Education (Protecting Teacher Title) Amendment Bill

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

This bill removes the ability of those who have not gained a qualification in teaching from using the title “teacher”. At this point I’d like to mention my colleague the Hon Tracey Martin. She’s the author of the bill, and she’s a passionate education advocate. So I am honoured today to bring this member’s bill to the House.

I’d just like to mention that New Zealand First is a bit of a lucky party in terms of members’ bills. Tonight we’ve had Fletcher Tabuteau’s bill, the KiwiFund Bill, pass through its first reading, and now I have had my first member’s bill drawn from the very first ballot of my parliamentary career. So I am feeling a tad lucky tonight.

I’d like to talk on this bill because it is a great challenge to the New Zealand education system at the moment—this is the biggest challenge—that almost everyone believes that they can teach. Teaching is, in fact, very complex. Teachers who are specifically trained are able to design programmes of learning that are directly in response to the diverse educational and learning requirements of our communities. There is a wide range of learning requirements for our students. Teachers must not only be skilled in the curriculum and specialist subjects but in imparting that knowledge to others. Effective teachers will design programmes of learning that recognise diverse learners.

I have been made aware that it was back in the 51st Parliament that members of the former Government who sat on the Education and Science Committee had seriously argued that it’s not the education you receive but the school tie that you wear that will determine your future. The previous National Government allowed charter schools to put untrained and unqualified individuals into classrooms and call themselves teachers.

Over the last nine years there has been an expansion of what in reality are teaching apprentices into our classrooms by the Teach First NZ programme. Now, this is not an attack on these apprentices, but it is a statement of fact that they’re learning on the job and are not yet trained and qualified teachers. In fact, they spend two years before they do become fully qualified. Furthermore, we’re not saying that those who currently teach in schools with a background in a specific topic that they teach are not efficient educators. We are saying that there should be differentiation between those who are trained in the practice of educating and these subject matter experts. This will not stop these individuals from continuing to teach.

This differentiation will also facilitate better understanding for parents. It is our view that it has become increasingly difficult for the public, particularly following the introduction of charter schools, to be confident that the title “teacher” used by an individual means that that person is adequately qualified for them to lead the teaching and learning of their children. Under this bill, all parents can be assured that their child’s teacher is an education specialist. We believe that clarity around the use of the title “teacher” is essential in order to avoid any misunderstanding by the public about qualifications, the registration status, and professional oversight by the persons using the title of “teacher”.

The current Government is in the process of significantly reforming the education system since taking office just last year. The Education (Protecting Teacher Title) Amendment Bill would complement the changes to the Teaching Council of Aotearoa, and the process of charter schools becoming special character schools.

Now, following on from today’s announcement by the Minister of Education the Hon Chris Hipkins of his three-year work plan for education, the Associate Minister of Education Kelvin Davis highlighted the priority of lifting achievement for Māori students through professional development of a workplace of culturally competent teachers.

This bill aims to reinforce that teaching is a profession, and, like many professions, you cannot give yourself the title without doing the hard work and gaining the appropriate qualifications. We know that it’s not the pay or the glamour, so what is it? What draws people into the classroom to become teachers? This is a profession whose status has been under attack for the past nine years, a profession that many people think that they can do because once they went to school, or because they have consistently heard that those who can’t do, teach. We need this rhetoric to stop. This is a profession that, when done right, can inspire a single individual or a whole group of people to become the best that they can be. It can provide a springboard for lifting people out of poverty. It’s the profession to which parents across the country entrust their tamariki for hours and hours in a day, weeks, and years of their lives, to be nurtured and developed, to have their eyes opened to a totality of possibilities, and to begin the journey of meeting their potential.

In the 21st century, nothing is more important than the role of our teachers. The profession is not just a job; it’s a huge responsibility. Using the title of teacher should be safeguarded in the same way as being a doctor, a judge, or an engineer. In New Zealand, that responsibility is not reflected in the teacher’s professional status. However, in Finland this is one of the most sought-after, respected, and highly prized professions in the country. In Finland, the status of teachers is on a par with being a brain surgeon. High-quality teachers are the hallmark of Finland’s education system. Annual national opinion polls have repeatedly shown that teaching in Finland is the most admired profession, and primary school teaching is the most sought-after career.

This is New Zealand First’s vision for teaching and teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand. We acknowledge that some have expressed concern about this bill, and we also thank those who have articulated their support of its first reading, to get this bill to select committee.

There’s a swathe of professions that have their titles protected. I could list many of them. Some of them are unusual titles and some of them are standard through the health system. Many of those professions are listed and protected. You may be interested to know—and this is probably the one I find most interesting—that one profession with a protected title is “cadastral surveyor”.

The Education (Protecting Teacher Title) Amendment Bill will ensure that those who use the title “teacher” must be qualified, with the required training and skills. With several amendments to the Education Act 1989 over the recent years, it’s now possible to have individuals in classrooms who have no recognised teaching qualification. Therefore, they should not be able to use the title of teacher. They may use other titles, such as educator, tutor, lecturer, or whatever. But the title of teacher must be restricted to those who have completed recognised qualifications. This will provide a clear message for parents, caregivers, and students that the individual using the title has in fact trained, and completed the training, as a teacher.

We note, as I’m sure the Opposition will, the concern from the Ministry of Justice, suggesting that this bill breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. They comment that they have concluded that the bill appears to be inconsistent with the right of freedom of expression, affirmed in section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. However, I draw members’ attention to another point they make, which is that section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act affirms that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind, in any form. The freedom of expression is as wide as human thought and imagination, and includes any activity which conveys or attempts to convey a meaning. I would welcome select committee scrutiny of this advice, and how that affects other professions, say, gasfitters or plumbers or lawyers.

By providing this simple method of identification, parents truly have the choice when it comes to who is leading the learning in their child’s education if the teacher title is protected. This is a simple clarification that will support the professional status of teachers. It will send a clear message to our teachers across Aotearoa New Zealand that they are valued. I commend this bill to the House.

Can I again acknowledge Jenny Marcroft for bringing the bill to the House, but I also want to acknowledge Tracey Martin who, as Jenny has also acknowledged, did the work on this bill.

The first thing I want to say is that there is no doubt in my mind that every member of Parliament, in this House, values the teachers of New Zealand. We all know, more than ever, the huge role that they play in our society. So, if the question was can we do some things to ensure that teachers are valued more, then members on this side would absolutely support that. However, that is not what this bill is about.

This bill has several major flaws. If you don’t believe me, and you’re watching the telly, then read the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report by the Attorney-General, the Labour Minister David Parker. He, effectively, has written half of my speech today. It is ironic that a party like the Labour Party, which says that it supports freedom, is voting for a bill that the Attorney-General, the Labour Minister, has said—in his words—“the Bill appears to be inconsistent with s 14 of the Bill of Rights Act and the inconsistency cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act.” That reason alone is a reason to vote down this bill, and that’s one of the major reasons as to why we’ll be voting down this bill.

But the other point that we want to make at the outset is that we don’t believe in putting up legislation when there isn’t a problem. There aren’t a whole lot of people out there, going out and misrepresenting themselves as teachers. We know there is already a provision within the legislation, section 349 of the Education Act, that deals with people who could be misrepresenting themselves. It’s already in the law, but there isn’t a big problem here.

The next point I want to make is that when you look at this bill, it refers to partnership schools. It says one of the reasons that this bill has come to the House is as a result of partnership schools. Isn’t that a bit ironic? Isn’t it a bit ironic that we have a piece of legislation in here, in part because of partnership schools, when, potentially, New Zealand First hasn’t listened to what the Labour Party is actually putting up? They have another piece of legislation before the House that is completely getting rid of the partnership schools model.

So, not only do we not have a problem here of a whole lot of teachers misrepresenting themselves, we also have another piece of legislation in the Parliament that seeks to get rid of the partnership schools model. So it’s not a reason for this bill to come to the House.

But coming back to the very important New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues. I think, again, I do want to quote some of David Parker’s—not the Ministry of Justice, but the Attorney-General—report on this bill. The point that he makes, in my view, is not only is there not a problem, not only is the Government getting rid of partnership schools, so there’s not even a problem there, but that it will be harmful—this bill will actually be harmful. He talks in his report about the fact that you have a whole lot of people at the moment—they might be dance teachers, they might be yoga teachers, but they are using that word “teacher”. The impact of putting a bill like this through to their lives could be quite significant.

He actually says, “The restriction imposed by the Bill would impose a significant limit on the ability of these people, ordinarily thought of as teachers, to conduct their business and describe themselves as teachers.” So that is from the Labour Attorney-General. It is gobsmacking that this bill is being supported to go through the House.

Another paragraph—a point that the Attorney-General makes—is that it’s not just about the impact on potentially some of those people who might have a limited authority to teach, but also those people that might be dance teachers or yoga teachers. He also says, “Unlike other protected titles such as ‘lawyer’, there are numerous people who legitimately use the title ‘teacher’ to earn their livelihoods. Indeed, the natural reading of cl 5 would also prevent any businesses using the word ‘teacher’ in their title—for instance, if they were selling teaching supplies. The limit the Bill places on freedom of expression is significant.”

So not only do we have a situation that there isn’t a problem here, not only do we have a situation that partnership schools are being repealed, so their original reason for the problem doesn’t exist; we also have a situation where the Attorney-General is saying it’s going to limit the ability of people to go about their ordinary lives, if they are dance teachers or yoga teachers. But also, there’s a whole lot of other businesses in New Zealand that may have the word “teacher” in their title, which the Attorney-General says could be impacted by this bill.

We don’t know what the costs could be or what the impact on their lives and their businesses could be. So we’re very clear, on this side of the House. Of course we massively value the role and the importance of teachers. We believe the way to lift the status of the profession is by doing things like supporting communities of learning, by improving professional development, by doing what the Education Review Office has talked about, and by improving our teacher training. All of these things will make a huge and significant difference and raise the value of teachers; not a fundamentally flawed bill that restricts the basic freedom of expression of New Zealanders. That’s why we will be opposing this bill.

Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak for the first time on this member’s bill. This bill is in the name of Jenny Marcroft of New Zealand First, and I congratulate her on what is a small but very important bill that amends the Education Act of 1989. With several other amendments to the Education Act of 1989, we have seen teachers, or people teaching our children, that are not qualified as teachers—who have not trained and qualified as teachers. This bill seeks to address that.

So what is the intent of this bill? It is to lift the status of teachers. But wait—what is this strange and unusual concept? Let me repeat it: to lift the status of teachers. Well, I tell you: finally—finally—we have a Government that actually wants to lift the status of teachers, and that is reflected in this bill.

I recall when I was at high school, and the guidance counsellor, or whatever you have—

💬 Kiritapu Allan: Gisborne High School.

—or whatever they were called—Gisborne Girls’ High School, Campion College, that’s right—asked me what I intended to do when I left school. I was young and I said, “I want to be a hairdresser.”, and they said, “No, Jo. You are better than that. You are more capable than that. Why not consider being a teacher?” If only we held teachers in that high regard today, as they did back then. We wouldn’t be having to address it in this bill.

Another example I have is, in the early childhood centre that I own we have lots and lots of Filipino families, and Filipino families—when their children arrive at the centre they tend to just push them in the door and say goodbye. We wanted to understand why they did that, so we asked them to come in and address us and explain it, and they said, “Because you are the teachers. You are qualified. We are just the parents.”—although I will not belittle that in any way, shape, or form, because that is hugely important. But they acknowledged: “You are the teachers.”

💬 Kiritapu Allan: That’s right.

That’s right. So this is such an exciting time to be involved in education and the teaching profession. What we have here is a Government that is intent on reversing the de-professionalisation of teachers. This Government has a vision not only for education but also for the teaching profession. We are already seeing that with the bill that was recently introduced, the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill. We are also seeing it with the Government’s initiatives around wanting to bring back 100 percent qualified teachers in early childhood education centres—how fantastic is that for the early childhood teaching profession.

I can recall—and I think I have said this before, when I spoke on the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill. I trained and studied hard to become a qualified teacher, and I’ve had to put up with comments about being “nothing but a glorified babysitter”, “nothing but the chief nappy changer”, and things like that. I worked hard and I studied hard and I got my qualification, so by rights I am a teacher, and that is something I hold in very high regard.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: That’s right.

That’s right. I can’t go round and say I’m a lawyer. I can’t go round and say I’m a doctor. Why? Because I haven’t trained and qualified to be one, and I’d probably be in quite serious trouble if I did. So why should the teaching profession be recognised as anything less?

I just want to say, again, that teachers spend several years studying and training to become qualified, and we want teaching to be seen as a valued career choice and as a fantastic profession to get into. We are working with and teaching the next generation, and we need to ensure that we’ve got the best-qualified teachers in front of our tamariki, teaching them, giving them the skills—lifelong learning skills, actually—in education.

I just also want to finish off by saying that this bill will lift the status of the early childhood teaching profession, and I absolutely, without hesitation, commend this bill to the House.

Well, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this bill. Well, I’m bound to say that this is not something that I’ve had people come up to me on the streets of Epsom concerned about—“Oh my goodness! Oh my goodness!”, they say. I haven’t had anybody come up and say, “There are these people running around pretending to be teachers, and we must bring the great clunking fist of the State down on these people and fine them $2,000, because they’re running around calling themselves teachers.” I’ve not once had that happen to me yet.

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: You need to get out more, mate.

Maybe—maybe I need to get out more, that’s true. But my hunch is that this is a bill looking for a problem in order to provide a solution that nobody wants and nobody needs.

I do feel sorry for Mrs Jenny Marcroft. I can just see what would have happened—just arrived in Parliament and the previous person who dreamed up this bill, who’s become a Minister, flicks it over as she’s walking in the door and says, “Oh, just shove this in the ballot. Nobody will notice.”, and woomfa! Unbeknownst to her, it gets drawn, and she’s left holding this pup that the Attorney-General has written off. How embarrassing is that, to have your first bill before this Parliament written off by the Attorney-General as being—it cannot be justified. It cannot be justified under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

So we have Mr Parker, who—to be honest, I don’t always agree with that particular member, but on this particular occasion I think he has had a rare moment of insight, and on this particular occasion is quite correct, when he says that “There are a range of people who hold themselves out as ‘teachers’ and teach in particular subject matters, but are not qualified or registered.”

I’m just conscious of the fact that members might not be aware that today is actually the international day of the mother tongue. If you get out and about amongst the communities—particularly of Auckland, where I come from—there are many, many ethnic communities trying to maintain and nurture the languages of the communities that they came from, and many, many teachers that there are working in that area. They haven’t necessarily done a three-year course at university. They might not be qualified in the sense of having a qualification recognised in New Zealand, but they are teachers. Why should we come along and say that they are no good, that they don’t deserve the basic title of teacher, which is a core sort of expression of the most natural thing in the world for any human to do, which is to pass on knowledge from one generation to the next, or from one friend to another? So I don’t see where the logic for this piece of legislation comes in, other than to stuff the ballot for the members’ bills and to avoid what needs to be done.

I think the other point to make on this is that, really, what we’re talking about here with Mrs Martin, who was the original drawer-upper of this bill, is a very thinly disguised attack on charter schools, which they have never ever come to understand or appreciate. Obviously, there’s legislation in the House at the moment trying to do away with the charter schools, and, again, I cannot understand what is so offensive about some attempt to innovate within the education system and for small groups of people to gather together and try to experiment with different ways of reaching and educating young people who have struggled within the State system. That’s what charter schools have all been about, and this terrible notion that a charter school or a different kind of school could use people from different backgrounds and have a little bit of flexibility around who they use in teaching staff is such an affront to some members of the House that they will stop at nothing to make their lives difficult. I don’t think that that is a noble or worthwhile cause.

So I feel a little bit sorry for the member responsible for this bill that’s been dropped on her just as she’s walked in the door, and she’s had the misfortune of having it drawn. But on that basis we won’t be supporting this bill.

E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I would like to congratulate, first and foremost, Jenny Marcroft, for having this bill drawn. As the Hon Paul Goldsmith has noted, the original “drawer-upper” was the Associate Minister of Education the Hon Tracey Martin. As has been noted by a number of speakers who have spoken before me on this piece of legislation, there are a lot of education bills currently going before the House. I think what that speaks to is the priority that this Government places on education, which I personally think, and the Green Party thinks, is awesome.

This bill, essentially, does what it says on the box: it protects teacher title. To echo the sentiments of one Jo Luxton, my colleague in the Labour Party, this is about the status of the profession. How is it that, you know, a doctor can call themselves a doctor and expect nobody else to do so or that a lawyer can call themselves a lawyer and expect nobody else to do so? It’s because they have progressed through the requisite training in order to don that title. That title holds status and it holds immense value. The premise of this bill is to ensure that that value is protected for our teachers, who actually go through quite a bit of training in order to stand before their classrooms and do teaching.

I’d like to touch on, as well, what the Hon Paul Goldsmith said around this being a basic title—the title of teachers. I think that’s a little bit disappointing to hear from Paul Goldsmith. This is not a basic title. Here we are talking about the people who are educating the next generation. To reiterate what I’ve just said previously, this is about ensuring that we see the value as a Government, as a Parliament, and as a House of Representatives in the work that these teachers do.

To draw some kind of parallel, I think it would be incredibly interesting to see the response of certain politicians in this House should we suggest that it would be all right for average members of the public to be calling themselves “the Honourable”—you know, to draw this parallel out about how we hold titles in this House, and those titles we consider to be somewhat important. They’re official titles that we can use in kōrero, in dialogue, with each other—and we’re expected to use them because they are, of course, formal titles: they hold value, they demonstrate the mahi that people have put in to holding those titles.

It’s also been noted that this is something that is supposedly ideologically driven—it’s about charter schools. And it is, actually, indeed premised on charter schools and what the previous Government did with those charter schools in enabling people who did not hold the qualifications of teachers to stand before our kids and teach them.

💬 Matt King: And they get results.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: No; no, they do not. It is not universal, I would add, Matt King. This is, absolutely, premised, and was introduced, with those in mind.

This is all part of a massive work programme, I would note, that I am incredibly honoured to be working on with the Associate Minister of Education Tracey Martin, who was the original “drawer-upper” of this bill, and the Minister of Education, Chris Hipkins—“drawer-upper”, to use the words of one Hon Paul Goldsmith.

So, in summation, this is a small but significant step towards ensuring that we, as a Government, as a Parliament, and as a House of Representatives, move toward recognising the value that teachers generate in our society and the work that they have put in to holding that kind of position. So I look forward to hearing from the general public on this bill at the select committee stage and would like to say that my views diverge from one Tim Macindoe. I do think that it is really crucial that we are having these conversations with the general public. It is important that our workload is high because that is what we in this House are paid to do. I commend this bill to the House, and the Green Party will be voting for it through to select committee.

It was lovely to see Ms Swarbrick’s lovely smile there, but I was struck by the fact that I hadn’t actually said anything at that point, so it’s hard to know what it was she was disagreeing with. But I’m pleased to say I have every intention, over the next five minutes, of giving her plenty to disagree with me about.

But I do want to start on a positive note, and, as I did with Jan Tinetti when we discussed the previous bill, I also want to congratulate Jenny Marcroft as another new member who, in the great parliamentary game of lotto, struck the jackpot on her first attempt. As she’ll have gathered, there’s sort of a seething resentment within me that I’m still waiting for that opportunity a decade after I first came in here.

But what a shame—and I have to say this in all seriousness to Jenny Marcroft—that she has done that with a bill that is so poorly conceived and, could really, quite seriously, have unintended negative consequences that I don’t think she’s even given some thought to. It certainly will have no value to anybody in our education system. It will not do anything worthwhile for our community as a whole.

I don’t think anybody in this House—and I doubt whether anybody who’s tuning into this debate—would want people of dubious character teaching our children, and they certainly wouldn’t want people who are professionally incompetent in front of our children. If this bill was designed to try to stop that from happening, we could look at it and have a serious conversation, but it doesn’t even go near that particular thing—it won’t have that effect. This bill will not stop anyone from teaching; it will just change the name of the title that some of those who are currently performing that role in our schools and other institutions have. And I have to say to the member, that is insulting and demeaning to the many people from whom she’s going to take the title away.

Now, as the Hon Paul Goldsmith said—or, at least, I think he was trying to say—it seems to me that this bill is a solution looking for a problem. [Interruption] Well, anyone who can congratulate the “drawer-upper” of a bill deserves a little bit of—ha, ha! But he was quite right, and, in his delightful way, he was making the point that this bill is nonsense. And, as I’ve said, it may have unintended consequences and do actual damage to schools and other institutions that are currently dependent upon having a number of people working within them who don’t fit the registration criteria that the member wants to impose in this bill.

I have to say to her, and I wonder if she’s thought about this, how ironic it is that she and the Labour-led Government are doing this at a time when they keep telling us what a real problem we have with the nationwide teacher shortage. Why on earth would you want to deter people—good people—from entering the education profession at a time when we desperately need as many good people as we can?

So let me ask this: if someone is teaching children, or even adults, in a school, in a classroom, in a gymnasium, or maybe in a workshop—wherever the learning environment might be—if they are teaching, then why shouldn’t they be described as such, as teachers? What else should they be called? So I’m going to be asking the member, perhaps in her right of reply at the end of this debate, to tell us what she would expect all of those people to do. There is no evidence at all that has been presented so far of people misrepresenting themselves as teachers, so, again, there isn’t a problem to be solved here.

So I hope that Jenny Marcroft will answer that question, and I have another one for her. I have another question for Mrs Marcroft: what title is she proposing for those who are currently teachers but who will be required by her bill to stop doing so—

Chlöe Swarbrick: It’s on the bill. Read the bill.

No. Chlöe Swarbrick is saying it’s there—she has failed to understand the huge range of people, and they’re not all covered in the bill at all. She cannot leave these people in limbo; it isn’t fair.

This bill is going to put into law the need for someone to have a three-year Bachelor of Education in teaching or a Bachelor’s degree plus a one-year Graduate Diploma of Teaching or a four-year conjoint degree combining study in teaching subjects with teacher training. That all sounds very good, but, in fact, it excludes a whole lot of people who are good teachers who have not done that qualification.

And, as has been made quite clear, what it is really all about, and there’s another irony here, is it’s another attack on partnership schools. The irony is that her Government has already committed to abolishing partnership schools, so the problem that she is trying to overcome will have already gone. Yet let me just point out to her, in closing, that those who are working in partnership schools at the moment are having a tremendously successful record. They are instilling respect and self-esteem in the very young people who have fallen through the cracks. Yet now we are saying to those people, “We’ll take away from you the respect that you deserve in that wonderful job.”

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s very magnanimous of the Opposition here tonight to feel sorry for Jenny Marcroft taking up this bill. To Jenny, I say congratulations on getting such a fine bill drawn out of the ballot, because this bill is actually raising the status of the teaching profession. It’s another cog in the wheel to raise the status of the teaching profession in this country, and that is something that needs to happen in this country. So well done to Jenny Marcroft on that, but I’d also like to acknowledge the Hon Tracey Martin, who wrote this bill in the first instance. Tracey has been an amazing advocate for education in this country, and I have long appreciated the work that she has done to make education stronger here in New Zealand.

I would absolutely support this bill, because the intent that has gone in behind this is saying that teachers matter, and as a former teacher, I think that is fantastic. As a former teacher, a lot of people think that they could do what I did. As the previous member, Tim Macindoe, was also a former teacher, I would absolutely, 100 percent guarantee that he would agree with me that the majority of people who think that, can’t. Teaching is an incredibly difficult, hard profession. We heard the previous speaker also ask about why we would do this when we’re wanting to get more people into the profession. That is the point. If we raise the status of the profession, more people want to come into the profession. Why do you think we have the numbers of people that want to study law, medicine—those professions? You raise the status, and more people come in—sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The member—

When the status is raised, more people come into the profession. It is really important. The Government wants teaching to be one of the most highly valued, sought-after careers that there is, and this bill is another bill that will help achieve that goal.

We have already, as my colleague here Jo Luxton has said, passed the first reading of the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill. It is now before the Education and Workforce Committee, and it will rename the Education Council as the Teaching Council. Interestingly enough, at the time that that bill went through its first reading, the Opposition had a little debate around that changing of the Education Council term to Teaching Council. But the feedback that I have had on that from teachers is that that’s really important. The language really matters to people. They’ve said, “This is a Government who does care about us.”, and I was really surprised when the Hon Paul Goldsmith did say he doesn’t see that as a big deal. Actually, should I be surprised? Probably not so surprised, because, again, it points to the Opposition trivialising teachers and trivialising the teaching profession.

The teaching profession needs to have its status raised. We talked in that Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill first reading about how people have trivialised teaching and trivialised teachers. I told the story of how, when I spoke to a former electorate MP, who was a National MP at the time, he said to me that he didn’t want his sons to be teachers, because teaching wasn’t a highly sought-after and highly thought of enough profession. That is an appalling attitude. We need to change that in this country. We need more people in teaching, and I really commend this bill, because that is one way that we can do this.

Now, the Opposition has brought up inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That’s for the select committee process, which can make those refinements and look at that. That’s why it is important that we send a message to our teaching profession here this evening that we are going to help raise that status of that profession by protecting their title, taking it to select committee, and looking at those refinements. So I commend this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak in opposition to the Education (Protecting Teacher Title) Amendment Bill.

💬 Hon Member: No!

I know! Can I first just start by saying that I would offer my congratulations to Ms Jenny Marcroft for having her bill selected. As I said earlier, I’ve got a bill that I lodged today, hoping that it will also be selected, and I’d just like to say congratulations, well done.

I want to see the good intent in Ms Marcroft’s bill, not because she’s a new MP like me or because she’s a very nice lady—we serve together on the Environment Committee, and she’s a very good member of that committee, and, like I say, I consider her a friend—but because her bill talks about the uplifting and protecting of the status of teachers, and that is admirable. Our teachers in New Zealand are unsung heroes. They are thoroughly professional people who are dedicated to their vocation in supporting their students to achieve and succeed. They often go beyond the call of duty, and they do that with less acclaim than they deserve. So don’t get me wrong, we absolutely back and celebrate teachers and we are in their corner, but I’m not going to pretend that this bill is anything more than yet another thinly veiled attack on charter schools.

Members of that three-headed coalition on the other side of the House have deep-seated ideological opposition to charter schools. They have it in for charter schools, despite the facts—despite the fact that charter schools have lower truancy rates and less bullying; the fact that their students have phenomenal NCEA achievement, when they were failing in the mainstream; the fact that charter schools have given their students confidence, self-belief, and a feeling of belonging.

This bill would restrict the title of teacher to a person who has a tertiary qualification in teaching—never mind people who advertise themselves as driving teachers, dance teachers, or coding teachers, or the self-defence teachers who teach my son Alex at the Bays Martial Art Academy. According to New Zealand First, New Zealand has this huge problem with people misrepresenting themselves as teachers, something that is news to most people probably listening to this debate. Actually, this bill does misrepresent charter schools and perpetuates the myth that they are rife with teachers who are unqualified, unregistered, unskilled, and unprofessional. That could not be further from the truth. Of its entire teaching staff, Vanguard Military School—

💬 Jamie Strange: Vanguard! There it is.

—yes, I will always stand up for them—a charter school in my electorate, has only two unregistered teachers: a Defence Force teacher teaching military studies and a Te Reo teacher.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Every single time—Vanguard, Vanguard, Vanguard.

And under this Labour-led Government, Vanguard, and other charter schools like it, will be closed. These teachers will have more to worry about than what they get called, because they will be looking for jobs, and their students will be looking for schools. For any other teaching professionals who do keep their jobs under this coalition Government, well, if they don’t meet the requirements of this bill, they can expect to face a fine of up to $2,000 for calling themselves a teacher, no matter what subject matter expertise or experience they might be imparting.

I cannot wait for the Minister of Education’s bold education summit and the ambitious work programme that he has announced today, because they just might actually generate some good ideas and policy that put kids first and make constructive contribution to our education system, rather than what we’ve seen so far, which is repealing, taking away—removing national standards and closing down charter schools. All I’ve seen from this coalition Government is a Government that’s bereft of ideas. They are writing bills to close charter schools, get rid of national standards, and try to solve problems that don’t exist, like this bill. It’s a very poor bill with absolutely nothing to offer except to waste this House’s time. It’s a solution searching for a problem, and we will not be supporting this bill.

It’s an honour to again follow that member, Erica Stanford, on an education bill. Tonight is just getting better and better—one education bill after another. This is a Government who are absolutely committed to fixing nine years of inaction in our education system—nine years of not listening to teachers. We will listen to teachers, and, as we heard before, we’ll listen to students as well, which is even better. I’d like to acknowledge Jenny Marcroft for bringing this bill to the House. I’d also like to acknowledge the work that Minister Tracey Martin did on this bill. As I said, it’s an honour to, again, speak about an education bill. What a great night we’re having—hopefully the cricket improves, though.

Now, when I’m out and about in the street, I often have people come up to me, former students—because, as many in the House will know, I used to be a teacher. They come up to me and they call me Mr Strange, because they remember me as Mr Strange.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: Come on, they’ve got other names for you.

Ha, ha! Sure they do. Most of them are taller than me now, but they still call me Mr Strange, because there’s that honour and there’s the respect that they have for me as one of their teachers, and there’s always that close bond. This bill is about valuing the teaching profession. It’s about putting teachers first. We’ve heard about charter schools. We heard about Vanguard Military School again, and part of this bill is around charter schools because, as we know, charter schools don’t have to employ registered teachers. We’ll be working with Vanguard and other schools to come into the education system. But, look, when you go to a school like that, sometimes you’re not sure who is a teacher and who isn’t, so this is about providing clarity.

We have heard about teacher shortages, but if we value the profession, if we esteem the profession, we will have more people wanting to become teachers, which will help with that teacher shortage. Let’s for a moment here compare teachers with members of Parliament. So, teachers train for three years, sometimes four, sometimes five. They train and they become qualified. I would question whether some MPs are truly qualified, but people call us MPs—although, in terms of qualifications, the mighty tōtara over there, the National member for Northland, Matt King, is definitely qualified. Mr King, I think you should look at a leadership bid—just a bit of advice there.

But getting back to the bill—getting back to the bill. This bill, as I said, is about valuing teachers. Can anyone teach? That’s the key question we need to look at. Is teaching one of those professions where anyone can just get up in front of a class and teach? Or do you need the three years of training, or four, or however long it might be, in order to be able to teach?

So, I’ll just share a personal story. As many of you know, obviously, I used to be a teacher. I thought that teaching would be pretty easy. In my first practicum I stood up in front of the class and I gave a list of instructions for the students to do, and none of them moved. I looked over at my associate teacher, who was training me, and the associate said, “Jamie, even I don’t know what you want them to do.” So, the point I’m making there is that there are certain skills required to be a teacher. There are certain skills that need to be learnt; you need it through training. Becoming a teacher is not just like opening a box of Weet-Bix and finding the cards in the bottom of the box and one of the cards says “teacher”, and now all of a sudden I’m a teacher. It’s more than that—it’s more than that.

A couple of teachers I’ve had in my life, Mr DeGroen and Mr Crawford—unfortunately, they’ve both passed on, but they left a lasting legacy on my life. They were trained, skilled teachers—they had to be to put up with me. So, the crux of this issue is: what is a teacher? Can anyone be a teacher? Can anyone just stand up and be a teacher, or is being a teacher something that you need specific training and specific qualifications for? This bill addresses that issue. This bill says that becoming a teacher is something that’s to be valued, it’s something that has to be earned, and not just anyone can be a teacher.

Look, I commend this bill to the House. I commend the value it places on our teaching profession, and I look forward to hearing the other contributions. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has been, as others have pointed out, a very busy day for education in the House today. This is the second bill that we’ve been fortunate enough to debate tonight, and I’m glad to see that it is tackling an issue that the people of New Zealand see as one of the major issues facing our nation. The restrictions on the word “teacher” imposed by this bill are completely unnecessary regardless of any way you want to spin it. Let’s cut to the chase: this is a thinly veiled attack on charter schools. Newsflash over there: the Government is scrapping charter schools.

This is, in fact, a great representation on how the current Government thinks about charter schools. They detest their innovation and their exceptional outcomes. This bill and its intentions remind me of another bill from another New Zealand First MP that I’ve been hearing about recently that makes English an official language. You know what this is? This is a solution desperately looking for a problem. Earlier in the House tonight, MPs including Ron Mark, deputy leader of the party that is introducing this bill tonight, stood up in opposition to my colleague Jonathan Young’s bill on the basis that it didn’t comply with a certain aspect of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Here we go. It’s very interesting that they have not vocalised—not one has vocalised—the same reservations or condemned this breach with the same vigour that they did a mere few hours ago. Who has declared this bill as inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? None other than David Parker, Labour Party Minister and the Attorney-General. I am sure that those MPs who voted against my colleague’s bill—Jonathan Young’s bill, which they argue has the same faults that this bill that we are debating tonight does—will hold themselves to very high standards of principles and consistency, and I look forward to them voting against this bill, as we will as well. Come on. If it’s good to be against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act for one bill, it should be good to be against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act for another.

Last night in the House, I spoke in the debate that disestablished the Families Commission, so it made sense to me that I’d call up a good friend who was a Families Commissioner. I got some good insight. Tonight, I called up some teachers—one of them was my sister and it was a simple conversation: do you think there is a problem? Is your mana under threat? Are there imposters on the prowl? Are you feeling that you need to get a badge or a tattoo on your forehead? The answer is no. Face up to it. What they’d like to do, what they intend to do, is to strip charter school teachers of their titles. Well, never mind, because you’ve already stripped charter schools of charter schools. What it will actually do is make it an offence for adult and community teachers to call themselves teachers. Come on. Yoga teachers, dance teachers, art teachers—they’re liable for a $2,000 fine for calling themselves teachers. What shall we change it to? Yoga stretchers? How about dance movers?

Another teacher said to me on the phone tonight, “I’ve been in the game for 15 years and this has never been an issue.” Another one at a decile 1 school in Rotorua said it was not for her either—not an issue. The National Party response to this bill is that—and I echo the words of my colleague Erica Stanford, who spoke just before me—this is a solution looking for a problem.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Education (Protecting Teacher Title) Amendment Bill will ensure that those who use the title of teacher will be qualified with the required training and skills. Now, why is this so important? No longer is teaching simply about standing in front of a classroom. Gone are the days of the dictatorial style of imparting information. Now we know that old style is not the best pathway to critical thinking. Teaching today is about catering to the needs of diverse learners. Professional teachers who understand how a child learns are able to design programmes of learning that recognise diverse learners.

I’d just like to make comment tonight on those who have contributed to this debate, and I thank all of the members of this House. I’d like to mention Jo Luxton—thank you for your contribution—who wants to see teachers valued, and the valuable career choice, with the mana restored to teachers; the Hon Paul Goldsmith, the lonely man on the street, who failed to see the logic from the original “drawer-upper”; Chlöe Swarbrick, who said this bill will protect and value the status of our teachers—we see the value, as a Parliament, of our teachers—thank you for your contribution; Jan Tinetti, a fantastic educator and a great addition to this House. She says teachers matter. That is the message, and this bill sends a message. Tim Macindoe, from across the House—why would we do this? Well, the member missed the point. The bill will raise the status of teachers. Eric Stanford, my friend from select committee—

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Erica. She’s female. It’s Erica.

Erica Stanford from—

💬 Kiritapu Allan: Good mates. We’re all new.

Good friends, good friends—new friends. It is no thinly veiled attack on charter schools—the veil was lifted.

Teaching is about partnering with the parents, connecting with our communities. Kiwi parents have lofty aspirations for their children. Parents want the best for their tamariki. They’re heavily invested in ensuring quality outcomes for their children. Now, this bill will help them understand who is teaching their children. If we’re going to have strong partnerships with whānau and with communities to improve the educational outcomes for all of our tamariki, we must ensure the professional status of teachers is recognised.

Now, we did hear an argument from the other side of the House, and I’d like to acknowledge the former education Minister, who said that this bill contravenes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Now, during the Key and English Governments, I’d just like to point out, the National Government put through 20 Government bills—20 Government bills—that were concluded to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, as well as three members’ bills.

Addressing, also, the issue of teacher shortage and those who have a limited authority to teach, an LAT—well, this is not stopping the subject matter specialists. Those with an LAT from teaching, they will still be able to teach; it simply stops them using the same title as those who have a teaching qualification. Now, by protecting the status of the title of teacher and giving it the status it deserves, combined with the Government’s new introduction of the first year fees-free for tertiary education, it may actually attract more people to study teaching. We can only encourage more of our young people to become teachers, like they do in Norway and in Finland. That’s where they value their teachers, and that’s what we would like to achieve here too.

So, in conclusion, the Education (Protecting Teacher Title) Amendment Bill will lift the public status of teachers and protect the title of teacher. We hope this bill goes through to select committee and the conversation then continues with extensive public participation and robust discussion between all stakeholders. Kia ora koutou.