Education Amendment Bill (No 2)

Mr Chairman, as I begin my contribution on Part 2 can I just confirm with you that the debate on the schedules was all conducted under Part 1—am I correct?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Correct.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Part 2 pertains to the consequential amendments that are created by the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). It does result in amendments to the Crown Entities Act, the Education Standards Act, the Ombudsmen Act, the Privacy Act, the State Sector Act, the Education (Early Childhood Centres) Regulations 1998, the Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations 2008, and the Education (Registration of Early Childhood Services Teachers) Regulations 2004.

Primarily, what these amendments do is replace existing references to the New Zealand Teachers Council with references to the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, which, of course, highlights one of the follies of this legislation, which is the renaming of the body for no good reason whatsoever—a move that has, in fact, come up against very popular opposition from individuals within the sector who wanted to see the word “teaching” remain within the title of the organisation. This bill could have given effect to its desired changes without the need to change the name of the organisation, and therefore, it would not have needed to—

💬 Hon Member: It’s a waste of money.

It is a waste of money. All of these consequential amendments would not actually have been necessary. The only reason these consequential amendments are necessary is that, against overwhelming opposition, the name of the organisation has been changed from the New Zealand Teachers Council to the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, thus resulting in changes to the Crown Entities Act, the Education Standards Act, and the Ombudsmen Act.

This is important because, of course, the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand does fall under the ambit of the Ombudsman, and I think that that is an important protection. It was also a specified agency for the purposes of the Privacy Act 1993. I think that that is really important because, of course, the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand does deal with a number of very sensitive and private matters, and it needs to navigate those carefully. Of course, issues around privacy have been quite contentious within the Teachers Council, which is now being replaced; therefore, ensuring that the Privacy Act continues to apply is important. However, I would note that throwing out, effectively, the existing organisation, the Teachers Council, and creating an entirely new entity, the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, does potentially mean that all of that good work that has gone on in the last year or so, specifically around issues of privacy, could well be discarded, and it would have to start again. I think that was one of the major criticisms that came out at the Education and Science Committee—that in fact, while the Teachers Council had had a rocky start, it was improving and it was getting better.

Privacy is very important and there were some very controversial issues that the Teachers Council was dealing with, with input from the Privacy Commissioner, around what information should be disclosed, around individual complaints, and around what should be withheld. The Teachers Council had had a blanket suppression previously, and with a lot of public input, including from the Privacy Commissioner, it changed that so that there was more of a presumption of the release of that information, and that is important. I think that in making these changes and in changing the name of the organisation, this amendment should not just slot a new name in for an old name. We should be focused on—Parliament and the Government should be focused on—ensuring that all of the good work that has been done by the Teachers Council around the issues of privacy are carried over to that new organisation, because although they have had some very challenging circumstances in the past, I believe that they have made significant progress on those matters in the last little while.

The issue around the incorporation of the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand under the State Sector Act 1988 is also controversial because of the changing nature of the organisation. Although the Teachers Council was also covered under the State Sector Act of 1988, the new Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand—which will now also come under the ambit of the State Sector Act 1988—is different because of some of the changes that have been made around issues like the code of conduct. Teachers could now find themselves subject to codes of conduct issued by the State Services Commission under the State Sector Act that relate to the entire Public Service. I do not know whether that was the Government’s intention but by simply replacing the reference to the Teachers Council with the reference to the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, taken in conjunction with other changes that this bill makes, it could result, in fact, in the teaching profession being covered by State sector provisions that the Government and Parliament did not intend. So I would like to get some reassurance that that is not going to be case, and that this, what should be a relatively simple amendment, does not actually have an unintended consequence of extending the ambit when taken in conjunction with other provisions in the legislation.

I think it would be very unfortunate if the Government was seen to be gagging the teaching profession in any way by bringing it under the provisions of the State Sector Act that previously had not applied to it. That was a concern that was raised at the select committee, and I think that that reassurance would not be an unreasonable one for people to expect the Government to answer to.

Finally, the other Acts that are referenced here include the Education Standards Act of 2001—of course, there is nothing substantive in that because, in fact, there is very little substantive in the Act itself. That was the Act amended by the Government after the election in 2008, and I do not think that that is going to make much difference. The Education (Early Childhood Centres) Regulations—again, I do not think that there will be much substantive change there simply by replacing the names.

So overall, although these are technical amendments, there are still one or two issues that I think could be resolved to ensure that those Privacy Act issues are dealt with by the new agency, to ensure that we are not reinventing the wheel, and to ensure that teachers are not inadvertently covered by sections of the State Sector Act as a result of other changes in the legislation. Those are also important things, and I hope that the Committee can gain some reassurance on those.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 21 in the name of the Hon Hekia Parata to Part 2 be agreed to.

We have Chris Hipkins’ amendments to Part 2 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 22, which are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision that rejected renaming the education council—Supplementary Order Paper 22. We move to Catherine Delahunty’s amendments to Part 2 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 28. These are also out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision that rejected the renaming of the education council—Supplementary Order Paper 28.

A party vote was called for on the question that Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

There is a matter of procedure here. If a member of a party is in the Chamber, they must cast their own vote. You cannot have a whip for another party cast the vote. In this case, I will ask the Clerk at the Table to ask the ACT member what the ACT Party vote is.