Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Education Act of 1989 by changing the name of the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand to the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand to better reflect the purpose of the council, but, far more importantly, changes the composition of the council so that seven members are elected by the teaching profession themselves, with the remaining six members appointed by the Minister of Education.

This is about restoring democratic representation to the governing body of teachers. It is about lifting the status of the teaching profession, which is the stated aim of the body whose composition we are changing. This is just one part of a wider work programme this Government has in place to lift the status of the teaching profession, to address the concerns that teachers have been raising, and to ensure that they are the trusted, respected, and valued profession that they deserve to be. I could talk through many other things we’re doing around National Standards, learning support, teacher supply, and so on, but I’m not going to do that because there won’t be time in a 10-minute speech, and I do want to focus on this particular bill.

I’d like to thank the chair and the members of the Education and Workforce Committee for their careful consideration of the bill, and I do want to thank the people and organisations who made submissions on this bill and took the opportunity to have their voices heard on this important issue for the teaching profession. I understand that the teaching profession submitted overwhelmingly in favour of the provisions of this bill.

I am disappointed—I am disappointed—to read, however, the minority view on the bill. I note that the Opposition members think that having elected teachers on the teaching body that regulates their profession could—and this is a direct quote—“have a detrimental impact on the organisation’s ability to fulfil its core functions.” They then go on to argue that it could impose unnecessary cost to the taxpayers of New Zealand. I’m not sure that they’ve actually been paying attention over the last four or five years, because up until the Teachers Council was turned into the Education Council, it was 100 percent funded by the teaching profession. At the moment, it gets a taxpayer subsidy, because under the previous Government they botched the process up so badly they had to put more money in to bail out the council.

The Government’s intention here is to ensure that the Teaching Council belongs to teachers. That is fundamentally what this bill is all about. So, ultimately, teachers are the ones who pay for the Teaching Council, and they support the bill. They have overwhelmingly submitted in favour of this bill. They have asked for that, and I’m very, very proud to be the Minister of Education that’s listening to that concern. But, actually, the Opposition go on further in their minority view: “The proposed shift to an election-based membership approach will undermine the sustainability” of the leadership that the council provides. They think that elections undermine leadership—well, I think that says everything about where the National Party are.

It is of utmost importance that professional organisations such as the Education Council are seen to be independent from both industry advocacy organisations and Government. So, ultimately, who are they accountable to? If they’re not accountable to the Government and they’re not accountable to the industry that they regulate and represent, should they just be there to be accountable only to themselves? I don’t believe that to be the case. I think that the Education Council—the Teaching Council, as it will now be known—should be accountable to teachers, and I think the appropriate way to achieve that is to have teachers elect the majority of representatives to that council.

The committee has recommended a number of technical changes to the bill in response to submissions that they have heard. They have, first, added the name “New Zealand” to the proposed title of the “Teaching Council of Aotearoa”, and I think this is a good idea. They’ve also made a number of technical changes to the composition of the council. The first is the removal of the requirement that the teacher educator, who’ll be elected by teacher educators, holds a current practising certificate. This is a very reasonable change. They’ll still have to be a registered teacher, they will still have to have five or more years of experience in initial or ongoing teacher education, and they’ll have to be working in one of the two teaching fields, but they won’t have to have a current practising certificate. That’s important because those working in initial teacher education often won’t satisfy the requirements to get a current practising certificate, but they can still be registered teachers. So by requiring them to be registered teachers, we’re ensuring that they understand the job in and out and back to front, but that they can also contribute the perspectives of initial teacher educators.

The second change to the composition of the council has been to recommend the adoption of the term “early childhood education service leader” for the head of an early childhood education service representative position. I think that that’s a very useful change, because it ensures that someone who would otherwise be eligible for election to that position isn’t excluded because the centre that they work in and that they lead adopts a different job title to the one that was previously proposed in the bill. So I think that that’s also a very reasonable change.

The committee has also recommended that the early childhood education member be elected by early childhood education service leaders who are registered teachers—or that the service leader representative be elected by service leaders who are registered teachers and hold a current practising certificate. We do have some in the system. There is potential there. Basically, the committee wants to ensure that it’s registered teachers who are electing their representatives to this body, because that’s the job of the body—it’s to regulate the teaching profession. They proposed a term of office of three years and a maximum of three terms, and the committee has recommended aligning the term of election with the term of appointment of the ministerial appointee. So, where there is a change, there will be one single change every three years. I think that also does make some sense. I know that they considered a sequenced approach but have chosen instead to have a single transition point, and I understand their reasons for doing that.

They’ve also put forward several recommendations around the transition from the Education Council to the Teaching Council, which I think are sensible. One of those transition measures is that they’re ensuring that those who are successfully elected take office three months after they are successfully elected, to allow the Minister of the day the opportunity to then appoint the balance of the council, to ensure that the council does have the right mix of skills and experience and ability. So the teachers will still be electing the majority, but there is often a need there to ensure that the right mix of representation is achieved—the right gender balance, the right ethnic balance, the right skills balance. The Minister of the day will be able to do that by having that three months between the election and the new members taking office in which they’ll be able to do that.

I’m very proud of this bill. This bill fulfils a commitment that this Government made to the teaching profession to give them back their professional voice, to send them a clear message that we trust teachers to regulate their own profession, as we do with lawyers, as we do with accountants, as we do with real estate agents. The question that everybody, I think, in the profession will want to know is: why is it that the members opposite, having taken this right away from the teaching profession, who now claim that they value teachers so highly—why are they continuing to oppose it?

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for this opportunity to take this call in the second reading of the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill. We heard from the Minister of Education that this is a very important bill and that there were an overwhelming number of submissions on this bill, but when we look at the number of submissions, there were just 36 submissions on this bill.

If there is something that is of huge significance to the education sector, as far as my experience goes, the number of submitters we see are a lot more than the number of submitters we saw for this bill. There were 36 submissions and one supplementary submission received on the bill, so we can see the kind of interest that the education sector has in this bill, because the education sector widely knows that this bill is not going to do much for lifting the status, which the Minister has been talking about, of the education sector.

As we heard from the Minister, the bill amends the Education Act 1989, and, yes, there are two main components in this bill. The first one is to change the name of the Education Council to Teaching Council. Yes, we had submitters speak to that. In our view, as the Minister focused the first half of his speech on the minority report that came in the report-back to the House—he felt that was so important for him to justify his position, looking at what the minority report says. So it’s important to note that we believe that this bill is actually going to revert back to the situation that was there before we implemented the current structure of the Education Council.

We, on this side, oppose this bill. We do not support this bill, because we believe that this is just a rebranding exercise, changing the Education Council name to Teaching Council. We also heard about the cost, about who is paying. Yes, someone, at the end of the day, is paying, and if it’s taxpayers, this rebranding is going to cost—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are teachers not taxpayers?

—around $220,000. Teachers are taxpayers too, so they are part of the taxpayers group. So $220,000 is going to be the cost of a rebranding, and how is that going to help teachers, how is that going to help parents, and how is that going to help students? We didn’t get any justification from anyone during the select committee process or from the Minister in his speech here.

This is not the only cost, because what the Minister wants to do is have an election every three years to elect some members on to the council. Yes, we had a response from submitters. There were 13 submitters that supported the bill, others supported the intent of the bill, but, as I said, there were only 36 submissions on this bill.

The second part of this bill is to change how the members are appointed or elected on to the Education Council, or the new-named Teaching Council of Aotearoa. Currently, the system is that the Minister appoints nine members on the council. This bill is to increase that membership from nine to 13, and that is to bring a mixed kind of membership that is appointed and elected members. So the current system, actually, is based on extensive work that was done by a review committee, which was set to look at how we make a teaching profession that is fit for the 21st century. That was, as I said, an extensive work—very good work done by the review committee—and this is the document that shows the kind of work that went into this from 2010 to 2012.

It was in 2012 when this report was presented to the Minister, and, yes, I would like to address what the Minister has said—to respond to that, to pick a lot of points from this report, but I want to pick just the vision statement of this report, which is in chapter six. It talks about next steps, and the lead-in statement to the vision statement is “After giving careful consideration to each feasible option, the Review Committee concluded that the best solution would be to establish a new professional teaching body, possibly called the Education Council of New Zealand or some such.” The vision statement is “An independent professional body, with strong leadership, vision and energy, that is the voice and face of the teaching profession.

I completely refute what the Minister said, that the current composition of the Education Council does not represent the teaching profession—and he gave several examples in his speech of other professions—because in the current structure, six members should have some teaching experience. They could be current teachers or past teachers. So when the Minister is making those appointments, the Minister has to take into account their teaching experience for six members on the council. And, yes, the three remaining members can come from other sectors, but that is to provide that high level of leadership and governance. That is important, in my view, because when people come from other sectors, they bring a fresh perspective, and that is always needed in the education sector as well, because the education sector is evolving. We need to keep that in mind: how do we support this evolving sector that keeps supporting our children so that they are ready for the future? Saying that, that this is not representing the teaching profession, is not substantiated from what we know happens currently, because six members clearly should have teaching experience.

We heard from the Minister that, yes, there will be 13 members and, out of this, six are going to be appointed and seven elected. The way the Minister delivered his speech, it appeared that he thinks that elected members are better than appointed members. That is the wrong impression to be giving to people—those who are appointed on various such entities, because appointed members bring their capability to these positions, and they have their code of ethics and responsibility, and they are given their tasks to do. Also, when members are appointed by the Minister, they know what they have to deliver, whether it’s policy development or providing stable governance to the sector.

Having seven elected members—and, as we heard, they should be registered teachers—does not mean that the performance of that council is going to improve. There is nothing that is provided by anyone that substantiates that the performance of the Education Council—or the new-named Teaching Council of New Zealand—will improve just because we will have mixed members, appointed and elected members. What we want is a system that works, that actually, in a real sense, strengthens the education system and enhances the status of the education system.

So this is just about providing an appeal factor. This is just to keep unions happy. This is another tick to the wish list of unions. As we know, this Government is just big on unions, big on spending. They don’t care about the taxpayers’ money that goes into it. So every three years, there will be an election and there will be this additional expense of $150,000—every three years—and then there will be around $105,000 per annum for the cost that will come with the increased membership, from nine to 13. That is their travel, their accommodation costs, and other costs.

So we are looking at, from the start, around $700,000 going into this bill—

💬 Nicola Willis: How much?

—$700,000—and teachers are striking. Yesterday, yes, we saw primary school teachers striking. We know that there could be another strike affecting our students and there are other needs that need to be addressed, but the Minister is not focused on the needs that the teachers want this Government to address because this Government is so busy pleasing union members. Exactly—that is what it is.

I understand that rebranding exercise is going to be a one-off cost, but then there is going to be this expense, which is going to happen every three years, and someone has to pay for that expense. Who is going to pay for that expense? Teachers are taxpayers, too. Taxpayers will pay for that expense, and what kind of value do they get for that money? What kind of value do they get for that money? We didn’t hear a line from the Minister on the kind of value they get for that kind of money. So we are talking about around $260,000 every three years for this process, which is just about big spending and looking big, making all the structures big, and all the associated costs go up, as we know—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! I don’t want members interjecting to each other across the Chamber, please. Thank you. Let’s settle down. It’s the last day of the sitting session. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. As we know, under the past Labour Government the spending also went up. Actually, their spending actually went up by more than 50 percent, even when we knew the global financial crisis was coming our way. We have seen that business confidence is low. Teachers don’t have confidence in this Government. They are going on strike day after day, and now they have said that, again, they are going to go on strike, affecting our students.

So no, this Government doesn’t understand what needs to be done and what needs to be addressed, and this is an example. This is an example, which is just a rebranding exercise, again. They are just coming out and trying to prove that what they think is going to work is better, without going out and consulting with the wider sector—that is, not just teachers but the public, parents, and students. We need to make sure that the education sector is not just about union members, not just about teachers, not just about parents, and not just about students, but about everybody—especially teachers, parents, and students.

There is huge public interest in our education sector, and that needs to be taken care of. So we oppose this bill. Thank you.

Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to make a positive call on this bill. That last speech from Dr Parmjeet Parmar was very negative, but we have a Government who are making positive changes within the education sector, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill.

I’d like to ask the Opposition members: what is so bad about democracy? What is so bad about having elections where people—[Interruption] Look, I appreciate that for the Opposition, things didn’t go well last year, but democracy is what we have in our country, and this is an example of teachers being able to democratically elect their council.

I am particularly excited about the fact that we will have teachers from the early childhood education sector, and this is the first time in history that we will have representation on the Teaching Council, or the Education Council—it’s had different names over the years—from that sector. It’s a very important sector, because the first five years of a child’s life absolutely set that child up for the future, and I’m particularly proud of that aspect.

I’m not going to take too much time because the Minister of Education clearly outlined all of the aspects in the bill, but I’d just like to highlight the fact that this is about teachers having a voice on their council. This is a Government who, for nine years, listened to teachers, and teachers told us “We want to have representatives on our council. We don’t want National Standards. We need more support for special needs.” There is a lot of work to do, but I’m proud that this Government has started undoing some of the very disappointing things that the previous Government did around education.

So this coalition Government is getting on with the job. We’re listening to this sector, we’re working with this sector, and we’re bringing about positive change. I commend this bill to the House.

Well, that was a short and interesting contribution from Jamie Strange—interesting but, sadly, seldom of any relevance to the actual content of this bill. I have to say that, sadly, this bill represents the triumph of dogma over evidence. That’s the reality of what we are dealing with here.

This is not a bill that is in the best interests of our education system as a whole, it’s not one that’s in the best interests of our teachers, and it’s not one that is in the best interests of our learners, and that, surely—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are you speaking on behalf of all teachers?

I’m saying that this not a bill that is in the best interests of teachers, because we have to review the history. I’d like to do that, and I thank Ms Swarbrick for giving me the opportunity to do that. It is deeply interesting that there’s a—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Can I just ask the member, please do not—interjections to other members across the House are not permitted. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I do appreciate that. I felt for a moment that I may have stumbled into a Labour and Green Party dispute, such was the cacophony of noise around the House.

I want to point out to this Government that there is a deep irony in what is happening here, because this is a Government that has the most acute case of “review-itis” that we have seen in many, many years, and yet here we have an example of a Government that is ignoring the outcome of a very thorough review. You might have suspected from the previous contributions that this is something that arose from a previous whim of the last National Government and that it wasn’t based on thorough consultation or evidence. Well, that is quite wrong.

Let me remind the House that it was back in 2010 that a workforce advisory group report highlighted some significant problems that existed with the then structure of what I guess was known as the Teachers Council. That led to a review being established that very much focused on the concerns of that workforce advisory group and it came up with something that was much better. The previous Government then legislated for those improvements and, in the intervening period, those changes have been shown to be improvements. Those changes have shown to be successful. The evidence is that the system that we have at the moment works and is in the best interests of everybody involved in the education system.

Now, when the Minister moved the second reading of this bill a short time ago, he tried to argue that the National Party’s approach is anti-teachers. Well that is nonsense. It’s a common catch cry that we hear from members of the Labour and Green parties, but no matter how many times they say it, that will not make it so. I’m a proud former teacher. I worked with some outstanding people in that profession. I know that not all teachers think the same way on political and ideological issues, and yet members opposite would try to have us suggest that a predominant union view is the only one that teachers hold and is the only one that should prevail. Well, I reject that utterly. We should be teaching our young people how to think critically, and we will never do that if we have an attitude in education that says the union is right; all other views are inconsequential. The current Education Council is designed to assist teachers to be the very best they can be, and it is working.

I ask you, which teacher wouldn’t want to be the best teacher he or she could be? Who wouldn’t want to be the most effective communicator in the classroom, to get around young people and our secondary pupils, and inspire, nurture, and encourage their talents? That’s what teaching is all about. That’s what makes teaching such a rewarding profession. That was what I loved about the job when I was in it a few years ago.

So what can we agree on? We should be able to agree in this House that we need a system and a council that is focused on having the very best possible standards in education. We should be able to agree in this House on having a system that lifts educational achievement across the board. I’m very proud, having been a member of the last National Government, having been there for all nine years, that that was the unrelenting focus first of the Hon Anne Tolley and latterly of the Hon Hekia Parata as they were in that role and, of course, in the last nine months or so the Hon Nikki Kaye. All of those Ministers—and I was very proud to be the Associate Minister of Education in the final part of that Government—were absolutely committed to lifting the standard of educational achievement.

This is a Back to the Future bill, which will do none of the things that I’ve just mentioned, and the sad thing is it actually casts us only halfway through that movie; in other words, back in the past. It is deeply disappointing to think that because dogma prevails in the Government at the moment, they will turn their back on the evidence.

Since it was implemented, the current Education Council has worked incredibly well, and I commend those who have been members of it. They have been adhering to their code of ethics and responsibility. They’re actively involved in policy development. They have provided stable governance to the education sector, and they have encouraged leadership and professional development within the education profession. Those things are all important and they are in stark contrast with the performance of the former Teachers Council.

Where is the evidence of the Education Council not fulfilling their obligations to warrant the changes proposed by this bill? How will these changes improve the performance of this already well performing organisation? I do hope that members of the Government who follow will answer some of those questions, because, as Dr Parmar, the chair of the committee, mentioned there are significant costs associated with this legislative change and those unnecessary costs will have a detrimental impact on the organisation’s ability to fulfil its core functions.

There is not sufficient evidence to support the changes that the Government is making today. As I’ve mentioned, those changes came about because of the very thorough review process which implemented best evidence and best practice. Those who want to go back to the way things were are determined to revert to a previous dysfunctional model. Changing the title of the Education Council to the Teaching Council and increasing its membership from nine to 13 individuals will impose unnecessary costs on taxpayers, and those are costs that could be much better spent on other areas, important areas, of our education system—whether it’s in teacher-aides, meeting the needs of children with special needs, and so many other things of that type.

Over three years those changes were estimated to be in the region of just under $700,000. We’re not talking about a trivial cost. And $220,000 of those costs will just be associated with rebranding. Well, we’ve already seen the determination of the Government to change other Government departments—I see that Mrs Martin is here. She spent a lot of money earlier in the year changing the name of Oranga Tamariki. I have to say, we’re not seeing really significant and well-targeted expenditure from this Government. We are seeing dogma-driven things that are at great cost to the taxpayer for no tangible benefit.

I do want to just acknowledge in the short time that I have available that while we don’t support the bill, in the National Party we do acknowledge the submission that came from the New Zealand Catholic Education Office, who proposed to ensure that there is greater representation from integrated schools. I simply put that on the record because theirs was a very sincere submission, and I think, at this stage in a second reading debate, it is right that we write that into the record.

But the Minister of Education, in suggesting that National doesn’t support having teachers on the Education Council, was flying in the face of the evidence. So let me conclude by just pointing out that that is complete nonsense. Six members of the current nine-member Education Council are current or previously practising teachers. This highlights the fact that teachers under the current system do have a significant—indeed, the dominant—level of representation and input into high-level council decision-making. But the Education Council is also about bringing in the wider skills and capabilities that are absolutely essential and are typical of so many professional bodies. It’s not something that is just confined to teaching. This is typical of so many professional bodies, where the really important thing is to have the best skills and capabilities available, and that does not come through this current Government’s proposed system of going back to the way things were.

The current system is working well. So I am very, very disappointed to hear that the current Government is determined to put dogma before the evidence. I really urge them to think again and not to proceed with this bill.

Well, I for one am absolutely stoked to be standing up here and taking a call on this Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill, and I ask the members opposite: what is so wrong with democracy? Are you suddenly allergic to democracy? Because this is about giving people the right to vote for the people they want to represent them on their council. Teachers pay registration fees to this council. They don’t have a choice to do that, so they should be able to elect those that they want to represent them in their sector. I’m absolutely stoked, also, to see that early childhood education is really going to be represented, especially by having an early childhood education service leader on this committee.

We hear that there are already teachers within those that are on the council currently, but those people were appointed. They were not elected by their peers, just as those who are lawyers, nurses, etc. get to elect their representatives. I think that it is shocking that in the past that has been taken away from teachers—absolutely shocking. It is no wonder that when I talk to teachers, they feel so downtrodden because of the way they were treated by the previous Government. They felt that they couldn’t be trusted, because all that was taken away from them. But now they’ve got a Government who is absolutely willing and ready to listen to their concerns and put motions in place to make positive changes for teachers.

The other thing that I really like about this particular bill is that the Minister of Education, when he is appointing people, will go out and consult with parents, with communities, and hear their opinions on who they think will be appropriate to be elected to this council.

I also just want to finish off by saying—

💬 Simeon Brown: Finish? Finish?

—that I absolutely endorse this bill—absolutely endorse this bill. Yes, look, I don’t need to say anything more, because the Minister said it. Speakers on this side of the House have said it, because we are so pleased to commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this particular bill at the second reading. I’d like to thank my fellow Education and Workforce Committee members on both sides of the House for the process to date, and of course we’re dealing with a bill that renames the Education Council to the Teachers Council, and it increases the membership from nine to 13—

💬 Jan Tinetti: No, “Teaching”!

—Teaching Council—amongst a few other things.

I do absolutely concur with my colleagues who previously saw fit to recount a little bit of the background to this bill. I’ll do a little bit on the same before I then—it was touched on in the select committee process. It’s really important that we understand some people might think that this is déjà vu. It’s not; the circumstances are very different. And if we understand what the circumstances were back when there was a major review—not just a succinct select committee process that we’re having right now, but there was an actual major review that pre-dated the decision to change the name to the Education Council back in 2012 and 2013. So the three-year process between 2010 and 2013 was addressing what was a very—and acknowledged by everyone—underperforming and struggling council. That’s exactly what it did back then, and that’s what the review said, and it involved some really prominent and well-respected people in the review process—John Morris and Pauline Winter, for two.

Back then, the council was asked by the Government of the day—our Government—to be reviewed to ensure that the council would set and enforce clear standards for entry, progression, and professional accountability. That’s straightforward. That’s fantastic. And also the review was kicked off to make sure that it was clearly differentiated from a Government and industrial advocacy organisation.

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: Ah, there you go!

That’s right. That is “There we go!” because we acknowledged back then that that was the problem and that it was a very big reason why it was underperforming.

That review committee found that the council back then could not effectively set and enforce clear standards for entry, progression, and professional accountability as it was currently structured, governed, and positioned, and also that the council’s role and purpose were insufficiently differentiated from those of Government and industrial advocacy organisations. Now, if we fast forward to today, this is where we are heading back again. It’s incredibly clear.

They also decided—amongst those preeminent education individuals on that review committee—that the council’s status and capacity to lead the profession was affected by how much agencies, unions, teacher education providers, the research community, and teachers themselves acknowledge, respect, and support its leadership role. So they were wanting that respect for the council but the council did not have the qualities of leadership, public reputation, positional confidence, quality assurance systems, or organisational capacity to build that strong professional community of teachers. So the submitters were saying back then that there was an issue. What are the submitters saying now? Nothing—that there isn’t an issue right now with reputation. Did we hear, hand on heart, any submitters that said that there is a problem right now with the council’s reputation? Not one—not one.

Instead, the bill cuts in at different angles and for very different reasons, and I think that Dr Parmjeet Parmar very much touched on a sore sport with my colleagues across the other side of the House.

Chlöe Swarbrick: There were 36!

💬 Simeon Brown: 36?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Yes.

💬 Simeon Brown: Wow!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I have asked the members not to have conversations with each other across the Chamber while your members are speaking. Denise Lee, please carry on.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. So I say again: is there a problem right now with what those review changes brought about? Is there a problem right now with that strong respect for the council and the work that they do? The answer is “No, there’s not a problem.” So what is it that we’re trying to do here today?

I want to touch on what everyone is going to go to straight away, because it’s obvious, and that’s the name change. So you lead from something so obvious as the name change, and we have heard very clearly from the Education Council, as it stands today, themselves of the cost around changing the name.

So we know that the total cost associated with implementing this bill is $700,000 over the next three years. That’s a massive amount. In fact, if we break that down a little bit, we will see—this is provided from the Education Council—$220,000 for the costs associated with rebranding; $150,000 every time there’s an election held for the council; $105,000 per annum for costs associated with the increased membership, from nine to 13, so that’s costs such as remuneration, travel, and accommodation; and then $10,000 for training of that extra council membership. Seven hundred thousand dollars. This is something that the public and those in the wider education sector deserve to know. We have to be very mindful of these costs.

I would like to read out—and I think this is very fitting too—from one particular submission. He was a principal from the Waitakere Area Principals’ Association, representing several principals from the Waitakere area. Here it is in plain black and white: “As an association, comprising both primary and secondary school principals, we are extremely appreciative of the thought behind the proposed name change.” So, a good start there, right? Here we go: “This said however, we are opposed to a formal name change due to the financial costs that will be incurred during the rebranding process. At a recent meeting Tracey Martin, the Associate Minister of Education, noted her concern about the amount of money that filtered out of the education system without providing any tangible benefits for students. This is a concern every school principal shares. As principals we are often told that there is no money to support students with special educational needs. There is however enough money, it would appear, to reprint business cards every time a job title changes or to colour code the Ministry letterhead for purposes that to this day elude us.” Now, I’ll just repeat again, this is the Waitakere Area Principals’ Association. “Frankly we find this an extravagance that cannot be justified when students are not receiving the support they need to succeed.” [Interruption]

I can hear that the Hon Tracey Martin’s having a little bit of a problem with this quote. How’s this for a close-off? “It is our clear belief”, said the Waitakere Area Principals’ Association, “that if there is excess money in the system to pay for yet another rebranding exercise then there is money in the system to provide additional … support for the thousands of students that are currently missing out.”

That’s where the rubber hits the road—that is, absolutely. Now, here’s something else that that really helpful principal told us. Let’s break it down. The $220,000 cost for that rebranding, if that was to be used another way—and that’s all that they’re asking for, to ditch the rebrand and use it in another way—it would be 12,000 teacher-aide hours. I repeat, 12—

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

Is there a problem with that from the other side of the House? It appears that there is. It would be 12,000 teacher-aide hours. If you put it over the cost of the three-year cycle, there would be 37,000 teacher-aide hours. The Government is choosing a rebranding over 37,000 teacher-aide hours. How is anyone supposed to swallow that pill? You couldn’t and you shouldn’t.

I’m going to finish on just one quick principle that I find really interesting: the principle of—we’re being so-called “allergic to democracy” and the term of being elected. If that’s so, why are only seven of the new 13 spots elected? Why not all 13? Furthermore, why does the Minister still have the power to appoint the chair? If the other side of the House is so gung-ho on democracy, why not let them elect their own chairperson? Why not have every single one of the 13 spots elected? That seems to me to be a little bit on the “interesting read” side of things. I’d like to thank, again, in my closing seconds, the Education Council for the amazing work that they do. I’d like to specifically thank Barbara Ala’alatoa, who is actually a principal in my area in Maungakiekie. We oppose this bill. It is not necessary.

It is a pleasure to rise after the fearmongering speeches of the Opposition. I want to address a few of the points that have been raised, which I think build off the back of moral panic, but also off the back of a lack of facts and a lack of evidence. So, as has been well traversed, this bill does two things. The first is restoring elected members to the council so that teachers can elect their own. As noted by Denise Lee, that will be seven of the 13 members, and it renames the Education Council to the Teaching Council.

Something that I wish to quote to ground this debate in, given that we are all going through the history books, is the Hansard of the second reading of the Education Amendment Bill (No 2), which actually first removed elected members, progressed by the then Minister of Education Hekia Parata. This is from Catherine Delahunty, and I quote, “teachers are not necessarily going to be on EDUCANZ unless the Minister thinks it is a good idea. It is pretty odd thinking to make a professional body chosen by non-professionals—i.e. by politicians. It is going to be appointed by the Minister and then he or she will let some teachers be on it but will decide who they are. That is a low-trust model. It is a continuation of a low-trust model. Really, in the context of the educational debates that have taken place over the last 6 years, we do not need any more low-trust models. We need a bit of mutual respect and we need a professional body like a teachers council—if you must call it EDUCANZ—to be elected by the teachers for the teachers.”

This bill, the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill, is ultimately about trusting the teaching profession. It’s about lifting the status of teachers by ensuring that they are able to elect their representatives in the same way that other professionals are—whether they be doctors or lawyers. It is indeed, actually, also about independence, which, I note, the Opposition cited in their minority view out of the select committee stating, and I quote, “It is of ultimate importance that the professional organisation such as the Education Council are to be seen as independent from both government and industry advocacy organisations.” On that point, how are they independent from government if they are appointed by the Minister wholesale? If they are not accountable to the industry, whom are they accountable to?

I want to address also the point made by Parmjeet Parmar, the chair of my Education and Workforce Committee, stating that the Minister is saying that elected members are better than appointed members. I’d say that nobody is actually saying that, because indeed, as was noted by the previous speaker, Denise Lee, this is a mixed council. There will be both appointed and elected members. So if I can flip that on its head, I want to ask the members of the Opposition: are they saying that appointed members are better than elected members? Are they saying that they know better than the profession?

Then Tim Macindoe spoke to how this bill was coming off the back of a lack of thorough consultation or evidence. And on that point, I just wanted to cite the stats around the consultation—that being the submissions to select committee on the original 2015 bill, which removed elected members, where 1,032 submitters submitted regarding the Education Council point. In particular, 995 were opposed and 92 percent of them were in full opposition to the changes, that being removing those elected representatives.

Then Mr Macindoe went on to speak about how this was about dogma, or about ideology, stating that not all teachers have the same ideological slant. And I guess he absolutely proves that point. But this is the thing, right? What we’re saying on this side of the House is that we don’t presume that all teachers think the same. Actually, we don’t presume what teachers think. That’s why we want them to elect their own representatives—to tell us exactly that.

I turn to the point about expenses, which has been bandied around quite a lot throughout this debate, because I think it’s really actually the only point that the Opposition has that is of any substance with regard to this debate—the cost; the incredible cost. Well, democracy doesn’t come cheap. And on the point about the $150,000 every three years to hold elections for the council, $35 million every three years is spent on general elections, and if it’s good enough for us, why is it not good enough for the teachers?

As to the other points of cost, I just think the Opposition should perhaps go through the history books perhaps a little deeper, because they will find that prior to the changes made by their former education Minister Hekia Parata, all of these costs would have been funded by the teachers’ levy. But it was indeed that previous Minister, Hekia Parata, who introduced Government subsidies for the operation of the council.

So what I want to leave on, the kind of question that I’d like to put to the Opposition, is that if they are so concerned about the state of the teaching profession, if they were so concerned about the strike that occurred yesterday, if they really want to improve the outcomes for our children, if they really want to improve the state of the profession, where were they yesterday? Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you.

It’s a pleasure to follow Chlöe Swarbrick on this bill, the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill, which is the first thing that this Government’s actually got through Parliament—or is trying to get through Parliament—in regards to education. They’ve talked a big game, they’ve promised the world, and the first thing they’ve ever been able to get through this House is the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill. Well, this is going to make a big difference! And yesterday we saw outside, teachers and principals protesting about this Government’s failure to try to adequately deal with some of the issues. And this is the answer?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Not me.

Is this the answer to the problems and the real issues which they were raising outside?

I heard the Minister Chris Hipkins. He was speaking outside, and he said, “We’re doing so many great things to help teachers. We’re going to make the Education Council the Teaching Council. We’re going to change the name of the Education Council to the Teaching Council.” Well, I have lots of people constantly at my door, saying, “We’ve got to change that. We’ve got to change the Education Council to the Teaching Council. That’s the biggest issue facing teachers in New Zealand—is the name of that council. I just can’t wait, because that’s going to solve all the problems—once we change the council name and make sure that we can do a rebranding exercise.”

But, there’s more to it than that. This bill has come about simply because of ideology—simply because—

💬 Hon David Bennett: They’re paying back the unions.

That’s right, Mr Bennett. They’re paying back the unions. There was a review back in 2012 of the Education Council. It was a comprehensive three-year process that found significant flaws in the Teachers Council’s ability—in its previous form—to enforce standards, to improve teaching performance and to provide sustainable leadership and governance of the sector. This bill will reverse these changes and revert back to this dysfunctional provision.

And we heard Chlöe Swarbrick go on about how there were 1,036 submissions made when we changed it back in 2012-2013. A thousand-something—well, where were they when they came to the Education and Workforce Committee? There were 36 submissions. I think that just shows that they realised that it had been fixed. The problem was sorted. A review was done and there aren’t any problems in existence. If there were thousands of submissions and there were thousands of people lining up and making submissions to the select committee on this, it might suggest that there was a problem, but not one of them raised one. All they said was, “Oh, we need to change the name and we need to change the appointment process.” And why? Because the unions want payback. Because it’s the unions which put the Government into power and it’s the unions which want payback.

💬 Hon David Bennett: They’re paying them too. Corruption.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order, Mr Bennett.

And look, now we’re getting these lectures on democracy from the other side of the House. They’ve got lots to tell us about democracy. Well, I just want them to take a moment to reflect on the fact that they’re trying to push through the electoral integrity bill, and to squash freedom of expression in this House and squash freedom of expression—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Can we come back to this bill please, Mr Brown.

Well, it’s a very pertinent point, because Mr Little is sitting there, and we all know how much the unions play a role in electing leaders—and bad leaders of the Labour Party, as well.

So let’s get back to the bill and some of the problems. So what does this bill do? It changes the name of the Education Council to the Teaching Council. It changes the composition from all appointed members to seven elected members and a few appointed members, and it creates an election process and some technical changes.

How many pages is the bill? It’s about five pages long. It’s a small, technical Government bill which is one of their biggest priorities and which is going to, apparently, change the world for teachers. But the problems in this bill are deep and they’re costly—they’re deep and they’re costly. Firstly, the cost: $700,000 over three years. We’ve heard what else that could go towards: 12,000 additional teacher-aide hours per year. That’s what teachers came and told the select committee. It’s not us making this up; that’s what teachers came and told the select committee. They said 12,000 additional teacher-aide hours could be used per year from the money which is going to be spent on this very costly rebranding exercise.

So what’s this $700,000 cost? It is $220,000 for costs associated with rebranding; $150,000 every three years to hold the elections; $105,000 per annum for costs associated with increased membership, such as remuneration, travel, and accommodation; and $10,000 every three years for training and council membership—so another $700,000 of taxpayer money for a rebranding exercise. You’ve got to wonder where the priorities of this Government are. This is taxpayers’ money—hard-working New Zealanders—and they don’t care. They just think, “Let’s just spend, spend, spend.”—tax and spend. That’s all that they can do. Tax and spend—that’s what this Government’s priorities are. Tax and spend—that’s what this Government does.

What else does it do? It takes away the focus of the Education Council, which will now be called the Teaching Council, from skills and competencies. The 2012 review found that there was a need for the body to be more skill-based and capable of self-regulation and self-review. Well, who’s going to be in control of this place now? Who’s going to be in control of the Teaching Council now? It’ll be the unions, because how many places are there on the Teaching Council? Let’s see: there’s one—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Thirteen.

Well, how many elected members? Six members appointed and seven elected members. There’s one teacher representing the early childhood education sector. Is there a union for that? Is there a union for the—

💬 Hon Member: Bound to be.

Yeah, there is; there’s NZEI. There’s a teacher representing the primary education sector—there’s a union for that. There’s one teacher representing the secondary education sector—there’s a union for that. One teacher is elected by registered—there’s a union for practically every single one of these appointments. They’ve pretty much put enough positions in there to ensure that their union mates have enough positions to ensure that there’s adequate payback for their support going into the election.

And what do we see in the departmental report? The departmental report—and I’ll refer the members to page 21. It says, “In relation to the points raised by the PPTA and NZEI about creating additional appointed positions for union representatives, the bill does not prevent a union member who is a teacher from standing for election”—that’s OK—“or the unions from suggesting a person for appointment.” That’s what the heart of this is. It’s about creating positions for their union mates so that they can have people sitting around there and so they can revert back to the dysfunction that this was back before it was changed. What we’re seeing is the union mates being rewarded and the Government taking a reckless spend.

So let’s go back to this. There was a review. This Government’s got 135 reviews going, costing $200 million. The fact is, yes, there was a review that we did of the Teachers Council back in 2012, and we took on board the recommendations and we changed the law. We made a body which has now been effective, which has made a real difference, and which they could only get 36 people to submit to when they wanted to change it—and now they want to change it back. That really raises the question of what this Government is going to do with the 135 reviews that they’re doing—a whole 20, or something like that, into education.

Chlöe Swarbrick: You literally just referred to your own review.

Are they going to be listening? Are they going to be listening—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order!

—or are they going to be wasting more taxpayers’ money?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe) Order! Sorry to interrupt the member momentarily. I say to the member Chlöe Swarbrick that it’s not acceptable to change seats in the House and then interject on another member. If she wants to interject, she should return to her seat or sit quietly.

Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Look, I was going to raise that very point myself at the conclusion of Mr Brown’s speech, because he was doing a sterling job of actually continuing through that. But prior to that, actually, we’ve seen a constant barrage of interjections that aren’t adding anything to this debate, from that side, both Miss Swarbrick and, previously, Miss Martin. I know the Government’s had a tough day and they’re looking forward to recess, but it’s difficult when we’re trying to progress through this and our speakers are facing those constant barrages without any value from those interjections.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I thank the member, and I will monitor that situation very closely.

Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker, for your very wise intervention just then. Thank you so much. So where was I? I was talking about the 135 reviews that this Government’s got on, the 20-something reviews that they’ve got on education, and they’re wasting more and more taxpayers’ money so that they can find jobs for their union mates so that they can support what their unions put them into power to do. They’re wasting taxpayers’ money, and we have to ask the question: will they actually listen to any of these reviews?

💬 Hon David Bennett: No.

No, they won’t. We know the answer. Will they listen to these reviews? Will they actually do anything with them? Will they actually know where they’re going? They’re reviewing literally everything. We go out there and we talk to teachers, we talk to principals, and they all ask the same question. They’re reviewing everything, because they came into Government, they didn’t know what they wanted to do. This is something where they thought, “Well, it’s a quick win. We’ll pick this one out of our back pocket. We’ll change it back to what it was. We’ll just do something quickly. Who cares about the money that it’s going to cost? Who cares about taxpayers? That’s not really who we represent. We just represent our union mates.”

We oppose the bill. We oppose changing the Education Council to the Teaching Council. What a shame of a piece of legislation.

This is a split call—five minutes. I call the Hon Tracey Martin.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I thought I would rise and enter a logical, reasonable, responsible, practical debate, and then I came down and listened to the National Opposition talk.

First of all, what’s really unfortunate is the ignorance that has been shown about how the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand is actually funded. It was one of the over 1,000 submissions that was put in when the National Government—having commissioned a review that said there are supports that need to be put in place for the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. The National Government decided to throw it all out completely and take that opportunity to know better than the sector and 100 percent appoint—so to remove all democracy whatsoever from the teaching fraternity. When they asked for support, they were removed 100 percent by that National Government, because that National Government wanted to shoulder-tap and hand-pick individuals by which to start and continue the privatisation of the education system of New Zealand. That’s what this was about. It was one piece of legislation in a suite of pieces of legislation that not only decided that they were going to privatise the education system—so, first of all, let’s be clear: teachers fund this organisation. Teachers pay—through their levies, through their registration fees—for this organisation. We mentioned—it was drawn again and again and again to our attention—no taxation without representation, and that’s exactly what this Government is doing.

This is not an indictment on the people who are currently on the Education Council. They have done the best job they could, working under the previous administration that actually didn’t believe in public education. They did the best job they could inside the parameters they had. What this Minister of Education is doing is returning democracy so we return some of the status that was taken away by that organisation, by the National Party, over the last nine years. That is why there were crowds of teachers out on the streets in the last few days. That is why, yesterday, they left the classroom: nine years of being abused and disabused by that party; nine years of trying to get some recognition.

I sat on the Education and Science Committee. I listened to Mr Macindoe have a go about how everybody can teach. I listened to Mr Colin King, who was a member of the National Party at that time, saying that, actually, “It’s not the education you have; it’s the school tie that will make a difference to your future.” That is what I listened to when we were talking about education bills in this House. So that’s the first thing. First of all, this is not taxpayers’ money; this is actually the teachers’ money. The teachers—900-and-something of them—asked for this to happen.

I noticed that Mr Macindoe brought up the fact that we decided to listen to the children of New Zealand, as well, and remove the word “vulnerable”. That is what the children asked for, and that is what we have given the children. The fact that he made some statement about spending—again, it was incorrect, because the signs hadn’t gone up, because the CEO of Oranga Tamariki knew that it was better to spend that money on children in the first instance until we got the name that the children asked for.

What we have got here is, finally, recognition of the teaching profession—a profession that should be trusted to be able to elect their own representatives on to the board that they fund. That is what this is about.

I’m actually going to now put out a challenge to anybody on Facebook. Count up the number of times Mr Simeon Brown mentioned the word “union” and I will post you a chocolate fish. The first person to Facebook message me with the number of times that Mr Simeon Brown mentioned the word “union” as the greatest evil on the planet, and I will send you a chocolate fish. I thank you, Mr Brown. I thank you, Mr Brown, for clearly articulating the roots of the National Opposition, how they dislike it when workers come together collectively and when workers actually stand up for each other and ask for democratic representation. Thank you, Mr Brown, for your speech. Thank you for putting it on the record. I put that challenge out: there’s a chocolate fish on the way to the first person who can tell me how many times Mr Brown mentioned the word “union”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to take a little bit of concern at the fact that she might put a chocolate fish in the mail.

That’s not a point of order.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m pleased to be able to make a contribution to this debate at the second reading for the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill. I am not a member of the select committee that deliberated over this bill, the Education and Workforce Committee. I did make a contribution at the first reading. I have carefully read the departmental report, many of the submissions, I have read the select committee report, spoken to many of the members of that committee, and read the National Party minority report.

It is that minority report that I’d like to draw most of my debate from today, because it precisely lays out the very good reasons for this bill to be opposed. But before I do that, I would like to just pick up on a couple of points from previous members’ speeches, firstly from the member from the Labour Party, Jamie Strange, where he was so very concerned in his very brief two-minute contribution where, basically, the only thing that he said was about how the Education Council is so devoid of teachers. It’s been mentioned many times by speakers preceding me that, in fact, six of the nine are currently or have been teachers.

💬 Denise Lee: Sixty-six percent.

I know. I’ve got them in front of me. I’ve been looking. There are actually extremely capable, well-respected individuals. We’ve got the principal of Sylvia Park School in South Auckland. From my electorate, from the mighty East Coast Bays, Ms Amos, who’s a principal at Albany Senior High School. We’ve got Mr Simon Heath, a principal of Renwick School. We’ve got Nicola, who is principal of Patea Area School. Many of the others have been principals or teachers in the past—a group of highly respected, capable individuals who are doing a fantastic job.

Secondly, I would like to just respond to Ms Chlöe Swarbrick, who got very emotional and was stamping her little green feet behind her desk, talking about democracy and how it’s being lost and how terrible that is, and how it’s so very important that teachers be able to represent their own people. But it’s interesting to note the data for the last election—the last teachers’ council election. How many of those eligible voters actually voted in that election? That would be an interesting thing to have a look at. Maybe we should have a look at that. How many do you think would’ve voted, potentially?

💬 Simeon Brown: Sixty percent.

Not 60.

💬 Nicola Willis: Ninety-five per cent.

Not 95—try again.

💬 Denise Lee: Seventy.

Seventy, no—no. How about—

💬 Simeon Brown: Thirty.

Not 30—try again.

💬 Simeon Brown: Up or down?

Down.

💬 Simeon Brown: Twenty.

No, not 20. Down, down!

💬 Simeon Brown: Fifteen.

Not 15—not even 15.

💬 Simeon Brown: Ten? Down—down? Twelve?

A little bit more than 10—up, up! It was 13.7 percent. So for this great democracy that Chlöe Swarbrick is so stamping her feet over, under 14 percent voted.

💬 Simeon Brown: An unlucky number.

It is an unlucky number—13 is very unlucky. I’ve previously noted that this bill is a case of out with the old and in with the older, and, unfortunately, the older in this case is a model that was found wanting.

Now, Mr Hipkins got up today and gave a contribution. He’s the Minister of Education, but I tell this House what: he doesn’t like history. He doesn’t like thinking about why these changes were made. He doesn’t like the fact that we can stand up here today and tell him that there were reviews done, there were advisory groups that gave evidence, and they quite clearly stated that there was a lack of capability, a lack of capacity for this old body to carry out its functions. It was not best placed to carry out its functions. It did not have the ability to self-regulate or self-review. It was not the best body to serve teachers. Not only that, but there were serious difficulties with the Teachers Council around serious financial irregularities. So a review was carried out, and we instigated the findings of that review. Now what we have is a body of capable, competent people—some of which I mentioned before, and many others—who are doing a fantastic job.

It’s worth noting that after discussions with members of the select committee, none of them could point to a single submitter who could point to any of the work done by the council that could have been improved if there was a different governance model. This goes to the heart of the debate of this bill. We had a body that was lacking, found itself in trouble. There was a comprehensive review, changes were made. I’d just like to finish with something that my colleague Denise Lee left me with: if it ain’t broke, why fix it; and if it’s already been fixed, why break it? That is why we oppose this bill. Thank you.

The fact that we get a speaker that says, “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?” when we’ve got teachers that have had nine years of absolute frustration—and I know what that frustration is—and are actually probably one of the most broken professions that we have out here in our country at the moment, goes to the lack of understanding from that side of the House. Everything that this bill, the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill, does goes some way to fix that broken profession—and they are broken.

What I am really upset about is the mistruths that have been told here today. Thirty-six submissions—we’ve heard that over and over—pooh-poohed, laughed at; 36 submissions, so there’s nothing in those 36 submissions. I’ve just taken four of those groups who submitted. They equate four groups, four large groups: New Zealand Principal’s Federation.

💬 Simeon Brown: Unions?

No, not a union. New Zealand School Trustees Association on behalf of all of the parents on the boards of trustees. All of those people equate to 61,432 people—that’s a bit more than 36. Maybe the other side should have done their homework and read those submissions a bit more closely. Not all of them actually presented to the Education and Workforce Committee. I wonder how many they actually read of those other submissions.

Then we heard about the 12,000 teacher-aide hours. Now I think teacher-aides are incredible, but let’s break that down. How many teacher-aides is that in reality? The average full-time teacher-aide works 27½ hours a week. That is eight teacher-aides. Which schools are we going to put those into?

💬 Hon Member: Crocodile tears.

“Crocodile tears” is exactly right—eight teacher-aides.

Now we wouldn’t actually have to be spending that money if the former National Government hadn’t changed it in the first place. They went and put a whole lot of money into changing this and actually spent more money on rebranding than what we’re looking at in taking it back to the Teaching Council.

The other point that I want to make is that they carry on about the name of the council: “Oh, it doesn’t matter. We’ve heard all this about teaching isn’t important. The word ‘teaching’ isn’t important.” Well, actually, I wonder if they read those submissions on behalf of those 61,000 people. Every single one of them said that the word “teaching” is incredibly important to them. This is about identifying our teachers and helping them raise the status of this profession. We want to raise the status of the teaching profession and we will raise the status of the teaching profession. Whether that side thinks that this is a small bill or not, it is absolutely not to teachers, and I feel quite offended by the fact that they believe that this does not matter to teachers. It absolutely does matter to teachers and, for that reason, I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to speak on the Government’s first education legislation in this House. I want members opposite to ponder this, because this Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill is certainly the first piece of legislation I had the privilege of considering as a member of the Education and Workforce Committee. I want to thank my colleagues on that committee for their consideration of this bill and for the process which we went through in listening to submitters about it.

What was utterly clear in that process was that this bill wasn’t actually about the students that are at the heart of the education system, because amongst those 36 submissions there wasn’t a lot of talk about what a real difference this would make in the classroom for New Zealand’s children. Really, this is a piece of legislation that’s quite symbolic of the approach of this Government, because what it does is it takes us back to the future. It doesn’t construct something new; it says, “Let’s make it like it was before.”, because there is really an absence of new ideas opposite, but a desire and a nostalgia for the past. Not only does it symbolically change the name, which I’ll dwell on further later, it also stands for things that the Government is against rather than what it is necessarily for.

So let’s talk about the name. Renaming the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand as the Teaching Council of Aotearoa is absolutely symbolic of the Government who say that changing the name will somehow change things for teachers on the ground. As previous speakers have detailed, this is simply not the case.

The bill then goes on to increase the numbers on the council from nine to 13 to make it a bigger group, and as the NZEI Te Riu Roa, who have been much quoted from members opposite and much referred to in this debate, said in their submission, “it does make the Council larger and potentially a little unwieldy”—hmm, that was an interesting contribution from the NZEI Te Riu Roa on that matter—and upping the numbers retains a balance in which six ministerial appointees are there and seven elected members are there.

Now what members opposite have disingenuously tried to argue today is that somehow National Party members are opposed to teachers having their voice for their profession. We have taken serious issue with that, because, of course, right now in New Zealand we have an Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand with six members, who are either currently practising teachers or previously practising teachers. I think it’s regrettable that members opposite have implied that those teachers and those previous teachers do not provide a voice for teachers in their roles. It is regrettable that members opposite have declined to acknowledge that they are currently practising teachers working in our education system to make a difference for students. But, no, no—the members opposite would deny their contribution because they weren’t elected by, as Erica Stanford pointed out, 13 percent of those eligible to vote.

So we then look at what the appointment process is and how these elections will be carried out, because there is a real question about the nature of the representation that will result from those elections. Again, I refer members to the NZEI, who said in their submission, “it is artificial to say that this person”—the elected representative—“will be cognisant of all the views of all the people in a particular sector.” They then went on to ask “what actions will be undertaken to assist the successful candidates with their roles as a ‘representative’ of [the] sector [because] … Ways for the elected members to be the voice of their sector, and to report to their sector … need consideration and development.”

So I’d urge the members opposite, who’ve been very happy to lecture this side of the House on how they are the high-water mark for representation, to consider that actually the very union body that represents teachers shares the questions about what improvements these elected members will be able to make in terms of their representation. There are still questions to be answered there.

We then turn to a matter that is very necessary to consider in this House, and that is the cost. What we’ve had members opposite say is that this is just the cost of democracy. What we would say to that is, that would be true if what was happening right now was that there was a group of people doing something that was totally out of line with what the teaching profession wanted, that was causing havoc in our schools, and that showed that actually it was not representative. But, in fact, what we have is an Education Council that is functioning well, that has produced more than 2,000 submissions on matters of educational importance, that is successfully registering, approving, and developing teacher practices. So what we don’t have is a situation that is crying out for change.

But, on the flip side, we have a significant cost to that change. Members in the House tonight have covered those costs, but I want to remind you of them because it is $220,000 for the name change alone. So let’s break down what we’re going to spend that $220,000 on. It includes $30,000 on logo and brand elements, website and social media platforms. It includes a further $30,000 on letterhead, business cards, signage, and an update of the building directory. These are the matters for which money is being prioritised for under this Government.

As the Waitakere Area Principals’ Association made clear in their submission—they referred to a recent meeting where the Associate Minister of Education noted a concern about “the amount of money that filtered out of the education system without providing any tangible benefits for students.” Mark my words, Mr Assistant Speaker, that concern is a concern that every school principal shares and that every schoolteacher shares, and, actually, that parents share as well. People are concerned to see that the best use is made of education dollars, so it is right and proper that members opposite question the cost that this change implies when there is no obvious problem to be solved.

The costs of course mount up. Denise Lee did a wonderful job in her contribution of taking us through them. Let me remind you of the number: $700,000 over three years for this change. I’d ask the Minister David Clark, opposite, how many cochlear implants that would fund; I imagine quite a few. So it’s easy for the Government to on the one hand say, “Costs are tight. We can’t afford the cochlear implants. Rural health’s a bit expensive.”, but on the other hand say, “But, look, $700,000 to make an unnecessary change to the name of an institution to get some teachers elected by 13 percent of teachers—now that’s a priority.”

Let’s think about what we actually have in place now and how it came to be. Actually, the Education Council that New Zealand has today wasn’t the result of an election manifesto of a few bullet points; it was the result of a major review—a major review that when I went to print it out I realised was more than 200 pages. It was well thought through, and that was the result of having significant flaws being found in the previous Teachers Council, the “back to the future” model that we’re now imitating with this new version by Labour.

It found significant flaws in its ability to enforce standards, to improve teaching performance, to provide sustainable leadership and governance. So that report found clear evidence that this kind of a model wasn’t effective. What that report said—I have it here; members opposite probably should have read it before they prioritised this legislation—was that what was needed was more skills-based, more capable, more self-regulation, more self-review, and that it needed to be independent from both Government and industry advocacy organisations.

💬 Hon Member: I.e., the unions.

I.e., organisations that would seek to dominate this new council with one set of views that, in the end, won’t be representative of the 87 percent of teachers who don’t vote in the elections for those people. Those 87 percent of teachers won’t be represented or have a voice in this new body, but that 87 percent aren’t spoken for by members opposite today.

It’s also worth remembering that this Education Council that we had under the previous Government and that we have today was actually going to be the vehicle for furthering reform. The National Government had a proposal that $200 million, which is currently used for development programmes administered by the Ministry of Education—that funding would be transferred to the Education Council to use as it saw fit over a period of three years. It is a valid question to ask whether, in all the hubbub about changing the name and introducing elections, members opposite have thought about those substantive issues.

So, in closing, let me say that when we change things in this House, we need to realise that our resources are finite. There is not endless money. There is not endless time. There is not endless ability to introduce legislation. So what we must do is prioritise the things that will make the biggest difference to the people we are here to serve. The people that we are here to serve in the education system are the students in our classrooms, and we have every right to focus on them and to say that these sorts of changes, with a case for change that’s not stacked up, are not a good use of our resources. The members opposite should hang their heads in shame that this is their priority in education.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on this bill. I would, first of all, like to thank the chair as well as the members of our select committee, the Education and Workforce Committee, and all of our submitters who submitted on this legislation. The legislation proposed gives us an opportunity, as a Government, to address the issue of democratic election for our teachers to their own body. We must give teachers back their voice, their power to choose who should represent them in their own governing body.

The previous Government replaced democracy for this teachers council with dictatorship, and this legislation addresses it. This is not a bill that is just about changing a name. When we look at other professional bodies—let’s say, for instance, the Medical Council of New Zealand—do our doctors have a say? Do they have a voice in choosing who should represent them? Yes, absolutely. When we look at the Nursing Council of New Zealand, do they choose who should represent them on their professional board? Yes, they do.

One of the main things that this legislation proposes is that we increase the membership on this council from nine to 13, and for seven of those members to be elected. We are proposing in this legislation that one teacher represents the early childhood sector as elected by members of that sector, one teacher represents the primary sector as elected by their members, one teacher represents the secondary sector as elected by their members, and so forth, in terms of seven of their members to elect and choose who should represent them, who should be their voice on their governing board. It is disappointing that the National Party opposes this bill, but our Government strongly supports this bill. I commend it to this House.