Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to the debate on Part 2, the debate on clauses 8 and 9 and schedule 4, relating to consequential amendments to other enactments.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for this opportunity to take this call on Part 2 of this bill. This Part 2 is about consequential amendments to other enactments and these are clauses 8 and 9.

If we look at these clauses 8 and 9, they sound really simple, because clause 8 is “Education Council Rules 2016 renamed” and states, “From the commandment of this section, (a) the Education Council Rules 2016 are [going to be] called the Teaching Council Rules 2016;”, and there is another subclause, which is clause 8(b). Clause 9, again, sounds really simple. This is just about changing the name from the Education Council to the Teaching Council throughout. But it is not that simple.

The most important thing is the Education Council submission. Yes, I would like to refer again to the Education Council submission in this contribution as well, because that is the actual body that this legislation is about. This legislation will change the Education Council’s name and composition. So where we are talking about the consequential changes, that is to change the “Education Council” name everywhere to “Teaching Council” after the commencement of this section. But when I looked through the Education Council’s submission, there is no mention of a name change at all. They have different headings. Under different headings they have talked about different issues that they have raised, but there is no focus on the Education Council to be called the Teaching Council. That means the consequential amendments are just a waste of everybody’s effort, because this comes down to just a name-change exercise in this whole legislation.

If I just go through the summary of the Education Council’s recommendations on the bill, they talk about introducing a provision that requires members to receive training. They talk about specifying a process for the removal of elected members to ensure consistency between members who are appointed and members who are elected. Then they talk about specifying a process for filling extraordinary vacancies on the council. Then they talk about the Education Council’s support of the bill’s clause for staggered turnover of appointed members. Then they talk about specifying the criteria for who may nominate and who may second candidate a for election to the council to provide certainty that only the teaching profession will nominate and second candidates, and adding an express power for the Teaching Council to make rules for the conduct of elections and the establishment of electoral rolls and other things related to that. All they say about the name change is that they have noted the cost.

During the select committee process, we did ask them about the cost, and when we talk about the consequential amendments it’s not just about typing the name in the legislation and changing the name from “Education Council” to “Teaching Council”. There will be other consequential costs because of this amendment, and it’s important that we highlight those costs because this is not a cheap bill. This is just a name-change exercise. It is not a cheap bill, because this will lead to a lot of other costs. The cost breakdown that was provided by the Education Council on the committee’s request—they did a really good job with that request.

The communications cost—that includes logo and brand elements, printed resources, website, and social media platform updates. The cost for that is $30,960. Administration cost—that will include the letterhead, business cards, signage, building, and directory update; that will cost $29,150. Procurement cost—that will include contract and lease name changes and legal fees; that is going to cost $14,200. Finance costs include registration of new company names, logo, and payroll changes; that will cost $3,830. I’m listing these costs because it’s important for everyone to see the cost of these amendments. The IT cost includes certificates, domain name, software, and email signatures; that is going to cost $77,500. Human resources costs include operation manuals—$3,120. These things are not cheap.

And then it does not finish there. Registration costs include practising cards and templates—that’s $52,640. Professional responsibility costs include updates, templates, and forms—that will be $1,600. And then professional services costs include promotional events, which they use—$820. Then, of course, they need some other funds for other expenses, which are put down at around $6,000.

When I add up all these figures—the added figures were provided to us—it comes close to $220,000. So these amendments are actually going to lead to a waste of money of $220,000, and I urge the Minister to explain to us why this kind of cost is required.

The debate on Part 2 is a very technical part of the debate. I listened very carefully to the member Parmjeet Parmar’s contribution regarding the cost of changing the name. But, of course, the cost of changing the name was canvassed thoroughly in Part 1—that is where the committee made the decision to change the name. Nothing in the member’s contribution actually related to the consequential amendments in Part 2 and, as a result, there is nothing to respond to.

Thank you, Mr Chair. For the new Minister of open Government, I thought that was a shocking performance—trying to hide the details of this bill from the New Zealand public—and he should be doing a far better job than trying to shove things through in the depths of the evening and dark of night, when the public of New Zealand have a right to know what this Parliament is passing and what the legislation actually means. When legislation has consequential amendments, that means it changes other pieces of legislation as well. So we’re not just looking at the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill; we’re also thinking about the Ombudsmen Act, the Privacy Act, and the State Sector Act—all of these pieces of legislation are being changed by this bill which we here in Parliament are looking at tonight.

This comes back to the point around Chris Hipkins’ elevation to the role of Minister of open Government. I just want to really congratulate him for taking on board that new role. He needs to take it seriously, not just in whatever role that he actually has but also in every single piece of legislation that he is progressing in this Parliament as the Leader of the House and as Minister of Education.

I’d like to refer to what these changes are. The consequential amendments that are being made to other enactments—firstly, in clause 8, the Education Council Rules 2016 are renamed: “From the commencement of this section,—(a) the Education Council Rules 2016 are called the Teaching Council Rules … and (b) every reference in any enactment and in any document to the Education Council Rules 2016 must, unless the context otherwise requires, be read as a reference to the Teaching Council Rules 2016.” My question to the Minister is, in looking at that clause, what other contexts would he consider may be raised that it could be read otherwise? What guidance could he provide to the committee around that?

I think it’s important to know what’s being suggested by the reference to “unless the context otherwise requires,”. I mean, he could just reply and say “Well, the context might require something separate.”, but can he give some examples as to what that might be? Maybe his officials have some examples in mind which he could readily ask them to provide to him so that the committee could be a little bit more clear as to what we are considering tonight, and potentially, putting into legislation.

Clause 9 talks about “Consequential amendments to other enactments”, and it amends the enactments specified in schedule 4—so that’s the Ombudsmen Act. Basically, what it’s doing is it’s changing the name from the Education Council to the Teaching Council. So it’s making it that inconsequential change, and we can talk about how inconsequential this piece of legislation is, but we have canvassed those arguments in depth this evening. So it makes those amendments—“Unless the context otherwise requires, every reference in this Act or any other enactment to—(a) the Education Council must be read as a reference to the Teaching Council: (b) the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand must be read as a reference to the Teaching Council of Aotearoa”. So, again, we have there in clause 9(2)—it says, “Unless the context otherwise requires, every reference in this Act or any other enactment”. It’s a very broad term that’s being used: “any other enactment”. Have the officials looked at what all those other enactments might be—are they aware?

When I went to law school and I studied law and I had a look at the library, all of the pieces of legislation were sitting in the library, and once a year, someone came around and they had to go in there and they had to tape over all of the legislation books, all of the changes which Parliament had made. So the legislation that we make and the consequential amendments which are made have an impact not just on the law but on the law books. That has to be changed not just online but in all of those different places. So have the officials got a real awareness of the actual impact that this legislation will have? How many references are being made to the “Education Council” which will have to be changed because of Part 2 of this legislation?

So I’d like the Minister to give us some examples. Get on his feet—he was very quick before. Get on his feet again and give us some examples as to what these consequential amendments might mean, talk about what “the context otherwise requires,” and what that might mean, give us some examples around what that is—and maybe even his ask officials to provide the Minister with a few, because I’m sure they’ve thought very deeply about that—and give some clarity to this committee. What we want is some openness and transparency in this Parliament, and, as the new Minister of open Government, that’s what he should be doing.

I’m delighted to have a call on this important part of the bill, “Consequential amendments to other enactments”. Now, I want the Minister in the chair, Chris Hipkins, to answer some questions for me around this. If you go back to the departmental report and you look at the submissions, some people might be listening to this debate and be thinking “Hang on, it only applies to a couple of clauses around the Teaching Council Rules, effectively, changing from the Education Council Rules.”, but let me tell you this: we heard, actually, a number of submissions around this language.

I just want to quote some of the submissions, and I want the Minister to comment on why it is that the officials didn’t land with “Teachers Council” rather than “Teaching Council”. Actually, this was something that David Graham, as a submitter, raised in submissions, and it is directly relevant to these consequential amendments because we are being required through this legislation to change the “Education Council Rules” to the “Teaching Council Rules”, and he dealt with this specifically in his submission. Officials, basically, submitted that there is a big difference between “Teachers Council” and “Teaching Council” in that “Teaching Council” enables a much more encompassing set of rules around leadership and advocacy—not just teachers. So this is quite an important part. It is important because it’s bringing in not just teachers but a whole lot of other education sector workers. So I want the Minister to comment on that.

The next thing that I want the Minister to comment on—and, again, it’s dealt with in a number of submissions, and it was dealt with in the committee in the departmental report—is around this issue of inserting, as we have done in terms of the bill, “Teaching Council of Aotearoa”. Why is “Aotearoa” not mentioned now in the “Teaching Council Rules”, and should it be? Why is it that it’s just in the title of the bill and not actually in the “Teaching Council Rules”? This was actually raised as part of—the Minister’s laughing, but, again, I’m looking at the departmental report. One of the reasons—and this is what was quoted to us—is that “It is Government policy to change the full legal name of the Education Council to the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. Adding ‘New Zealand’ to the name of the Teaching Council of Aotearoa would better reflect the bicultural nature of Aotearoa New Zealand.” How important is that? How important is that this week when we are debating the important aspects of Māori language? We’ve heard members in this House talking about that this week. So I just would love the Minister to answer the question as to why it is the title change, but then when it comes to the Teaching Council Rules, that also hasn’t been dealt with.

We’re going to get into this when we have adequate time to debate new Part 5B in schedule 1, which is around the transition but it does actually relate to these consequential amendments, and that is this issue of cost. It is relevant. It is not OK for the Minister to stand up and say, “Hang on, this isn’t relevant to consequential amendments.” It is, because the whole point of these consequential amendments is to go and change a whole lot of other provisions in law, which may add costs because, as Simeon Brown has quite clearly pointed out, it’s so wide.

This part of the bill says “every reference in any enactment”, and we already are told—and it’s in, again, all of the advice from officials—they can’t tell us how much the election processes will actually cost as a result of this legislation. They’ve gone and had a look at other councils, but they can’t actually confirm that. They can sort of tell us that adding additional members will cost between $15,000 and $18,000, but now, in this part, we’re being required to amend—let’s just look at the wording again—“every reference in any enactment”.

We already know this thing is going to cost $700,000. We’ve got some unknown costs, but I would really value the Minister potentially walking us through—and, particularly, I’d like him to comment on the amendment around sections 357 and 368 of the Act and what that specifically will mean in terms of costs. It is important to this House, when we’re dealing with a situation where people are saying we need to spend more in certain areas in education—and, again, this was raised in committee. People were saying in committee, “We would rather money is spent on additional learning support”—yes, Tracey Martin—“than on rebranding this council and potentially changing the council rules.”

I move, That the question be now put.

Tēnā koutou e Te Whare i tēnei wiki, Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori.

[Good evening to the House in this special week, Māori Language Week.]

I rise to speak, very conscious of the contribution from the Minister Chris Hipkins earlier, who—while I’m sure—wasn’t seeking to trifle with the Chair, did suggest that any discussion of these consequential amendments were somehow beyond the remit of this committee this evening. What I’d like to put to the Minister is that if he thinks it is not a priority to debate the changing of the name of this institution throughout our legislation, throughout our statute book, then why is it that he has prioritised this name change? Why is it that he has decided that of all the matters this committee could spend its time on in order to advance the interests of New Zealand’s children and ensure that our education system performs better, he has decided that legislation that changes the name of the Education Council to the Teaching Council should be prioritised?

For those of you listening at home, I want to take you through what these consequential amendments mean. What the consequential amendments require is that a number of other Acts must be amended to have the name of the Education Council removed and have the name “Teaching Council” put in place. Those Acts include the Ombudsmen Act 1975, the Privacy Act 1993, and the State Sector Act 1988. Then, beyond those statutes, which the good men and women of the Clerk’s Office and others will go through and change accordingly, we then have to have amendments to legislative instruments. So we need to have amendments to the Education Council Rules. This is but one of the many examples of bits of paper that over the next few weeks and months will be ripped up, put in the shredder. Where’s Chlöe Swarbrick when we need her, with her concern for waste? They’ll be ripped up, they’ll be put in the shredder, they’ll be thrown away, and, instead, a new rule book will be created.

What will be the difference between the old rule book, the Education Council Rules, as created through the legislative instruments, and the new Teaching Council Rules? Oh! Well, it will be the name change. So it really does draw attention to how this bill uses the priority of this House that these are the sorts of changes that we are now required to pass in a bill this evening. Not only does this amendment to the legislative instrument take place in terms of the name on the front of the book but then throughout the book, we have to go to rule 11, rule 12, rule 35, and rule 37, and we have to change the name.

What we are asked to believe by the Minister in the chair, is that by making this change, we will somehow advance and value New Zealand’s teachers. I say to this committee that that is an absolutely patronising argument: to say that, somehow, the men and women who are teaching New Zealand’s children, who are giving their best every day, and who were striking out the front of Parliament just some weeks ago—and, who knows, might be again soon—what will make them feel better, what will make them feel valued, is if we rip up the rule book and we put a new name on the front, and if we make some consequential amendments to the Ombudsmen Act, the Privacy Act, and the State Sector Act to change the reference to the “Education Council” to the “Teaching Council”.

I would suggest to the members of this committee that that is the sort of thing that gets you the label of being virtue signallers and not being concerned with substantive matters that New Zealanders want advanced, because, actually, when you talk to people about what they want progressed in education—when you talk to parents about what it is they want for their children—they don’t say, “Look, I’m really concerned about the name of the Education Council.” In fact, I have been to dozens of early childhood education centres—

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Has anyone raised it?

No. Ms Kaye asks whether anyone raised the name of the teachers council. Well, I have spoken to dozens and dozens of early childhood educators, in particular, and not one of them has said to me, “You know, the thing that’s really burning on my mind, the thing that I really think would change things, is if there were consequential amendments made to the Ombudsmen Act, so that when it refers to the Education Council, it’s changed and it’s called the Teaching Council.”

This may seem like a trivial argument, and I would not use the time of this House on a trivial argument if it weren’t for the Minister requiring me to do so by placing this legislation in front of us and claiming that this is the thing that we should be prioritising. I would say to him that he’d better sort out more than the name of the Education Council if he wants to advance New Zealand’s teachers.

I move, That the question be now put.

Kia ora e Te Kaiwhakahaere, and thank you for that opportunity. I have to say that was a very fine contribution by one of the newest members of the National Party caucus, Nicola Willis. I was a little slow in rising to my feet at that point because I thought that the Minister of Education would take a call. Ms Willis has highlighted a very significant point. The consequential amendments that are the feature of Part 2 of this bill are very significant.

This time last year, I had the great privilege of being an Associate Minister of Education, and I can confirm that no one raised with me this particular need to change the name of the council, or, in fact, to change the actual structure of the council. So when we look at these consequential amendments, it surely is at least incumbent on the Minister to take a couple of calls to explain not only to the teachers of this country but to the public at large—many of whom I know are still watching this debate, because some have been texting me seeking a little bit of clarification as to what’s going on.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Ha, ha!

I call on the Minister, who’s clearly enjoying this contribution—and I’m delighted at that, because to be able to make anyone laugh at 7 minutes to 10 is quite an achievement, and I thank him for that. But, more importantly, I hope that I will provoke him to stand up and explain to all who are listening, and to all who will be affected by the consequential amendments in Part 2 of this bill, why they are necessary. The call that he took a short time ago was, I think, 27 seconds—as I timed it on the clock—and all he did was suggest to the excellent chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, that her contribution had been irrelevant. Well, I want to say to Dr Parmar that I have never heard anything other than a well-reasoned, intelligent contribution from her. She’s doing a fine job chairing this committee. She has steered this bill through the select committee stage.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: And these consequential amendments.

And these consequential amendments, as the former Minister, the very fine member for Auckland Central, is noting. The very least that Dr Parmar deserves, and could rightly expect, would be to hear an engaged and intelligent response to the point she was making, not just a glib dismissal of her contribution as being of no consequence, because—

Sorry to interrupt the member. Engari kua tae mai te wā kia tuku atu te ripoata ki Te Māngai o Te Whare.

[However, the time has arrived to submit the report to the Speaker.]

House resumed.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)