Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill.

The aim of this bill is to align the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities more closely with the New Zealand curriculum, and provide an aspirational vision for the future of young New Zealanders. The National Education and Learning Priorities were passed as part of the Education (Update) Amendment Bill, which did pass into law in May last year. Unfortunately the priorities, or the NELP, as educators call them, are just lacking a wee bit in their language, and they don’t have a strong alignment with the New Zealand curriculum. It is that that I am trying to rectify with this bill, and that is really important, because the language is incredibly important for putting our children and our students at the centre, and putting our very, very strong curriculum in this country back at the centre of learning.

Many individuals and national education groups at that time wanted to engage in this discussion, and many of them—in fact, quite a large number—did submit to the Education and Science Committee back at the time. The concern is that the suggestions that came from those people and those groups weren’t reflected back into the documents that came through, and the bill wasn’t changed at all as drafted. Therefore, there was a bit of a disconnect that came between the NELP and the New Zealand curriculum.

As an educator at the time, I was really disappointed about that, because it seemed to be that the NELP put more emphasis on academic success than on the roundedness of the whole New Zealand child, of the learner at the centre, as the curriculum does. It almost seemed that the NELP took away from the mana, for want of a better word, of the curriculum, and that’s a real concern in this country, because our curriculum documents are world leading. They are absolutely and simply stunning documents, and, as educators, we never ever got the opportunity to really implement those curriculum documents well, before we were bogged down with other administrative requirements, such as national standards, that were put upon us.

The New Zealand curriculum is made up of several documents, and that includes the iwi documents as well, but the main documents that we have are Te Whāriki, which is the early childhood document, and then the national curriculum, which is made up of The New Zealand Curriculum and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa. So Te Whāriki is underpinned by a vision for children who “are competent and confident learners and communicators, healthy in mind, body and spirit, secure in their sense of belonging and in the knowledge that they make a valued contribution to society.” Not much different to that is the direction of The New Zealand Curriculum and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa, which set the direction for student learning. Although both come from very different perspectives, they both start with a vision of young people developing the competencies they need for study, work, and lifelong learning, so that those young people can go on to realise their potential.

All three of those documents have been touted as world leading. We get educators from all around the world that come to this country and will say to us what a fantastic curriculum we have, from early childhood right through. But I have had people who have asked me why we aren’t using that curriculum more, and that’s where the language becomes really, really important. It becomes really important because the over-umbrella education learning priorities in this country need to reflect that curriculum, and it needs to be overt for the educators and the parents and the learners in this country.

At the time when the NELP were introduced, there was a huge concern from people that made submissions to the select committee that the richness of the New Zealand curriculum was being undermined. Again, I go back to the point that this is what this bill is aiming to rectify and to add to the richness of diversity in the learning environment. Why was there concern about it being undermined? The concern of it being undermined came with a strong focus on an academic situation in the set-up and in the wording and the writing of the bill. This bill directly aligns the wording with the graduate profile and principles of Te Marautanga o Aotearoa, the key competencies of the New Zealand curriculum, and the principles and strands of Te Whāriki. This bill has a focus on the whole child, and putting the child back at the centre again.

Other concerns that this bill works to address, which came from the select committee submissions at the time, were the concerns around the consultation. At that time when the bill was written up, the consultation was—it had to happen that the Minister of the time has to consult, but it was with people who the Minister at the time deems to be whom they feel are important to consult with. This bill gives a minimum of people that the Minister has to consult with. First and foremost, the Minister has to consult with children, and then he or she must consult with national representative organisations of teachers, principals, school boards of trustees, early childhood centres, and parents. So, the whole idea around that is that we are front-footing any further issues, because we’re consulting with those people right from the outset, and it’s really heartening to me that right at the top of that list is children. So once again, I go back and I’ve said it three times now and I say it again: putting the children back at the centre of the learning.

Another issue that people had with this bill, with the NELP when they were entered into the last bill, was that there was concern around minor changes and that the Minister could make minor changes without going back through consultation, but it never ever defined what those minor changes were. At the time, people were told by the select committee that it was possibly that those minor changes might be grammatical errors or spelling errors, but that’s never been defined in the bill. So through open transparency, this bill rectifies that issue and says that the minor change “is limited to a technical, short, and uncontroversial amendment that does not change or extend [the] policy of the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities.” So it’s very clear to everyone what those minor changes would be and when the Minister wouldn’t need to go back to consult again.

So I’m really happy with the direction that this bill is actually taking the NELP. The NELP were controversial at the time, but, as I said, the sector at the time and the parents wanted to consult in that wider conversation around the national direction that education was going in. So, I believe that the changes in this particular bill would address those concerns that those people had. We’re not that far away from when we actually put this into the law in the first place, so this would be a perfect time to change this, to give people a sense of surety around what was happening with the National Education and Learning Priorities.

It is good to see that this bill—and I was so glad today to see our Minister of Education, the Hon Chris Hipkins, announce the Government’s extensive education portfolio work programme. And I was really, really happy with that because I could see how this bill actually works very well to have those conversations, because in those conversations that happen, where the public will be invited in to be involved in that work, we will be able to have the conversation to help set the NELP. So with that, I commend this bill to the House.

I am pleased to speak on this bill. I do want to say at the outset that National will be opposing this bill, but can I acknowledge that it’s a big deal as a pretty new member of this House to have a bill drawn out of the ballot, and can I congratulate her for bringing a bill to this House and for doing the work that she’s done.

Now, the reason that we are opposing this bill is we believe that it is really important to be honest that this is a case that it is really what we call a ballot bill stuff-up. The reason for that is if you look at what actually the bill is doing, it is making very minor amendments around the national education and learning priorities (NELP), and I’ll give you an example of that. So if you actually look at the content—and, again, I would ask people who are watching at home: is this a good use of Parliament’s time to change a phrase from “resilience, determination, confidence, [and] creative and critical thinking,” and to add a couple of words at the end? We think that when you look at the bill, clearly on the other side of the House they didn’t want National members to have bills coming out of the ballot, and they thought “We’ll make a few tweaks to the NELP and that will enable us to have a bill in the ballot.”, and we don’t think that’s a great use of Parliament’s time.

I’ll give you another example: one of the statements in the NELP that was passed by the last National Government, which went through a select committee process, was the phrase “good social skills and the ability to form good relationships”. Well, now what that’s changed to in this bill is the word “good” to “positive”, and others. We would argue, again—let’s just be a little bit honest in this Parliament about what this bill is doing: it’s tweaking a few words. That’s not necessarily a great use of Parliament’s time.

And then the second thing that this bill does—and, again, we think people should understand exactly what is occurring here—is that there is already the provision within the Education (Update) Amendment Act, which went through Parliament reasonably recently, to enable wide consultation with the public, so the only thing that this bill does then is it puts in and describes some of that consultation. When you look at the various different parties—and I think if I just refer you to clause 5, where it talks about children, national representative organisations of teachers, and national representative organisations of principals—this is pretty obvious, actually. The current NELP enables wide consultation, so this is not needed in any possible shape or form.

Again, we really want to acknowledge the member Jan Tinetti. She has put some work in, but we do believe in being incredibly honest about the fact that this is not a great use of Parliament’s time. There is nothing in here that is dramatically going to change the world for a whole lot of young people and lift achievement. It is a bit symbolic in terms of what we did hear today from this Government. There is a lot of hui but very little dooey. My previous colleague the honourable Sandra Goudie used to use that phrase. But, again, we saw this today with the Minister’s announcements that we are going to have three years of discussion, and it feels very symbolic that we have this bill that is really about tweaks. It’s not going to lift achievement. It’s not going to help those kids who are in partnership schools. It’s not going to help those parents know more about how their child is doing—whether it’s the Government scrapping national standards. It’s not going to change the game in terms of 21st century learning.

The NELP was put in place to ensure that we all had a common understanding of the objectives and goals in education, and this bill will not dramatically and fundamentally lift opportunities for young people. That’s why we’re not supporting it. We don’t think it’s a great use of Parliament’s time. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Thank you. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to this bill. Firstly, can I acknowledge Jan Tinetti and her considerable years of experience in education and the obvious passion she brings to the House in this area. So I congratulate her on her efforts and the intent she brings to the House with this member’s bill. Congratulations.

By way of context, what we’re trying to do here is basically by way of amendment in legislation simply have some formal acknowledgment that that National Party on that side of the House very much developed a cookie cutter, factory kind of method way of putting our young children through the education system. They weren’t worried about individual learning, about the children themselves; it was about a process, and that was what was more important to them.

Under the previous legislation, as alluded to by Miss Tinetti—great engagement by industry, by advocates, and by members of the public to the select committee on how best to use the framework to engage and to enforce and empower the New Zealand Curriculum document. I think it’s clear from this bill, the amendments herein, that they weren’t heard, and this is an attempt to remedy that. Those advocates sought to ensure that our children were at the centre of the education model in New Zealand. The bill seeks to—and you’ll forgive me for reading, Madam Assistant Speaker—“align the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities more closely with the New Zealand curriculum and provide an aspirational vision for the future [of] … New Zealanders.”, and then “to provide learning experiences that support children and young people to reach their potential and a system that aims to achieve equitable outcomes”. I mean, why would you oppose that? But the Opposition will come up with some reasons, and I definitely don’t agree with them as to why.

Look, I hate to say it, but I was a teacher for 10 years.

💬 Brett Hudson: Why would you hate to say that?

I hate to say it, because Mr Hudson and others tend to criticise people who bring good experience in the House to speak to legislation, but the reality is we designed a great New Zealand Curriculum document. It is rich, it is thoughtful, it is broad, and it seeks to do more than just turn our children into output numbers. That party opposite decided they wanted to focus on those artificial outputs, but the National Education and Learning Priorities will be brought into line with the New Zealand curriculum—that’s what these amendments are seeking to do—which will mean more real support for children. This means building more resilience, creativity, and adaptability with a focus on developing great communication and interpersonal skills and to ensure that our youth can work collaboratively as well as individually—or independently, I should say.

So, by way of conclusion, New Zealand First absolutely supports the amendments of this bill empowering discussion and consultation that currently do not appear to be happening—again, despite considerable efforts and submissions at the previous bill’s hearing at select committee. So we look forward to the select committee process, and, again, I commend the member for her efforts today. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

I think that member, Fletcher Tabuteau, would make an excellent deputy leader of New Zealand First—so well spoken. It is my pleasure to speak on this bill—a very short contribution from the member Jan Tinetti. Apparently, she told the Bay of Plenty Times that this bill will start to return mana to the teaching profession, and I’m glad to hear that—I’m glad to hear that. It’s a fairly low base from which to start this bill, but it’s better than nothing.

When we look at this, I’m sure all the teachers in this country will be immensely reassured and feel strengthened by changing “resilience, determination, confidence, and creative … thinking” into “resilience, determination confidence, creative and critical thinking, and to become lifelong learners”. It’s that addition, I think, that really sort of makes all the difference. I don’t like to be unkind, but I think you’ll find that this is not a great contribution but one way in which to fill the ballot, and it’s a pity, because there’s so much that could be done.

I thought it was rather rich that we heard that there’s going to be a lot of work put into consultation with the sector before these changes—subtle changes—are made to the objectives of the National Education and Learning Priorities, these little tweaks that have been made, probably late at night over a discussion with a few people just to throw together this bill. There’s going to be great consultation with the sector. Well, it’s interesting today—

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Hang on—I’m going to go back and look at what bills you introduced to Parliament, because I’m fairly sure there’s a pot calling the kettle black over there right now.

—because we’ve had the release today of the great, sort of, cradle-to-the-grave review of education more generally by the Minister Chris Hipkins and the talk of consultation with the sector, and when I asked him today, in relation to whether he’d consulted with the tertiary sector about the decision to spend the entire $2.8 billion on student support and nothing else, whether there’d been any consultation, he said, “Well, yes, there was an election.”, as if that was consultation.

So you go to the election, you go to the people, with 20 policies, 30 policies—including this one—and if you happen to find yourself in Government after various permutations, then that absolves you of the need to consult with the sector that is affected by very monumental changes. That is a very strange way to go about Government and a very strange way to go about consultation. So my advice to the member Jan Tinetti is maybe she might have a bit of a chat to some of her senior colleagues and encourage them to do what they say and be genuine about consulting the broader education sector about very significant changes, such as we’ve seen in the way that they’ve decided to spend the money in the tertiary sector, as one example. That may be helpful.

So if we just go through some of these differences, I’m sure people listening in will be curious as to what is being achieved or suggested—

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Oh, the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill.

That was a very good bill. That was a quality bill that made a lot of difference. This one—here we are, we’re changing “good social skills and the ability to form good relationships” into “strong social skills and the ability to form” not good relationships but “positive relationships”. So, I mean, I think that’s, you know, an interesting, debatable point, but I’m not quite sure. Then we’re also changing “participation in community life” into “active participation in community life”. Well, again, that’s really interesting.

As well as that, we’re talking about “[contributing] to building a strong and just New Zealand, socially, culturally, economically, and environmentally”—very useful indeed. And then, instead of just “preparedness for work” we have this very long-winded prelude saying, “promoting the development of … knowledge, values, and skills to enable students to succeed in further education and live full satisfying lives, both personally and in the world of work”.

I just struggle to see what is being achieved by this bill, and, on that basis, it is with heavy hearts that we on the side of the Chamber will vote against it, because we don’t think this—

I apologise to the member—your time has expired.

What a shame that was. It’s a pleasure to stand and rise for the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand in support of the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill. I too would like to acknowledge and congratulate one of the newer members of this House, Jan Tinetti, for bringing this piece of legislation to the House, and acknowledge all of your past advocacy in education. I’ve got to say, I saw you as a key champion for our children and our education system, and it’s fantastic to have you in this House producing legislation like this to help get our education system back on track.

This bill, I understand, was previously drawn in the name of the new Minister of Education, the Hon Chris Hipkins, and is overturning an amendment to the previous Education Act. It proposes common-sense and straightforward changes to section 1A of the Education Act, which empowers the Minister of Education to issue a statement of National Education and Learning Priorities, otherwise known as the NELP.

I understand that our education spokesperson, Chlöe Swarbrick, in the time that she’s been our spokesperson, has made a real effort to get out to schools around the country and, in doing that, what she has found most fascinating has been meeting a lot of the children in the schools. But who she’s found that she’s ended up meeting—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

So again, I congratulate the member Jan Tinetti for being in the House for such a short time and being lucky enough to get her bill drawn—but it’s a very good bill based on your leadership and your experience from the community, so it’s welcomed to this House.

As I was saying before the dinner bell rang—I was speaking on behalf of our new education spokesperson, Chlöe Swarbrick, who’s been visiting a number of schools around the country and has been introduced to some student leaders as she’s been going around. She’s noticed the fact that she tends to be introduced to the scholars and the sports stars and the prefects—these young people who put in the really hard work and are doing really well. But she has noticed that they tend to be the young people who have worked out how to navigate the system and who the system is working for, which is great—that we have young people in that situation. But there is a problem, as she’s pointed out, when we subconsciously don’t hear or don’t seek out the voices of young people who aren’t currently being served by our education system. And when we’re not seeking out those voices we’re at risk of perpetuating a system that too many young people fall through the cracks of. The opportunity to change that exists with actively consulting young people. So that’s one of the reasons that the Green Party is so excited to support this bill. It adds a requirement for the Minister of Education to consult with young people in setting the National Education and Learning Priorities for the country.

That’s a massive paradigm shift. So frequently in this House when we’re debating education, we hear people talking about parents and we talk about teachers, usually in a complimentary way on this side of the House—not so much on that side. However, often I only hear MPs mention children when they seek to speak on their behalf, and most of all I include myself in that. So the requirement to consult with children represents a conscious change. It puts children at the centre of education where they belong. For most teachers, they know that child-centred learning is the best type of teaching, and so this is building it into the whole system, not just in the classroom.

I know that Chlöe Swarbrick is really looking forward to seeing the submissions that come before the Education and Workforce Committee, and we are very happy to support this wonderful new member’s bill.

Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I must admit, I’m slightly gobsmacked to hear Jan Logie describe this bill as a paradigm shift in thinking, because, as will have been apparent to anybody who was listening to this debate prior to the dinner adjournment, in fact it’s one of the lightest bills, as far as having anything of substance to discuss, of anything that we’ve considered in a very long period of time.

But let me start on a positive. First, I want to congratulate Jan Tinetti on having her bill drawn. As somebody who is now in his 10th year in this House and has waited 9½ years still for that privilege, I find that for it to have happened to somebody who’d been here for about 10 weeks when her bill was drawn a little bit infuriating, but, anyway, congratulations. I also would like, genuinely, to congratulate her on the way that she chaired the Education and Workforce Committee this morning. She is the deputy chair, and this morning she was filling in, and I thought she did a very good job. So, well done, and thank you for that.

But I have to say to the member that I cannot support this bill, and it’s not just because it is a stocking filler. I do want to remind members of the Government, particularly while the Leader of the House is here, that when Labour were in Opposition not so long ago, they always used to rail against stocking fillers on the days of members’ bills. Sometimes, I felt they were very churlish and unkind in describing those particular measures as such. Usually, the argument we heard from the Labour Party was: why not just shove this bill into a statutes amendment bill and it could be dealt with very, very quickly? We wouldn’t have to use up a lot of the House time.

Well, here we are on members’ day, which comes around once a fortnight, usually, in the timetable of the House. It is very special to members, and we’d all like to be able to debate matters of substance, particularly to be able to advance measures that really will make a difference to our communities and improve the laws of this land. Often, the opportunity to do that is by having a bill that probably wouldn’t make it on to the Government’s agenda, just because of the pressure on what they can get through, but members’ day is a really good way of getting it through.

I have to assume that Jan Tinetti has the numbers—I’m realistic; I can do the maths—and therefore I want to make this point to her, particularly having referred to the fact that she is a member of the committee that I assume the bill will be referred to and she was chairing it this morning: our committee is going to be very busy over the next few months because not only do we have the Education Amendment Bill, which was debated last week and is substantial and very contentious and is going to draw probably quite a lot of submissions and require a lot of work, but we also, because of the way in which this committee is now structured, have the Employment Relations Amendment Bill and that, of course, is going to be hugely demanding for all the members of the committee. These are substantial, weighty things that all members of the committee should be applying their attention to. I really have to ask why on earth we would be trying to squeeze in something like this and requiring submitters to come before the committee to talk about something that is of so little significance.

Now, unfortunately, the debate was broken up by the dinner adjournment, so I just point out, for those who may not have been listening, that far from the paradigm shift that Jan Logie mentioned, this is about very slight rewording of a few paragraphs. For instance, the bill replaces this sentence, “to focus on helping each child and young person to attain educational achievement to the best of his or her potential”, with this, “to provide learning experiences that support children and young people to reach their potential and a system that aims to achieve equitable outcomes for all”. And so it goes on. There’s so little change in this that you have to ask: why on earth would a select committee be required to look at it?

I’ll just close by making the point that Ms Logie commented on the fact that—in a disparaging way, she suggested that members on this side of the House don’t value teachers. Well, I can assure you that we do and, as one of the former teachers who is in the National Party caucus, I can assure her that we do. To suggest that we don’t value teachers and that we seldom think about children is completely contradicted by the debate we had last week on the much more substantive measure, the Education Amendment Bill, when it was members on that side of the House who spoke solely about systems and unions, and I don’t think I ever heard the word “children” being mentioned. In that particular bill, where children should be at the heart of any substantive changes, particularly whether we’re getting rid of national standards or getting rid of partnership schools, that is surely when we should be looking at the interests of children. This bill will not do that.

It’s a great pleasure and a privilege to speak on Jan Tinetti’s bill. I want to congratulate her on having it drawn from the ballot.

It’s also interesting to follow on from that somewhat confused, rambling contribution from Tim Macindoe, the member who just spoke. On the one hand, he said that there’s nothing particularly controversial about this bill and therefore it should be, say, part of a statutes amendment bill, and then, on the other hand, he said that they’re going to vote against it. So, actually, that means it can’t be part of a statutes amendment bill. A basic rule of Parliament is that statutes amendment bills require unanimity in order to be able to be passed, so, by his own admission, it can’t be part of a statutes amendment bill.

He then went on to say that it’s too hard for the select committee and they’re going to have to do too much work, and that it’s going to be completely unacceptable that they might have to actually earn their money. I say that that’s actually the job that all of us in this Parliament are here to do. Therefore, listening to people through a select committee process is actually inherent in the democratic system and, therefore, is a positive thing.

Now, I do acknowledge that we are sending to the Education and Workforce Committee quite a bit of legislation at the moment. They, of course, have the ability to hear submissions on different bills that cover broadly similar topics at the same time. In fact, I have been involved in select committee hearings where the committee has invited submitters to deliver submissions on different bills at the same time for the purposes of making it a more efficient hearing, and also for the convenience of the submitters. So there’s nothing wrong with doing that.

This is a very good bill. Now why is it a good bill? Well, first of all, it aligns the goals in the Education Act 1989 inserted by the previous National Government with the goals in the New Zealand Curriculum. This was something that was strongly urged to the previous Government by many of the people who went to the trouble of submitting on the Education (Update) Amendment Bill at the Education and Science Committee, as it was then. The curriculum is prized and treasured throughout New Zealand’s education system because it, basically, has the support of young people, of teachers, of parents, of employers—of all of the major stakeholders in the education system. There is a huge degree of support for the curriculum, and the curriculum has a very strong sense of purpose and, basically, a very strong statement of the objects. So what this does is it aligns the object of the Act with the objects in the curriculum. So I can’t see what the harm of doing that is. In fact, I think that that is a very useful thing to do.

But, actually, the section of this bill that I am most in favour of—and I say this as a Minister of Education who is now going to be subject to this—is that under the Act as passed by National, when articulating or developing a statement of National Education and Learning Priorities, the Minister can consult with whomever they think fit. So the Minister could decide that they just want to consult with a couple of teachers that they like, or they might want to consult with their family or whoever, and that would be OK because under the law, that’s sufficient. Under this bill, the Minister must—must—consult with children, and why would they not? The decisions that we make around the education system are all about children, so they should have a voice in that.

It also makes clear that we need to consult with teachers, principals, school boards of trustees—of course, made up of parents—early childhood services, and parents. Why would we not consult with those groups? As the Minister of Education, I don’t think I would be doing my job properly if I didn’t consult with those groups. Therefore, I’m very pleased to see this being added into the Act.

The final thing I want to talk about is the final clause of the bill, which makes the statement of national education and learning priorities a disallowable instrument. What that means, in effect, is that the Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise it. We are giving, through the Education Act, a significant delegated power to me, the Minister of Education—and, if it was a National Government, to whomever on that side of the House filled that role—and I think there should be some parliamentary scrutiny of those decisions. In setting a statement of National Education and Learning Priorities, I would, effectively, be setting the direction for the whole education system, so why should the Parliament not have the opportunity to scrutinise that?

In another set of circumstances, it might be primary legislation—i.e., the House might get to vote on it. In this case, the House is delegating to me the ability to set it. Therefore, I think it’s only appropriate that through the regulation-making scrutiny provisions we have in the House, the House gets to scrutinise what I’ve finally come up with.

So this is a much more democratic system. It’s a much more transparent system, and I think it’s going to lead to a better outcome.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak on the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill. Can I, firstly, congratulate Jan Tinetti for having her bill drawn. I just lodged a bill today, so I’m hoping to be as successful as she’s been and, hopefully, it’s not 10 years before my bill gets drawn, like Mr Tim Macindoe.

I am going to find it exceptionally hard to speak for my full five minutes—the Government might find that pleasing to hear—because there really is not that much to talk about.

💬 Hon Member: You’ll learn.

Ha! So let me start by pointing out how badly this wastes the Parliament’s time—

💬 Hon Member: No, your guys will; they’ve got 10 minutes.

Oh, I was going to say something nice about him. I mean no offence to Jan Tinetti, because she’s a lovely woman and was a very good chair of the committee today, a fellow newbie like me, and I have nothing but admiration for her. I completely support the intentions of her bill: things like ensuring the diversity of our education system—great; providing learning experiences that support children and young people to reach their potential—right behind you; providing an aspirational vision for the future of New Zealanders—love it. I love that the Labour Party are focusing so much on providing an aspirational future for students whose charter schools they are closing out of ideological opposition—love it.

This bill supposedly amends a couple of paragraphs explaining the objectives of the education system; it doesn’t, however, offer anything in the way of actual substance. It’s very hard for me to divine any kind of philosophical enlightenment or legislative horsepower from this two-page bill. Actually, it alarms me, this kind of education bill the Labour backbenchers are coming out with, because it reiterates to me that this coalition Government is at a total loss for ideas when it comes to good education policy. They’ve got nothing constructive to offer, unless it’s throwing money at students for a first year free at university. This Government’s worried about shutting down schools that are providing for disadvantaged young people, but this bill is really just a stocking filler that was lucky to be drawn.

One of my other concerns is that if this bill is passed, it will just clog up the Education and Workforce Committee, as Mr Tim Macindoe pointed out, when their time could more valuably be used examining the removal of national standards and what’s going to replace that, and perhaps looking at charter schools. We will not be supporting this bill, but I am looking forward to reading some of the other legislative inspirations that the Labour Party have yet to add to the members’ bill ballot.

Can I just say that one of the statements that this bill amends, in section 1A(3)(b)(i), as set out in clause 4—it takes the phrase “resilience, determination, confidence, and creative and critical thinking” and replaces it with “resilience, determination, confidence, creative and critical thinking, and to become lifelong learners:”. One of the things that Mr Fletcher Tabuteau said earlier in his contribution was that this bill would add more resilience to young learners, so I’d actually suggest, perhaps, we add an extra word at the beginning of this to say “more resilience, determination, confidence, creative and critical thinking, and to become lifelong learners:”, if we’re just going to be really pedantic about it.

Really, this bill adds a few words; it changes a few things around. It’s not of any substance. It’s really wasting this Parliament’s time. It’s wasting the Education and Workforce Committee’s time. While I congratulate Jan Tinetti for having her bill drawn—I know what it’s like to go through putting something together and being nervous about having it put in there and then having it drawn and having to speak on it—really, this is a stocking filler bill that is wasting our time changing a few words around. It has no particular substance, and we will not be supporting it. Thank you.

I am delighted to stand and talk about this excellent bill, a bill whose time has come. I’d like to thank Jan Tinetti for bringing this bill to the House. Now, I’ve known Jan for a while, and her passion for the education system is second to none, so thank you, Jan. Jan believes in putting children first. I’d like to also congratulate the member opposite, Erica Stanford, who almost did do her five minutes—I think she did maybe four minutes 10—so that wasn’t too bad.

But I just pick up on something the member said. The member was talking about partnership schools and she was talking about partnership schools in terms of consulting with the children in the partnership schools. Well, she has spoken about that a lot in the House. Well, this bill does talk about consulting with children, and that’s a key aspect—a key aspect of this bill. Children do know a lot of things. In fact, I’ve got four young children, and sometimes they think they know a bit more than dad. They probably do, actually, particularly on my phone. Whenever my phone gets broken I give it to them and they tell me to do something there. But certainly young people do know about their education system, and I think it’s absolutely fantastic that we’ve just heard from the Minister about how he is also excited about putting young people at the centre of our education system.

We do have a world-class curriculum, and it’s a diverse curriculum. There are a huge amount of aspects to it, not just literacy and numeracy, as we’ve found out this week. This bill here is about amending the Education Act to align the enduring objectives for the education and learning system more closely with that curriculum and, obviously—as we’ve talked about—requiring consultation.

So some of the key learning priorities that this bill supports—so it supports learners who are resilient. Now, as most of us will know, and most of us will agree, resilience is vital for young people. As we go through life, we have ups and downs, and the importance of getting up again is vital for lifelong learning.

There’s a key aspect here around creativity. Teachers are preparing students for jobs that don’t currently exist, and that’s one of the challenges that teachers have in our education system. How do you prepare someone for a job that doesn’t currently exist? One of the key aspects of doing that is the word “creativity”. So areas like the arts, where you develop a creative mind, are absolutely vital, and this is another of the learning priorities that this bill will support. Employers want creativity in the changing workforce.

Another aspect is around communication and interpersonal skills. So these are also involved, and, like I said, it’s in our world-class curriculum. This bill helps improve these by putting the child at the centre of the learning.

I once taught a young boy—I’ll name him Jimmy—and he struggled.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Ha, ha!

It’s always Jimmy. I’ll name him Jimmy, but he struggled in school with various aspects of literacy and numeracy. In fact, he was well below, so in terms of national standards, he was a failure for eight years of his schooling. I came across him when he was 12. So he was labelled a failure for eight years under national standards, but when it came to music, Jimmy was a natural. He naturally excelled—

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Hendrix?

—yeah, Jimi Hendrix!—and I made a big deal out of this because I could see his confidence start growing. Confidence is one of the key learning priorities that this bill supports, because without confidence it’s very difficult to go through life and to achieve your full potential. There’s other aspects around learning priorities that this bill will accentuate: collaboration, independent learning—so young people taking ownership of their own learning.

I believe education is one of the most important investments a Government can make. Education is one of the key things in life that opens up opportunity. It’s a great leveller, and I’m proud that this Government is valuing our education system. We’ve had a number of bills come through already around education, and this is just another in that long line.

So I commend this bill to the House. I thank the member Jan Tinetti for the incredible amount of work she’s done on this, and I look forward to it passing and going through a select committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The primary purpose of this member’s bill is to rewrite the set of objectives considered by the Minister of Education when issuing a statement of National Education and Learning Priorities. Now, on face value, this sounds like it would be a hugely important bill. Changing these objectives would have the potential to result in a major shift in the direction and the performance of this country’s education system, and so you would expect a large amount of attention and interest.

I have a theory as to why this is actually not being hailed as a groundbreaking bill. It’s well-known that on the other side of the House, there’s no love for trickle-down policies when it comes to economics, but it seems that the approach to legislation from Labour Ministers is trickling down to all new Government backbenchers. This bill, like so many others introduced by the Government, either continues on the good work of the last National Government or it makes such minor changes to legislation that, although well-meaning and made with good intent and all that, it has little effect on the results seen by real people and real children going through the education system.

It’s like the Child Poverty Reduction Bill. It sets targets, but it doesn’t say how we’re going to get there. How about the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill? We’re into the big leagues with those minor changes. And, my personal favourite, the Legislation Bill? How will the changes in this current bill impact on children going through school or parents taking their young ones to early childhood providers?

Do you want to hear about the real impact? This is where it is: closing down charter schools. Have you seen the difference that charter schools have made to kids who have been struggling in the State school system? How about—here’s the impact—scrapping national standards, which is the way parents track their kids individually and nationally? So far, this Government’s education policy has consisted of removing and restricting—removing and restricting. We are yet to see the positive, constructive, and inspirational policy that we’ve heard about during the campaign.

This Government is at the beginning of their term. They’ve scrapped and they’ve fought and they’ve bargained their way to get there with two other parties. After nine years in Opposition, it’s time for the power of three to unleash the power of dozens of MPs into the member’s bill biscuit tin, eat their way into grunty lawmaking, take on all the wrongs that they feel they’ve been subjected to, and make a meal of the gaps in education.

Instead, this is what we get, and I’m going to quote it. A change to the Education Act of 1989—this is what’s up here tonight. They want to change the abilities and attributes of young people from “resilience, determination, confidence, and creative and critical thinking:” to “resilience, determination, confidence, creative and critical thinking and to become lifelong learners:”. What’s that? Four more words. Change “good social skills and the ability to form good relationships:” to “[good] social skills and the ability to form positive relationships”—swap out “good” for “positive”. This is real groundbreaking stuff.

We’re on the first reading of this bill, but I find myself eminently looking forward to my own colleague Simeon Brown’s psychoactive substances bill. May the House take note of the word “substance”. The National Party will not be supporting this bill. We’re looking for some more grunt and a better meal out of that biscuit tin. Thank you.

I call Jan Tinetti—five minutes in reply.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s been very interesting listening to this debate here this evening. It’s actually confirmed to me how little regard our Opposition had for the education sector when they were in Government, because what they have done here tonight is that they have trivialised the New Zealand Curriculum and teachers’ and parents’ regard for the New Zealand Curriculum. As a former educator, this bill is far more than symbolic; it is far more than a stocking filler. It aligns the national curriculum to the National Education and Learning Priorities, and that puts the curriculum back at the centre, which means it puts the children back at the centre.

Over the dinner break, I, along with people sitting in this House, went to listen to Judge Andrew Becroft talk about how, as a Parliament, we need to be more responsive to the voices of children. This bill is the first that he can point to that is responsive to the voice of children, because we are including and saying that the Minister must consult, first and foremost, with children. If that is not significant, then you are trivialising children and their place in education.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Please don’t bring me into the debate.

Oh, I’m very sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Thank you.

I will get better. A couple of points that I want to speak to—the Hon Paul Goldsmith quoted me in the Bay of Plenty Times. I want to actually read that quote, because I think it probably points to the fact of why we need such strong consultation and why we need to actually go back to people to consult. That quote was made on 3 February, and on 3 February, when the Bay of Plenty Times had conducted an interview with me, they talked about my member’s bill, but they also talked about the other bills that were in Parliament that were important to me in the Education and Workforce Committee at the time.

Clearly, they got the two bills muddled up because—listen to the quote; remember, it’s 3 February, “Tinetti said the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill passed its first reading in Parliament on Thursday, which would start to return mana [honour] to the teaching profession.” Considering that we’re passing the first reading now, the fact that it said on 3 February that it passed its first reading is obviously a misquote by the Bay of Plenty Times. The fact that the Hon Paul Goldsmith read that out and said I had quoted that this bill that we’re talking about now was going to return mana to the teaching profession points to the fact that he didn’t do his homework very well. So it shows to me why consultation with our education sector groups is incredibly important.

Also, the Hon Tim Macindoe talked about why was this bill not in a statutes amendment. Well, it’s not in a statutes amendment because National voted it down when it was a Supplementary Order Paper to the Education (Update) Amendment Bill. Perhaps he just conveniently forgot that.

This bill is about listening to young people’s voices. This bill is about getting our consultation right. But, first and foremost, this is—and I’ll point to my colleague in the Green Party, Jan Logie—another step in getting our education system back on track, and that is what is exciting to many, many, many people in this country at the moment. That is exciting to our children, that is exciting to our parents, and that is exciting to our educators. We are simply getting the education system back on track again. We are aligning the curriculum. We are dealing with bringing diversity back in to our highest level.

The last point that I want to make is the really important point that the Hon Chris Hipkins brought up, that this will allow for parliamentary scrutiny. These National Education and Learning Priorities are so important that why should they not come under parliamentary scrutiny, when they are so important? The fact that we have an Opposition here tonight that have argued against this tells me that they don’t believe education is important. Thank you.