides of the House in the conversation. So I am sorry that Ms Kaye is not the current Minister of Education, because I actually believe that she cares for the children of this country and that she understands, has an open mind, and is prepared to work cross-party to make things right for the children of this country.

None of us denies that 20 percent failing or not achieving at their best is not good enough. But I also want to acknowledge that in that 20 percent are a large number of special-needs children—the parents of them were out there today—who have had their special-needs units closed, who are going to be put into mainstream schools, and who are trapped by national standards. Add to that those numbers of children who are not going to be cared for in any way, shape, or form by this amendment bill. So I start with something that I agree with, and it is the quality of Ms Kaye inside this House.

I also want to say that I agree with the surrender and retention clauses in this bill, and I am pleased to see them there. As a current member of a board of trustees, I am pleased to not have to have the conversation in the future with some more virulent members of boards that they cannot bring drug dogs into the school once every week just because they think it looks cool. So I am very pleased that there will be some structure around the search and seizure abilities of the school boards of trustees.

I want to remind the House that when New Zealand First came into this House we said we would vote for good legislation, and we would vote against bad. The way this is worded right now is bad. It is not going to achieve what I think is truly the desire of the Government, which is to start to lift those one in five. I do not believe that this is the way forward. I believe it is going in the opposite direction, and the fact that Mr John Banks quotes from 1938 to justify this bill indicates that he is nowhere near a 21st century learning environment.

It is actually scary that Mr Banks has got anything to do with this bill, quite frankly. However, I do not think we should blame Mr Banks for this bill being here, because this work was done and was started prior to any agreement being signed with the ACT Party. I do not want the National Government to have an excuse that when this goes bad, it is going to blame it on MMP. This was National’s idea. The Secretary for Education was hired some months before the parties actually signed an agreement, so the Government cannot blame this on MMP. This came from its Cabinet.

This Government has turned the word “choice” into a weapon. It is using it to bash every public institution to death, quite frankly. It has altered the meaning of that word and has turned it into a weapon against education, against health, and against our public servants. Part 1 of this bill actually has a statement about the “Right to free primary and secondary education”. We all agree with that. But how about the right to know what your taxpayer dollar is being spent on? Why are these schools not included in any Official Information Act requests? Why have they been exempted? I am very, very concerned.

The bill actually says that charter schools are required to abide by the discipline procedures that are inside the legislation. I am very pleased to see that. However, they are exempt from the Ombudsmen Act. At the end of the discipline procedure, when a child is excluded or expelled from any school, the last point of complaint is to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman can actually seek the records from go to whoa with regard to the discipline procedure, to make sure that the processes of natural justice were carried out and that the board did not unduly influence or unduly require those parents to remove their child. That has been removed from charter schools. That means that charter schools can exclude or expel students with nobody knowing why, with nobody having any oversight as to whether natural justice was a part of that process or what support mechanisms were put in by the schools to try to keep that child engaged in education. That is a major concern. I hope we can discuss it further at the Education and Science Committee.

How about the right to be consulted by your Government before it decides to close or merge your school? I mean, that is another little issue that has come up in here. With regard to that, I asked the Minister a question in the House the other day about whether, for any Christchurch schools that would be merged, the current 3-month period inside the Education Act 1989—the 3-month time frame by which new boards of trustees’ elections must be called for any merged schools—would stand. She said to me that, yes, this bill removes that clause. This bill allows the Minister to decide to not do that. What that means to two schools being merged is—and I want to point out here too that the Secretary for Education has actually been quoted as saying that New Zealand was too immature for Tomorrow’s Schools when it was introduced and that we needed to get rid of primary schools a long time ago. She said that in a public meeting.

It does not give a great deal of confidence when the next thing you see is a clause in here saying that schools can be merged, but there is a removal of the requirement to hold a democratic process to elect the board of trustees to a school. That means that the Minister could actually merge primary, intermediate, and secondary schools into an educational hub, decide that the secondary school board was going to be the governing body, and that is it. Nobody else in that community for a 3-year period gets an opportunity to actually participate in the governance of their school. And what boards of trustees do—let us now go to section 75 in clause 16—is that they are elected representatives of their parental communities, who set the direction after consultation with their communities, through their vision statement, through their charter, and then through the management with the annual plan. That is actually the first rung of the democratic process, and this clause is another attack on it. This clause looks like another attack on that process.

Also, inside the charter schools provision I do not see any provision for that communication—for that partnership, shall we say—with those communities. There is a sponsor and there is an owner—a private owner of a school. I do not even see it in here, actually. I am happy to work with the Education and Science Committee and be proven wrong, but even under private schools when a body is appointed by the owners of those schools, that is not mentioned in here either. So it looks like the sponsor rules.

If ever there was a clause that shows you that this is just a business, then it is clause 23. “Partnership school” is another term that has been taken and, unfortunately, manipulated by this Government. There is no partnership in here—there is no partnership in here. Tomorrow’s Schools created a triangle of support for our students. It brought home and school together for the benefit of the student. There is no elected board. There is a sponsor that runs the school. There certainly is a contract that nobody can see, but there is also now a business leader in charge of the school—not a teaching professional, and not a person who necessarily has any idea about teaching. How can that person judge the educational outcomes? By what criteria can they judge the educational outcomes or the quality of teaching and learning that is happening there? They cannot. They are a business leader. They can tell you—and I was going to use these dreaded words—how much profit they can get from the bulk funding that is going to happen inside these schools by saving on non-registered teachers, or by cutting back on this, that, or the other thing, but they will not be able to adequately report on the teaching and learning and the quality of it inside those schools.

This is me just scratching the surface. We need a long time at the select committee. We need to hear this, and maybe we might get something right.

It is a pleasure to take a call on this, the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill. I want to thank the Associate Minister of Education John Banks, as well as the Minister of Education, Hekia Parata, as well as Catherine Judd, for the work they have done on bringing this bill to the House. What does this bill show? It shows that this Government is committed to ensuring that every young New Zealander has the skills and qualifications required to successfully participate in our modern economy. We agree with members across the House that we have a great education system in this country, and we have some of the highest spending in the OECD on education. But we can do better.

What is the problem? Our Government inherited an education system that saw one in five students leaving school without the ability to read, write, and do maths. That means that their ability to contribute to society is limited. It means that it leads to a high level of welfare dependency, and it leads to crime and incarceration. In terms of National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2, which is considered entry level for jobs, 31 percent of school leavers are currently leaving school without NCEA level 2. For Māori and Pacific students it is even worse—52 percent for Māori, and 41 percent for Pacific. That is a travesty for those students, it is a travesty for their families and their communities, and it is a travesty for this country.

So what is this bill going to change? This bill is aimed at solving the long tail of underachievement in our education sector.

💬 Sue Moroney: How?

The measures in this bill will lead to the goal that we have set out for 85 percent of 18-year-olds having NCEA level 2 or better by 2017. Members opposite ask us how. Here is how, madam. It is about establishing clearer surrender and retention provisions, which Nikki Kaye talked about, and which will contribute towards learning environments that are both safe and conducive to positive student achievement. The bill also supports getting children into early childhood education earlier, by enabling the ministry to assign a National Student Number to children likely to benefit from attending early childhood education services. It also makes other amendments for provisions such as flexible school timetabling, as well as clear expectations for boards of trustees.

I held a public meeting in Maungakiekie, and the feedback from parents was encouraging. They wanted to find out more about these schools and how they worked, and how they could better improve outcomes for their children and their grandchildren. I have also met with a number of Pasifika groups. They have said that they are open to partnership schools being part of Pasifika learning in this country.

I also went to a charter school in the United States called E L Haynes. E L Haynes is a school that is full of minority kids—95 percent. What the data shows is that student achievement was recorded at 77 percent of students proficient or advanced in maths, and 64 percent proficient or advanced in reading. That compares with the state averages of 43 percent and 44 percent, respectively. This is about the educational outcomes of our children, and it is about doing something different to address the long tale of underachievement. It will give our parents, our communities, and our young people a choice. Although we are making great progress in education, we can and need to do better. I welcome and fully support this bill, and I look forward to debating this bill as it goes forward. Thank you.

It is really sad that none of the National members of Parliament can spend more than 3 minutes espousing the virtues of charter schools, because there just are not any. I noticed that Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, who has just spoken, barely got to 3 minutes before he had to start talking about other aspects of the Education Amendment Bill, so devoid of merit is this idea of charter schools. But you have only to look at the sponsoring Ministers to understand that.

I think it must be an absolute embarrassment to the Government that the Minister who began the first reading debate on this legislation was the “Minister for Amnesia”, John Banks. He is a sponsoring Minister of this legislation. Can anyone opposite tell me of a Minister who lacks credibility more than the Minister who started off this demolition to our education system? Well, maybe there is one other, and that is the other sponsoring Minister—the Minister in charge of the bill, actually—Hekia Parata. Can anyone tell me of two Ministers who are more lacking in credibility at the moment than the duo of Hekia Parata and John Banks? It is like Batman and Robin gone wrong. They are the two Ministers sponsoring this bill, and that is probably just about all New Zealanders need to know about whether this is going to be successful or not.

Those two Ministers are the Ministers who have wrecked education already. The best idea that Hekia Parata has had in her short time as the Minister of Education was that she wanted to dumb down our education system by—yes—increasing class sizes. That is the qualification that Hekia Parata has for being the Minister in charge of this bill. Then there is John Banks, who is the co-sponsoring Minister. Well, this was a deal done over the teacups, and it has gone bad from there on in.

This bill has nothing to do with increasing student achievement. When the last speaker spoke he alerted us to that, because where was he drawing inspiration from for his speech? He drew it from a country and an area that has much, much worse educational outcomes than New Zealand. He quoted those much worse educational outcomes in New Zealand and said “Why don’t we do what they’re doing?”. Well, that is the big mistake that is going on here. Those members opposite are so devoid of ideas that they are copying countries that are below us in the world rankings in student achievement.

Clearly, this bill has absolutely not one thing to do with student achievement, so what is it about? Well, it is about putting money into the pockets of the likes of Destiny Church. Destiny Church is lining up to become a charter school with no rules and regulations—no rules and regulations. It will have a whole pile of taxpayer money but no accountability back to the public, because—listen to this—the Destiny Church will not be under the Official Information Act as a charter school. There will be no scrutiny from the public about how the Destiny Church is using taxpayer money on its little venture under the guise of charter schools, which, apparently, the members opposite are inviting us to believe, and are trying to trick the public into believing, are about improving student achievement.

I think that all of the New Zealand public listening to this debate will understand that the motivation for the Destiny Church in operating a charter school will not be primarily about student achievement. It has other agendas, and so will many, many other groups that will be lining up behind Destiny Church to get their hands on taxpayer money with no accountability—no accountability—because the Official Information Act will not apply for taxpayers to find out what is really happening to their dollar in the schools with no rules and, if necessary, no qualified teachers.

There is nothing in the legislation that we are debating here today that actually requires any qualified or registered teacher to be in any one of these schools. If I am wrong, I invite the next National Party speaker to put that straight, because I can see nowhere in this legislation where there is a requirement for a charter school to have any registered teacher on its staff. But it is no surprise coming from that party.

I do not know what National has got against qualified and registered teachers, but it started this in the early childhood education sector. National started this in 2010 when it decided to cut the funding that actually supported the employment of qualified teachers in early childhood education. That party said then that it did not believe in having 100 percent qualified teachers in early childhood education, so it cut the funding that actually underpinned and allowed the sector to employ qualified teachers. The writing was on the wall then. It started in early childhood education. Now it is attacking the rest of the education sector with this idea that anyone will do—anyone will do. It does not need to be anyone who understands the pedagogy or has any—any—training in the art and the craft of teaching.

So that is the vision for this country. It is really very disappointing, because only a few months ago John Key was trying to convince parents that it is not the class sizes that matter but the quality of teaching that we are getting in our schools. That was John Key, just a few months ago. Now he is telling New Zealanders: “Oh don’t get hung up on the fact that teachers without qualifications will be able to teach New Zealand children at charter schools.” It is another flip-flop from this Prime Minister.

It is disappointing because New Zealanders need to be able to take their Prime Minister at his word. They need to be able to take their Prime Minister at his word, but this clearly shows that they cannot, because one minute he is saying that it is the quality of teachers that matters, and then, the next minute, he is saying “Oh, don’t get hung up if you haven’t got a qualified teacher in front of your child’s class. It doesn’t matter.” You cannot take this Prime Minister at his word, as has clearly been demonstrated.

I think it is a sad time for New Zealanders when they cannot trust what the Prime Minister says. Yesterday he was trying to tell New Zealanders that he voted for the age of 20 for alcohol law reform, but the record clearly shows that he voted for it to be kept at 18. We are now getting into territory where it is very, very difficult for New Zealanders to trust anything that their Prime Minister says. He said that it is the quality of teachers that matters, not the class size. He says: “You know, don’t worry your pretty little heads about that, parents, because Prime Minister John knows best.” Well, “Prime Minister John” has now changed his mind. “Prime Minister John” now says that the quality of teaching does not matter. It is because he has run out of ideas, though. That is why he is changing his mind—he has run out of ideas along with the rest of them over there.

So devoid are National members of any ideas about how to actually improve our educational outcomes in this country that they are now looking to countries like the United States and the UK for inspiration. Well, here is some news for the members opposite. Those countries have worse, significantly worse, educational achievement and student achievement than we do right now in New Zealand. Why are they looking to countries that fail to improve student education instead of actually looking at and enhancing the success that New Zealand has always had? I would argue that a significant amount of that success has been because of the quality of our teachers, not because we are dumbing down the education system as that Government is inclined to do—as it has proven time and time again.

This is very bad legislation. I am proud that the Labour Party is opposing this. I think it tells New Zealand that we are going to need a Labour-led Government to get any progress and a quality education for our children.

Choice, opportunity, and hope—choice, opportunity, and hope. That is what this Education Amendment Bill is about. It is an enormous pleasure for me to stand in support of this Education Amendment Bill in its first reading. I am looking forward as a member of the Education and Science Committee to participating in the debate. I want to congratulate the Hon John Banks on introducing the bill into the House. I am supporting the Hon Hekia Parata because this is a bill that provides choice, opportunity, and hope for New Zealand children.

Like my colleague Colin King, who spoke earlier on in this debate, and who was disappointed that it is unlikely that a partnership school will come to his electorate, I too am saddened that it is unlikely one will come to the very good area of Coromandel, because our kids and our parents would want one. I commend this bill to the House.

I am going to call the next member, Dr Megan Woods. A split call, by the way.

Yes, it is. What would be really good when we are debating something as fundamental as introducing a new form of education in this country is to hear some full calls from members opposite to actually tell us why it is that they think this will make a difference to the New Zealand education system, and to not hear slogans—choice, opportunity, and hope coming to a place near you. Well, no, it is not, if charter schools are all they have got. This bill should not be called the Education Amendment Bill; it should be called the “Education Demolition Bill”, because this is what charter schools in this country are going to be about. I am very much, as a member of the Education and Science Committee, looking forward to having this piece of legislation come before us. Hopefully, we will have adequate time to consider this. We do not, will not, and never will agree to National’s charter schools. There is simply—

💬 Simon O’Connor: Ideologues.

We are not ideologues. We simply are dealing in evidence, and there is no evidence that charter schools work. In fact, Mr O’Connor, I refer you to a 2009 Center for Research on Education Outcomes research from Stanford University. It shows that 37 percent of students in charter schools perform significantly worse than students in other schools. They simply do not work. All we have from the party opposite is a deal done over the teacups to get it back into power, and it is our children who are going to suffer. They are going to have unqualified teachers in their classrooms. The children of this country are going to be used like guinea pigs. What we know from the international evidence is that they simply do not perform any better. What this is about is ideology from the other side.

This is about making education for profit. I would like to read from the general policy statement in the commentary to the legislation. It says: “The sponsor will sign a contract with the Crown that sets out the responsibilities and obligations of both parties.” Hard to imagine we are talking about schools, education, and the future of our children when we have to read sentences like that. For me, education is not about contracts and what to sign in terms of setting out the obligations and the responsibilities. We have over 100 years of an education system that has worked out exactly what those rights and responsibilities and obligations are, and it is working. We have an education system that we can rightly be proud of. We have an education system that performs better than in the countries from where they are modelling what will be this failed experiment.

Hekia Parata has told us this is all about student achievement. It is just irony that she is telling school boards to focus on student achievement in the same bill that allows the setting up of charter schools, which are focused on turning a profit and not on educating our children. For me, there should be one outcome from a school, and that is giving a child the best start in life. This is not what this bill is doing, and members opposite cannot even take full calls to justify how this will be the case. If you are going to make change of this kind of magnitude, then we would actually like to hear what you have got to say.

Where is it that we are focusing these schools on? It is, not surprisingly, Christchurch. Christchurch is going to be a target. We have seen this in other places. Charter schools do not work. They simply have not shown that they work in other places. This is about a National Government that is running out of ideas. It has no ideas for how it is that we can make this country a better place—a place where we do have opportunity and everybody has choice, and certainly where people have something more to hope for than hoping their flight to Australia is on time. What we need to do is make sure that we are putting our children first, and this bill most certainly does not do that.

This Education Amendment Bill represents the biggest shake-up in education this country has seen in decades, and this comes at a time when New Zealand has been amongst the world leaders in education for over a decade.

The latest OECD report from 2012 reviewing and evaluating the assessment of education in New Zealand confirmed this view, and again the Programme for International Student Assessment confirmed this view. In the latest survey New Zealand students were ranked fourth in the OECD in reading literacy, fourth in scientific literacy, and seventh in mathematical literacy. It is not easy to maintain these rankings, but New Zealand has consistently maintained these rankings since they were introduced in 2000. In contrast, Australia has recorded a significant decline, England has also slipped significantly, and the US—the home of charter schools—has managed to be only about average in the OECD. New Zealand is better than average. I do not want to see us reduced to average.

Although I say this, I am not in any way suggesting that there is not room for improvement. A proportion of our young people—one in five, as we keep on hearing from that side of the House—are not achieving their full potential. I am not going to minimise the significance of that, because the Greens want every child to be able to reach their potential.

But when the Waitangi Tribunal, after hearing all the evidence, found that the Crown had failed kōhanga due to Government policy and funding decisions, we can see where some of the problems lie. When the Government has withdrawn funding for the very few Pacific language resources that we had, we can see where some of the problems lie. When feedback regarding ongoing resourcing scheme funding has been identifying significant barriers for students with disabilities for years, we can see where some of the problems lie. When 270,000 children in this country are living in poverty and the medical evidence shows a direct correlation between poverty and IQ development—and we know that it is hard to learn when you are hungry or worried sick about your parents—we can see where some of the problems lie. The failure lies at the feet of the Government, not our schools.

This bill seeks to shift the blame. It is a “psycho-ACT” of transference—

💬 Hon Member: A what?

I know, it was a good line, was it not? I quite liked that. To try to lift educational achievement for the bottom quintile by ignoring all of these factors, and setting up charter schools and forcing national standards, is counter-productive, to put it in my most minimal, non-emotive terms.

The Education Policy Response Group, which consists of 12 College of Education experts, reviewed charter schools in other countries, and looked at the evidence and at what it would mean for New Zealand. The group convener, Professor Emeritus Ivan Snook, noted: “The evidence is clear that charter schools have the potential to cause harm to the very groups of students they are supposed to help.”

I will echo the group’s final warning, which has been proven overseas, that charter schools cream the most motivated or talented students from other schools and cleanse their own schools of those who are most difficult or expensive to teach, and they distort the fair distribution of teachers across the system and siphon money away from existing programmes for most disadvantaged students. So that is this Government’s response to the one in five who are trailing—to take and take and take. I know which babies are going to be thrown out in this ideological bath, and it will not help any of them to live good lives or have fair futures.

If this debate was about rhetoric without reason from the Opposition, there would be A-pluses, buzzy bees, and little smiley faces. All you have heard from the Opposition is empty, empty rhetoric. The core element of this Education Amendment Bill, of this initiative, is to continue to lift the achievements of students in this country. It is about engaging with providers to provide education that is based on outputs and success. A good idea does not need lengthy debate at this point. What it needs is to get to the Education and Science Committee to be discussed and to get into opportunity. So on that level I will leave it, and I look forward to giving that smiley face to the Opposition for the art of empty rhetoric.