Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill

Well, look, I am very pleased to be standing here in the Chamber having this opportunity to speak, but I’m not actually pleased that this is the legislation in education that we are choosing to spend our time on. For people who are watching the television right now, the Government has 19 reviews under way, and it is choosing to spend the members in this House’s time on a bill that, effectively, changes the name of the Education Council. It goes back and reverses changes that have been previously made around the institution—and I’m going to walk the committee through that—and it also costs the taxpayer about $700,000. My colleagues here, on this side, we know the value of that: that is equivalent to tens of thousands of teacher-aide hours.

Now, let me talk you through a little bit of the history here. The original Teachers Council was set up in 2002. There was a very important review in 2010, and that came out of some very difficult circumstances that were recognised in terms of the ministerial inquiry into the employment of a convicted sex offender in the education sector. So that is the first thing for all members in this committee to acknowledge: that there were serious issues raised previously around the processes of the previous body.

The second issue that members need to be very aware of is that there were financial issues—and I am getting to Part 1, and I want to talk about amending section 348. We know that it is the previous Government that had to, effectively, bail out the former Teachers Council, which became the Education Council, to the tune of about $21 million because of the financial difficulties. So to be standing in this Chamber—and my colleagues are going to talk about different aspects of the bill before us—and to recognise and respect the history of the change from the Teachers Council to the Education Council is to acknowledge there were serious issues around the processes, but it is also to acknowledge there were serious issues from a financial perspective as well.

The other point that we would make is: is this a great use of the House’s time? We’re going to talk through the difference between membership organisations versus a competency-based skilled organisation. When you have 19 reviews under way at the moment, you have more than 18 broken promises in education that haven’t been delivered—and that’s in part because we’ve got $2.8 billion that’s been spent on fees-free and students rather than the compulsory sector—instead, this committee is here debating a bill that changes a name and, potentially, goes back in history to a structure that was rejected by multiple reviews in 2010, then also in 2012. So we do severely question the Government’s priorities when not only are they not delivering fiscally in the education area—they have had bad priorities, including fees-free—but that, also, they are ignoring history with regard to this bill. And then, as I’ve said before, they’ve got 19 reviews under way, and this, they consider, is one of their greatest priorities.

So we go to clause 4, amending section 348. It, effectively, changes the names. From our perspective, we think, at the very least—even if you were going to go and change this body, how on earth can one justify $700,000 of expenditure on this name change when we know that that is equivalent to tens of thousands of teacher-aide hours?

Again, I want to take members back to some of the submissions to the Education and Workforce Committee, and some of the submissions that opposed the name change in particular, and I want to acknowledge Yvonne Groot and the Waitakere Area Principals’ Association. They made the point that the cost and the money could be spent on other priorities. Another point that they made was it would be unnecessarily disruptive for very little gain, and it would not look good, as the council had recently gone through a name change. So let’s talk about that.

We’ve gone through a review in 2010. We’ve gone through another report in 2012, which is what the Hon Hekia Parata considered, then we had various announcements, and the changes go through several years later. Now we’re less than a couple of years in, and, as the submitters quite rightly point out with regard to section 348, it is disruptive and the money could be spent on other priorities. Also, the other point that they raised was there is a risk of diluting the council’s identity, which could negatively impact on its important mahi.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to speak to my Supplementary Order Paper 102. This is to put an amendment into schedule 2. Schedule 2, in Part 1, is about ministerial appointments, and this actually gives the description of what kinds of people can be appointed by the Minister as members of the Teaching Council.

As we know, the membership is being increased from nine to 13, and, yes, there will be some members who are going to be appointed by the Minister and some will be elected, but this one specifically talks about ministerial appointments. It is about notification, and it is also about the Gazette notice specifying the appointment process and listing the criteria of appointment that is specified in subclauses (3) and (4).

But in subclause (4), when the Minister is considering someone to appoint, the Minister must keep in mind that each candidate’s ability to carry out the duties is there, and that the person is able to represent the public interest and to “have regard to the collective skills, experience, and knowledge making up the overall composition of the Teaching Council, [and this is] including (but not limited to) the candidate’s knowledge and experience in any of the following areas”. It actually lists these areas: “(i) education: (ii) governance: (iii) leadership experience and skills: (iv) financial skills:”—and the fifth one in there is—“(v) understanding of the partnership principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” My amendment is to add in this subparagraph as a sixth point: “(vi) understanding of the partnership principles between the Crown and proprietors of partnership schools kura hourua.”

So what we have seen in this Part 1, in schedule 2, where the Minister has described the criteria of people that the Minister can appoint on the Teaching Council—it is short-sighted. This is just based on what this Government wants to, but we have already announced in the National Party that we will bring partnership schools back. So it’s important that any legislation that goes through the House has that vision, is long-sighted, and is not something that we bring back each term to change.

The Minister has completely ignored the fact that partnership schools actually provide a very different kind of education model, and that needs to be taken into consideration when the Minister is making appointments. So this amendment is to ensure that when appointing a member to the Teaching Council, the Minister can have regard to the candidate’s knowledge and experience relating to partnership schools and to how this will contribute to the collective skills, experience, and knowledge making up the overall composition of the council.

The composition of the council is really important, because this is not only about providing the experience or the background from the education sector but it’s also about providing the experience from the different kinds of education models that we have in New Zealand. The partnership school model is a model that is highly regarded by people: those who have experience of sending their children to partnership school; teachers who are teaching in those partnership schools and, of course, those people who are running partnership schools; and people who have seen the outcomes of students who are in partnership schools—students who were not able to succeed in normal schools.

So it’s important that we take that into consideration, and I would actually like to ask the Minister in the chair, Jenny Salesa, if the Minister thinks this amendment should not go ahead, to give us a reason why this amendment should not be adopted and should not be made part of schedule 2. Partnership schools—yes, we understand that this Government does not support that model, which is giving us really good outcomes for those children who are falling through the cracks in the mainstream education system. But, in the long term, we definitely want to see partnership schools coming back and succeeding and providing a different education model to those students who wish to pursue that.

When I’m talking about the whole governance experience, I also want to talk about a submitter. This submission is from the Education Council—yes, the Education Council itself. This legislation—the whole legislation—is actually to change the Education Council to Teaching Council and to change the membership and the composition of membership of the Teaching Council.

So this submitter, the Education Council, said very clearly in their recommendations—I want to just highlight two recommendations that they made. The first one is point 8 in their submission. This is: “The Cabinet Paper on the Bill suggests it is sufficient that these skills are represented among those members appointed by the Minister.”—and then it says—“The Education Council agrees there cannot be criteria imposed on elected members, but we think all members of the Council should have some experience in these important skill areas, especially as elected members will comprise the majority on the Council.” So, clearly, what we have seen here is that the Education Council does not believe—[Time expired]

I’m delighted to just go back to my initial conversation that I was having about section 348, so we go back to the submissions. There were a range of other reasons that people put forward for not making this change. I mean, the other reason that was put forward was that it does not reflect the work of teachers, which is the work of education, and that, rather, it implies a lack of professional confidence, and the term “education” is a far more inclusive term for what happens within schools and educational facilities. So the point is that by then reverting back and inserting the word “teaching”, we are shifting away from the more generic term, which then reflects teachers, principals, and students. So that’s the other point that I wanted to make.

Just coming back again to that section 348, I have a range of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in my name. I want to just touch on one of them, SOP 103, which is around representation, and a number of my colleagues have other Supplementary Order Papers here. As we have been very clear at the outset, if you look at the history of this, we have argued for a competency-based model. The reality is that the Minister ends up choosing people that may be involved in representative organisations, but the concept that you would have the best people that were up for the job is absolutely at the heart of our policy on this issue. Not only are we seeing, as part of this bill, a growing of the body to 13 members—which is another cost, which members will talk about—but then there is also this issue of every person coming to select committee and arguing for another representative body. So one of the amendments that I have put up is that “At least one of the appointed members must be appointed after the Minister consults with, and receives recommendations from, representatives of parent, school trustee, and community interest groups”.

So the point here is that of all of the organisations that came to the Education and Workforce Committee—and, I should say, remember, there are tens of thousands of teachers out there. We had 36 submissions, so this is hardly the most important issue in terms of education. But the one group that were missed out, in terms of the Government members, were parents, and we know there are more than a million parents out there that actually want to have a say in our education system. So my amendment—and I really do want to hear the Minister’s views on this, because, as I say, we actually oppose these changes, but we’ve tried to be helpful through this amendment process.

I want to hear the Minister’s views on why it is that the Parliament, if we’re going to be here and we’ve got 19 reviews under way, if we’re going to be spending $700,000 changing the name of this council, and if we’re going to be reversing all of the reviews that have occurred around this body—and this question is directly to the Minister—then why is it that the one group that are missed out are parents? A million parents out there are not given the opportunity, unlike all of the other representative groups, to have their own representation. I would really, really like to hear from the Minister on that issue.

The other issue that I would like to hear from the Minister on is that I want the Minister to respond to Yvonne Groot and the Waitakere Area Principals’ Association, and I want the Minister to justify why—when even, I think, a number of the unions turned up to select committee and said “We don’t necessarily think you need to change the name.”—the Government progressed for a $700,000 change. We understand they wanted to make this representative body change, but why did they progress with this name change when it was going to cost that amount of money?

The other key question that I do have for the Minister is totally separate to proceeding along these lines for the Education Council. Why is it that this is happening so quickly? Why is it that we’re not respecting the amazing Barbara Ala’alatoa and all of those people that have put their time and energy into this body and not accepting that there should be a decent transition? Why is the Government pushing on through, spending this money on reversing what have been previous major reviews in this area, and then riding roughshod over incredibly respected educators to force this change to happen so quickly?

So those are a couple of key questions that I have for the Minister. We’re going to be bedding in for a long ride here.

Kei te whakamana au i Te Reo Māori mō te kaupapa i tēnei wā.

[I wish to honour our current focus on Māori language.]

I really appreciate the chance to take this call and would like to refer to one particular submitter that also represented another peak body, and that was the Association of Proprietors of Integrated Schools (APIS), which is the body, along with the New Zealand Catholic Education Office (NZCEO)—the bodies that represent integrated schools here in Aotearoa New Zealand. They represent over 360 State-integrated schools here in New Zealand, some 11 percent of all students that are in our education system. As we will know, back in 1975, under the Private Schools Conditional Integration Act, State-integrated schools were established. This particular submitter—and I wish to thank Paul Ferris, who appeared before us as a committee—was very particular about what he wanted to see. It’s a real pleasure to be on the Education and Workforce Committee, and as a committee we thought, especially those of us on this side of the House, that he was very reasonable in that he didn’t ask for or request an actual position on the council. What he did, though, was request that the council and the Minister lock in knowledge and understanding of what it is that State-integrated schools face when it comes to their partnership with the Crown. Of course, they were very particular about this piece of legislation, seeing an opportunity to progress and move forward.

What Mr Ferris raised is that while it’s important that the council has at least one member that understands the principles, they want to see that the Minister of Education understands this as well. So this is a question that I have specifically for the Minister—in fact, I’ve got two. One is: how will the Minister address the valid concerns of Mr Ferris and APIS and NZCEO on how State-integrated schools will be given regard, if not through a council position—which, to be fair, they didn’t ask for—but through the Minister having regard? My second question is: does current legislation, and I’ll refer to—actually, I retract that. It’s not legislation; it’s a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Association of Proprietors of Integrated Schools and the Crown, and this is a particular piece of documentation that Mr Ferris presented us with. How will the Minister take into account that sort of documentation, an MOU, and how will he warrant more specific attention to the needs of State-integrated schools?

What Mr Ferris specifically was wanting to know was that if there was one member that had specific regard to what they have to go through in terms of their partnership with the Crown, that person—and we can’t guarantee that as the bill is proposed, there will be a person, once the council is fully elected under the new regime, that has State-integrated school knowledge to the degree of knowing specific rules, of knowing and being able to understand when to take specific actions, and also when that particular council member or council members—it would be great to have more than one—would have knowledge of the principles and the legal requirements under which State schools need to operate.

These are the principles, these are the valid concerns, that were raised to us by this particular submitter, and I repeat again that I would very much appreciate the Minister being very clear about how these valid concerns will be addressed, given the very reasonable request that they not have an actual council member but that the Minister can prove that there will be regard to their particular requirements, as laid out in their partnership between Crown and proprietors.

So, Madam Chair—in fact, Te Kaiwhakahaere—I really appreciate the Minister addressing those concerns.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for an opportunity to join the chorus of opposition to this amendment bill, which, quite frankly, is amendment for amendment’s sake, based on an ideology that does not work. It’s on the back of several years of review undertaken by the previous Government in 2010, the Education Workforce Advisory Group report, which looked into the failings of the previous council. It was found that the profession was not being held in high esteem and, certainly on the back of some criminal activity, that screening of teachers was not at a place that it should be, given that teachers are responsible for some of our most vulnerable and impressionable in our community.

With that, I refer to Part 1 and, in particular, clause 5, which looks to replace section 380. That goes to the composition of the Teaching Council. It refers to there being six members appointed by the Minister and then, in new section 380(1)(b), goes on to describe, in a very prescriptive manner, the make-up of the seven elected members. Now, what I know from my time on the committee—I’m no longer part of the Education and Workforce Committee, but, certainly, what I know from my time on that committee, from the submitters, and from my own work as an electorate MP is that when I go to visit teachers, the most common issue is that they want to be recognised for their expertise, they want their profession to be held in high esteem, and they want to be recognised for the work that they do in shaping the hearts and young minds of our future. To do that, through the workforce review, we wanted to lift the bar, and the way to do that is to make sure that any representative body has the excellence represented on it, that we have the skills and the expertise available to drive the profession forward. We’re not talking about looking at deficits; we’re talking about driving the profession forward to innovate and make sure that we obtain excellence in our teaching.

Now, in new section 380(1)(b), in an ideal world, if we could get excellence throughout all of that prescription, that would be fantastic, but the reality is that we will not. We need to have a level of oversight over the expertise and competencies that come on to the council so as to get the best results for teaching moving forward. It’s like in this Parliament: we want diversity because diversity brings about the best decision making. So what we need to do is make sure that we have those core competencies represented on the council—not a prescription of people that hold certain positions but an emphasis on core competencies.

Again, back to the issue about creating robust systems that mean that any criminal behaviour or screening of teachers is completed in a fair but very decisive manner, to make sure that nobody of ill character gets through to end up teaching and being in control of our children moving forward—this bill won’t achieve that. It won’t achieve excellence in the sector, and it’s certainly taking us backwards to where we were prior to the 2010 review.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to stand and take a call this evening. I wanted to disparage a couple of things that members opposite have said this evening, one being the Hon Nikki Kaye, where she talked about the fact that this is just a bill that changes a name. Well, it does a lot more than change a name, to the teachers in the teaching profession. It sends a clear message to the teachers that they matter, that they count, and that we trust them to be in charge of their own council, not like when the last changes were made and that was stripped from them. This is about democracy and having an election of elected members to a council. And I just want to also talk about the fact that IHC also reiterates what I just said in their submission, where they said, “IHC welcomes and fully supports this Bill which aims to give back to the teaching profession ownership of, and trust and confidence, in their professional body. This Body is charged with raising the status of the teaching profession and ensuring quality teaching and learning for all children and young people.” And there it is: it is in raising the status of the teaching profession.

The Hon Nikki Kaye also mentioned the fact that parents weren’t going to be consulted, didn’t have the opportunity to be consulted, on this particular bill. If you look at the information around the bill, it does say here that, actually, the Minister is going to appoint six members of this council. It does say here at least one of these members would be appointed after consultation with representatives of parents and community interest groups in the early childhood and schooling sectors. So, I’m sorry, but it states quite clearly that these groups are going to be consulted with and have the opportunity to contribute.

Now, I just want to talk a little bit about the composition of the teaching council. It talks about seven elected members. And there it is: elected members, democratically elected by people from the teaching profession.

I also really want to talk particularly about the teacher representation from the early childhood sector. I’m really, really excited about that, because I feel, personally, that for too long, early childhood has not been given the same status as primary or secondary teachers—we’ve been considered the poor cousin—and this bill will raise the status not just of early childhood teachers but all teachers in the teaching profession.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want to start by replying to a couple of those very interesting comments from the member across the other side of the Chamber, Jo Luxton. The first comment which was made was: this is going to send a message. Well, it’s a very expensive message. Maybe New Zealand Post might be interested in that, because they might need a bit of help. Is that message going to be sent in the post? I’m not sure, but it’s a $700,000 message—a very expensive message. Then she said, “It’s about democracy.” Well, we’ve got a bill here which does change the name of the Education Council to the Teachers Council, and then—

💬 Jo Luxton: Teaching. Teaching Council.

Sorry? The Teachers Council, that’s right.

💬 Jo Luxton: Teaching.

Teachers. Oh right, sorry. The “Education (Teachers Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill”. I hope I got that right.

💬 Jo Luxton: No.

Anyway. Maybe I need—anyway, I won’t go there. This is about democracy, so why do we have to change the name as well? I guess this is a core question. I’ve got some questions for the Minister. Why are we changing the name? Let’s put aside the arguments. We’ve got arguments as to why we oppose the bill, but I’d like to know why we have to then also change the name. It’s a $700,000 bill to change the name, so why are we doing that on top of all the other changes? Even if we put aside all of the arguments that we have on this side of the Chamber over all of the other changes which are made, why do we have to go ahead and change the name?

I’d like to ask the Minister what advice from officials she has received in regards to the cost of changing the name. How much is it going to cost? The Education and Workforce Committee has had evidence presented by the Education Council that says it will cost around $700,000 to change the name. I’d like to ask the Minister what advice she has received from officials as to what that cost will be. Does she agree with the evidence provided to the committee about the cost, which has been given to the committee by the Education Council? And then the next question is: does the Minister believe that that cost is justified? Because, well, we can put aside the arguments here, but does the Minister believe that that argument is justified?

So I was having a read of the “Education (Teachers Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill”—the commentary. It says there: “Clause 4 of the bill as introduced would amend section 348 of the Act, changing the name of Education Council of Aotearoa … to the [Teachers] Council of Aotearoa. We recommend, by majority, amending clause 4 and inserting clause 4A to change the name of the council … This would better reflect the bicultural nature of this country.” So is that the reason why the Minister thinks this change is required? Is that the only reason? That’s the only reason that we actually see here in the report from the select committee, which was voted on by the majority of Government members. Is that the only reason that the Minister can use to justify changing the name of the Education Council, or are there other reasons that the Minister has? Does the Minister have—

💬 Marja Lubeck: What did the teachers tell us?

Why don’t you ask the Minister a question? I’m asking the Minister some questions right now. So I’m just waiting for the Minister to answer that question and, hopefully, that will inform the committee, including the other members on the other side.

So does the Minister feel that that cost is justified? And then my next question is: has there been a cost-benefit analysis done by officials as to this name change? Weighing up the costs and the benefits, has there been a cost-benefit analysis? Has the Minister seen a cost-benefit analysis done by officials on the costs of changing this name and the benefit that it will have to the teaching profession?

I guess, on this side of the Chamber, we look at it and say, “Well, look. You’re changing a name.” This is the first piece of legislation which this Government is getting through Parliament in regard to education policy and all it does is it changes the name and it does a few other inconsequential things. There have been arguments about this—there will be more arguments about this—but this is the first thing the Government has brought to the House, and all it does is change a name. I’d like to know whether a benefit-cost analysis was done. Has there been a working group? Has there been a review? What kind of thought has been put into this? What Ministers have come together and had a think about this? What committee meetings have been attended? Who sat on those? You know, I’d like to know what thought actually went into this, because otherwise all we’ve got is one line, and that doesn’t cut it.

Kia ora koutou katoa i Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. Kia kaha Te Reo.

[Greetings to you all during this Māori Language Week. May the language be strong.]

This legislation that we are putting through, on behalf of Minister of Education, is not just about changing the name. It is absolutely not just about changing “EDUCANZ” and inserting “Teaching”. To the question posed by the member of Parliament Simeon Brown: the council’s name should reflect the central role that our teachers have in their own council. It should also ensure that they have the power to elect their own members. This is about democracy, ensuring that our teachers can elect their own members to govern them.

Several of the questions posed earlier on were: what about the voices of partnership schools, what about the voices of State integrated schools, what about the voices of parents? Well, this legislation provides that the Minister will be able to appoint six of the 13 members. Seven of the members are elected, and six are going to be appointed by the Minister. The bill provides that in appointing those members, the Minister will have regard to their collective skills, their experience, and their knowledge, in making the overall composition of the Teaching Council. It could include all of those other areas that I had questions on earlier in terms of representation and parents being included.

In terms of the question posed about the costs, the question was: do we have any advice on how much it will cost to change the name? As far as I’m informed, the Education Council has estimated that changing the name would cost about $220,000. The question was also posed: is this a good investment of money? We are doing a whole lot in this space. We have, as you know, according to the Hon Nikki Kaye, 13 different working groups, including Tomorrow’s Schools and NCEA. All of that work comes to Cabinet at the end of this year, and this is but one of the things that the Ministry of Education and the Minister of Education, the Hon Chris Hipkins, are working on. One of the things that we knew while in Opposition, as well as during the submission process, and what teachers have told us many, many times over, is that they would like to have a say. They would like to elect their own people.

When we look at other professions, be they doctors or lawyers or nurses, they have a say in who gets elected and then who governs them. We are giving teachers the respect that they deserve, so that they can elect their own to govern their own. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I am absolutely delighted. Firstly, can I just acknowledge the Hon Jenny Salesa. What a great speech. Can I suggest that, potentially, we haven’t seen the Hon Chris Hipkins in a while—and I know I’m not supposed to mention that he’s absent from the House—but at least you are in the chair and you are responding to the questions that we asked. But I’ve still got a few more questions to go, and I want to just ask some more questions of the Minister. I’m hoping that she will immediately then respond and we can really get this debate going.

So just with regard to the costs—I need the Minister to stand up and actually clarify this, because as I understand it, it may be $220,000 in one year, but the overall cost over several years is $700,000. So we need to have that clarity, because that is, potentially, I think, 30,000 teacher-aide hours—30,000 teacher-aide hours. So we need that clarity.

The second point I want to make is that I do have questions around the representative nature of each of the positions. The point I want to make—and I want to make this in response to one of the honourable members previously—is separate to the generic appointments, and the point is that it does matter if you are allocated a specific representative position. And our point, and my amendment around parents, is exactly to say that this is about equality. This is about respecting parents just as much as some of the members opposite respect some of the union organisations. So my question for the member—this isn’t about the generic appointments—is: why is it that we are not going to be very specific that there will be a dedicated appointed person that represents parents and boards of trustees?

The next point that I want to make is actually in response to the member saying, “Well, we’re a busy Government, because we doing 13 reviews.” I sat down with a very senior education leader the other night, and I said to them, “Look, this Government is doing about 13 education reviews.” They corrected me—and I would love for the member to stand up and confirm whether this is correct—and said, “It’s actually not true that there are 13 reviews under way. There are 19 reviews under way.”

So I would love to have that clarity, because I think it is relevant now that the Minister has brought this into the debate. And just along the same lines of what Simeon Brown said, as to what was the review that may have happened behind the scenes to mean that this became a priority piece of legislation for the Government—so that’s my other question for the member. Given that she’s now brought that into the debate, can she confirm that there was somehow a review before this legislation was dreamed up by the member?

The next point that I want to bring in, that members haven’t talked about yet—and actually that a lot of members of the public and the profession probably don’t know about, because the Minister of Education has hidden this in the depth of a press release that links to some websites—is that one of the whole reasons for these changes was to give independence to the profession. What the profession and many people don’t realise—as I see when I get out and about in New Zealand—is that the Minister has some secret plans under way to create policy directions that would mean that the Minister could tell this council what to do. Now, I don’t think we have heard from members opposite about that particular policy.

I would like other members to address the fact that we’re in this Parliament, they’re all standing up giving pious speeches about how this gives the profession greater autonomy and independence, and then at the same time in the background the Minister of Education might be putting this piece of legislation through the committee but he is, through secret plans, giving himself the ability to direct the council on policy, completely pulling the rug underneath many thousands of teachers in this country by directing them what to do, and that is a sham. That is an absolute sham. It is an absolute sham that we are being required to debate in this committee a bill that is supposed to give greater independence but then behind the scenes the Minister is manipulating the situation so he will control this council. Thank you.

That speech pretty much sums up the Opposition: conspiracy theories. If they’re so worried about things not going right, why don’t they find out who the leaker was in the Opposition there?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order!

I will return to the bill, Madam Chair.

This bill is about one thing. We’ve got the Hon Nikki Kaye over there and we’ve got her team behind her and they’ve all got their lines, and that’s OK, but this bill is about one thing: do we as a country want teachers on the governing body for teachers? Do we: yes or no? Do we want teachers elected by teachers to be on there? On this side of the House, the answer is yes. The Opposition have a different view, and that’s fine. Why do we want teachers elected on to this council? Because teachers know what is happening in the classrooms of New Zealand.

For the first time ever, as my colleague mentioned, we’re going to have teachers from the early childhood sector. This is one thing that is particularly exciting for me, because the first five years of a child’s life are absolutely vital in terms of how they will carry on.

If we look at the composition of the council in section 380(1)(b)—this is in clause 5—we see in subparagraphs (i) to (iv) that there is one teacher representing early childhood, one representing the primary sector, one representing the secondary sector, and one representing ongoing teacher education. So that’s four teachers who are at the coalface. They are absolutely in the classroom, living the job. They know the changes that may need to happen in their profession. They know the challenges. They’re right there. Then paragraph (b) continues with subparagraphs (v), (vi), and (vii), which are talking about a principal from primary, a principal from secondary, and a lead teacher from early childhood. So we’ve got three teachers around the area of leadership. So we’ve got those at the coalface and we’ve got those in leadership, and I think that’s an excellent balance.

I do wonder what the Opposition have against teachers being on the Teaching Council, and that’s the key question.

💬 Hon Member: There’s six of them now.

Yes, there may be one or two, but the reality is we’re talking about elected teachers. The way the legislation currently is we may or may not have a teacher on there. There was no guarantee under the previous legislation. This guarantees seven teachers on the Teaching Council.

There was something mentioned opposite there about the partnership schools. Now, the way the Opposition talks about partnership schools is that they think it’s the most wonderful thing since sliced bread. How many charter schools did the previous Government bring in? Maybe 200, 300? I mean, they really believed in them. No? One hundred, 50? No. Thirty charter schools? Twenty, 15? Twelve charter schools. The reason I say this is because I’m responding to what one of the Opposition members said, waxing lyrical about the benefits of charter schools. There are only 12 in existence. Did the previous Government really believe in them? I don’t think so. There are only 12.

I’m just going to finish on my one point there, which is around having “Aotearoa” in the name. It’s Māori Language Week at the moment, and I think it is particularly appropriate to mention that we do have the word “Aotearoa” in the Teaching Council.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Kia ora tātou e Te Whare. When we rose for the dinner break the committee was considering Part 1 of the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill. Jamie Strange had the call with one minute and five seconds remaining, should he so wish.

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to finish my speech. As I say, the crux of this bill is having teachers elected on the Teaching Council, guaranteeing teacher representation on the Teaching Council.

💬 Simeon Brown: How many are there now?

That’s the question that I ask the Opposition. Why do you not want elected members from the teaching profession on the Teaching Council? The teachers are at the coalface so the teachers know some of the challenges in the classroom, and so the teachers are in the best place to provide that insight around that.

I commend this bill to the committee, and I thank the Minister for the work he’s done on this.

I move, That the committee report progress and sit again presently.

House resumed.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.