Education Amendment Bill

I move, That the Education Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Education Act 1989 and the Education Update Amendment Act of 2017. This bill is about backing our public school system, moving away from a system of a punitive and narrow approach to measuring a child’s achievement, to one that is meaningfully measuring children’s progress against the rich and diverse curriculum that we have in our school system, and restoring student and staff voices in the decision making on councils of tertiary education institutions, which the previous Government removed.

This bill will strengthen the quality of schooling education by removing national standards. National standards were neither national nor were they standard. They significantly increased the workload of teachers for no discernible gain for the young people who were in their classes. The evidence continued to mount up, making the case against national standards an easy one to make. This Government has listened to those with expertise and we have abolished national standards already. This bill removes them from the statute books.

The second major change that this bill implements is the removal of the charter school model from legislation, and supporting the transition of existing charter schools into the public education system. Nobody should be surprised by this. When the last Government decided to embark on their ideological charter school experiment, every other party in Parliament, except for the ACT Party and the Māori Party, indicated that they were opposed to that experiment. Labour, New Zealand First, the Greens, and I’m pretty sure that United Future at the time, as well, made it clear that we did not want to see our public education system undermined in that way, and this bill gives effect to the commitment we made back then. We are removing the ideologically driven experiment of charter schools, and we are supporting those who are currently in charter schools to transition into the public education system, because we do not believe that they should be disadvantaged and penalised because of the last Government’s ideological experiment.

The bill also supports the integrity of the fees-free tertiary education commitment that the Government has made by creating a new offence for making a false representation in relation to an application for free tertiary education. This will significantly simplify the enrolment process and remove the need for people signing up for fees-free to do a statutory declaration. They will no longer need to go and find a justice of the peace to sign their application, because this process has been made that much simpler. It’s a similar amendment to one that this House made recently, or within the last few years, around passports, where people no longer have to do statutory declarations in order to apply for a passport. It’s a very sensible provision that will remove a lot of administrative burden and create much more convenience for those wishing to access their entitlement to free post-school education and training.

The bill also restores guaranteed staff and student representation on the councils of tertiary education institutions. Let’s go back and rewind to when the last Government removed that provision, and let’s consider how well that’s worked out for the governance of our tertiary institutions, as this Government has to bail them out to the tune of tens of millions of dollars because of poor governance decisions by some of those very same institutions. Would those decisions have been made had the staff and students who actually have a direct interest in those institutions been involved in the decision making and if they had had a voice at the table—I don’t think they necessarily would have. Yes, there are some big problems facing that sector as a whole, but there is no question that the governance model imposed by the last Government has failed spectacularly. We can significantly improve that by ensuring that the people with the most direct interest, the staff and the students who are absolutely committed to the success of their institutions, have a say in the governance of those very institutions.

The bill will also make some pragmatic changes to the new strategic planning and reporting framework for State and State-integrated schools and enable a smooth transition to the regime. The Education (Update) Amendment Act passed by the last Government made quite significant changes to the way our school governance planning processes work. That was something that the Labour Party component of the Government—I can’t remember how New Zealand First and the Greens voted—supported, the intention of that, which was to have a statement of national education and learning priorities, and then to get schools to align their plans to that.

We supported the statement of national education and learning priorities, but the timing for doing that was so short that the Government wouldn’t have been able to issue that and schools wouldn’t have been able to consider that before they had to have their new strategic plans in place. So this bill buys some time so that we can get that right, so we can get a statement of national education and learning priorities that reflects the priorities of the nation when it comes to education, and so we can ensure that the transition from the existing regulatory regime is a smooth one. That amendment, for example, removed all of the National Education Guidelines and National Administration Guidelines that schools currently adhere to, and we’ve got to make sure that the process of repealing those and replacing those is a smooth one and we’re allowing the time to do that properly.

The bill also resolves errors and omissions in the Education Act of 1989 and the Education Update Amendment Act of 2017, to address minor technical issues in the Education Act of 1989. The Education and Workforce Committee deserves kudos for reporting this bill back to the House with some credible and sensible amendments. With regard to removing national standards and establishing the new offence provision, they recommended no amendments. With regard to the removal of the charter school model, they have made some technical changes in the bill, and the Government supports these changes. They have also adopted a Supplementary Order Paper put forward by the Government that responds to some of the concerns raised by the charter schools in their transition into the public education system, including their desire to ensure that their designated character is preserved, and we have made provisions to ensure that. Also we have made sensible changes around the transitional provisions for staffing, consistent to transitional provisions that have been made in other parts of Government policy where there has been a transition from one form of entity to another. They are very sensible amendments that have been put forward.

The committee has also made some sensible amendment suggestions to tertiary education institution governance, including ensuring that the process for selecting staff and student representation is a fair and robust one and is consistent with the overall intent of the bill.

This is the first major step, or one of the major steps, in fulfilling several Government election commitments for education. It removes national standards—commitment delivered. It removes the charter school model—commitment delivered. It restores the right of staff and students to have their representation on tertiary councils reinstated—commitment delivered. And it signals a move towards a system of reporting that provides a far richer and more comprehensive picture of student progress against the curriculum and removes national standards—commitments delivered. This bill is a sign of a Government that is getting on with the job of delivering on the commitments that we made to New Zealand of ensuring we’ve got a robust, quality public education system that serves all New Zealanders.

Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. It is actually with real sadness that I rise to take this call on the Education Amendment Bill. One of the reasons that I got into politics, and the reason that I am still a politician, is that it is ultimately about what Jo Luxton said before: he tangata, he tangata, he tangata—it is about the people. So to be standing in this House and realising that this legislation will go through and it will be harmful not only to a group of young people who have had complex needs and who have had pretty disadvantaged backgrounds, who will not get the opportunity to attend a partnership school in the future, but also to a group of parents, of which 87 percent in a poll on Stuff said they did not support the removal of national standards, who will no longer have the same level of confidence around how their children are doing at school—that does make me sad.

Again, what our party on this side of the House stands for, absolutely resolutely, is high standards in education. In order to have high standards in education, we do believe in lifting achievement. In order to lift achievement, we have to have accountability back to the centre in terms of the Ministry of Education. What the removal of national standards by the Minister of Education, overnight, effectively, late last year—and now this bill condemns the final remnants of national standards—does is it, effectively, gets rid of the ability to have that nationwide picture of achievement and actually ensure that parents have confidence around that information. It also reduces the ability of us to help disadvantaged children, because we do not have the ability now to target our schools in terms of numeracy and literacy.

Can I take a moment to acknowledge you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for your contribution in bringing in national standards. It is a sad day, I am sure—and you cannot say this from the Chair—to see this happening in the House.

The second thing about this bill—again, in line with the removal of accountability and the removal of the ability of the Crown to help teachers and parents lift achievement—is the removal of partnership schools. Many New Zealanders have approached my office. They have been there online. They have gone on and supported students like Parris Bryant and asked the basic question: why? Why is this happening? Why is this Parliament passing a bill that would remove a model that has helped so many disadvantaged students? Why? Labour did not campaign that they were definitely going to get rid of partnership schools. We know for a fact that we had Kelvin Davis out there, who is now still the deputy leader of the Labour Party, saying that he would resign if, effectively, partnership schools closed. That has not occurred.

We had Willie Jackson—in fact, perhaps I should quote what Willie Jackson actually said at the time in terms of partnership schools. He said, and I will take his quote, “I truly believe in the partnership school model.” Well, there are a whole lot of other New Zealanders that believe in this model: the parents of Parris Bryant, the people that I will name now who set up these schools—Alwyn Poole, Karen Poole, Raewyn Tīpene, Nick Hyde. There are some incredible New Zealanders who have put their heart and soul into this model, and it is delivering results. People like Sir Toby Curtis came to the Education and Workforce Committee and they pleaded to the Prime Minister, “Please show some aroha. Please listen to us.” They went so far—Lance O’Sullivan, Dame Iritana, Dame Tariana, Pem Bird, Sir Toby Curtis. These are the giants of education, and they said, “Please stop this.”

They went further. They went to the Waitangi Tribunal. They lodged a claim, and they said, “Please, please listen to us.” But the Government didn’t listen. Not only did the Government not listen; it denied that a formal claim had been lodged. The Minister has now admitted that error, but they issued a press release in the last 24 hours pleading to the Prime Minister, “Please intervene. You’ve, effectively, terminated the contracts of these schools, but why? Why do you have to pass a law to remove the model when we have a Waitangi Tribunal claim live?” All they want to do is sit down and have a discussion about how these schools have helped Māori and Pasifika students in particular. But, no, the Government is pushing this through. That, for me, really sums up some of the education agenda. We on this side of the House—I meet with parents and teachers all across New Zealand—want to work in good faith in terms of the education agenda, but it is really, really hard when we see ideological decisions like this around national standards and partnership schools being pushed through.

I want to come back to national standards, because it does cut to the heart of the right of parents in our education system. You know, what parents say to me—and we actually put through a decision last year to say we would enhance national standards and move to a system of progress reporting—is they basically want to know how their children are doing in some core areas. We passed that decision, but we accepted that actually it would take a couple of years to design the tools and to support schools to make that change. But instead we saw, late last year, national standards, via the National Administration Guidelines, changed and now this legislation being pushed through.

What that means to the parents that write to me is that if they don’t have confidence in the achievement, there is no ability of the Crown at an individual school level to get that benchmark of nationwide achievement. It has massively reduced the ability of the Crown to, as well, target, and that is why we absolutely oppose this bill and will be putting a number of amendments through in the committee stage of this bill, to demonstrate to New Zealanders why we believe, actually, that teachers and principals should be accountable and that we should provide information back to the centre around achievement. We make absolutely no bones about that.

Finally, I want to acknowledge that in the bill, there are provisions there around statutory declarations and fees-free, and I know that my colleague Simeon Brown will talk to that. There are provisions around improving reporting in our schools, and, of course, National supports that, but we are opposing this legislation, and we are absolutely gutted about the process. I want to talk briefly about that, because we accept that Governments come into power and they do make decisions. Even if they don’t have the support of a whole lot of parents—87 percent on a Stuff online poll said that they wanted to keep national standards—even if these partnerships schools are going well, we accept that they have the right to scrap these partnership schools. But what I can’t accept is the atrocious process that has happened around this legislation.

I want to acknowledge Mark Patterson. I want to acknowledge the New Zealand First Party for supporting National when we went to the Business Committee and we said, “Please, we’ve had amendments that affect these schools and people’s individual lives. Please just let us go and have a decent consultation on that.” New Zealand First supported us in that letter to the Business Committee, and I want to acknowledge them for that, but I also want to acknowledge that we nearly ended up having this debate at a time when the select committee was going to be in Auckland. So it is really good to acknowledge that my colleagues have now been able to come back from Auckland to be here and participate in this incredibly important debate. That would not have been the case unless we, effectively, had filibustered the bill last night, and the Leader of the House, I acknowledge, then accepted that, actually, to not have the permanent members of the Education and Workforce Committee speaking in this debate would be a very bad thing.

So, finally, I do want to just leave this call in this debate with some of the memories that I have now from visiting partnership schools and meeting those children. I have not really protested as a member of Parliament, and I did. I walked down Queen Street with these children, and you know what a number of them said to me? They said to me, “Many people in my life have let me down, and I can’t believe that this Government would be scrapping our schools, which have been the one thing in our lives that have been really positive. We don’t understand that.” And I said to them, “Look, there is hope. There will be a National Government in the future, and we will bring those partnership schools back, and we will expand those schools, and we will also ensure that there is accountability around achievement.”

I call the Hon Jenny Salesa. Before I do, could I just ask Chlöe Swarbrick not to stand in the aisles over here, please. And the noise over here was pretty tough when someone’s speaking in the House.

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

[Greetings in Māori Language Week. Make the language strong.]

I rise in strong support of the Education Amendment Bill. This is a bill that we’re bringing into Government, and it is a policy that we have, for many years, been very, very clear about. We came in saying that we will get rid of partnership schools and charter schools, and that is one of the things that this legislation will do. I’d like to thank the chair and the members of the Education and Workforce Committee for the work that they’ve done. I’d also like to thank all of our parents, our teachers, our educators, and our organisations that came to present and to tell us their views.

In addressing the Hon Nikki Kaye, when she said “Why are we doing this?”, we’re listening to our teachers, we’re listening to our educators. So many of the teachers I talked to in South Auckland have told us they would like to get rid of partnership schools. I come from an electorate that has, and that serves, a lot of Pacific and Māori students, students the partnership school model is supposedly addressing. But can I refer to the submissions that were made; these are in the words of those submitters. They said they are supporting the removal of partnership schools because partnership schools failed to bring about significant improvement to academic performance. They’re supporting it because students with learning support needs and disabilities are not well served by this model. They said they’re supporting it because the model was not well designed, and it was having a negative effect on the State system.

I strongly support this bill, and I’m very happy that we’re bringing the Education Amendment Bill forward. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Education Amendment Bill, in opposition to the Education Amendment Bill. I think this bill could be put into three themes: a lack of accountability, complete ideology, and a rushed and sham of a process. I will be touching on four of the key themes of this bill in my speech: firstly, on partnership schools; secondly, on national standards; thirdly, on the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand; and, lastly, on to the fees-free policies.

What we see in this Government is one of the most ideological Governments that New Zealand has ever seen, and the most ideological Minister of Education that New Zealand has seen. He spoke of pragmatic changes in his speech, but there are no pragmatic changes in this bill. He spoke of resolving errors and omissions in the Education Act, but all that this bill puts into the Education Act will be errors and omissions. We just heard from the Hon Jenny Salesa, who just sat down, who said that Labour has been very clear about its opposition to partnership schools. We’ll touch on that soon, and we’ll hear a few comments from Willie Jackson and Peeni Henare and hear exactly what they do have to say about partnership schools.

She then said that she thanked all of the submitters who came and submitted to the process. Well, I’ve got news for the Labour Party: the majority of those who submitted on partnership schools submitted against repealing partnership schools and closing those schools down. So I think those facts need to be put on the table and on the record for all New Zealanders and all of those listening, to understand the facts of what we are debating here tonight.

Firstly, this bill removes partnership schools and removes the partnership school model. The Minister might be trying to say, “Well, we’ve managed to move these schools and they’re going to remain open and we’re going to keep them going.” But there are key differences in the partnership model to the special designated model that he has moved them to. What he is doing is putting ideology above kindness, ideology above caring, and ideology above the 1,500 young people whose lives are being changed and whose lives are being impacted positively by these schools. One only needs to go so far as to go and visit one of these schools and you will see the difference that they are making in the lives of the young people who are being taught at these schools. I challenge the Minister and I challenge the Labour Party members to go and visit these schools and see what they are doing, the impact that they are having, and the results that they are having on some of our most disadvantaged communities, on some of the communities that they represent on that side of the House. Young people—

💬 Erica Stanford: Not any more.

Well, they don’t represent them. That’s the problem, as Erica Stanford rightly points out. They don’t represent them, because if they truly represented those young people, they wouldn’t be down here in the House clapping their hands and closing these schools on a Wednesday evening. So this is a bill that drives to the heart of the ideological difference between what National believes and what Labour believes in.

Chlöe Swarbrick: That’s ideology.

Labour and the Green Party—thank you, Chlöe Swarbrick—and New Zealand First believe that the Government knows best. The State knows best. We believe that there are people who can choose and their parents can choose how they believe their children should be educated and that there are other ways in which education models can work, and that outcomes are more important than the model that the Government dictates.

So National is strongly opposed to removing the partnership model and will, when we’re back in Government, be putting this model back in place. That will only be two years away, at most, because we know what a shambolic Government this is on the other side of the House and how disorganised, disunited, and shambolic that they are. We’ll be back in Government very soon, and we’ll get our education system back on track when the most ideological Minister of Education, Chris Hipkins, will be kicked out of his office and will probably also lose the seat of Rimutaka. So back to the bill.

The second point that I’d like to talk about is the removal of national standards. Again, we go back to the fact that this is about removing accountability. It is about ideology above what matters for parents and what matters for children. We have to remember what national standards do. They provide a nationwide picture of achievement and they allow parents to know how their child is doing. We don’t want to go back to the bad old days when parents didn’t know what their child was doing and they were given some report that kind of said this or kind of said that. What parents want to know was how their child is doing, how their child is achieving, and how they can support their child in their educational journey. This legislation takes away that ability for parents to be part of that process, because of the ideologically driven nature of this bill.

We have to remember who is behind this bill and we have to remember the support that this Government gets—

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: Don’t say it.

—from its unions and its union friends. I know that Tracey Martin is counting how many times I’m going to mention the word “union”, but it’s the union friends who support the Government on the other side of the House and who are adamant in their support of making sure that they get some—I wouldn’t use the word “payback”, because I used that yesterday and I got into trouble for it, but—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If I’m not mistaken, Speaker’s ruling 52/1 prevents members from trying the little trick that was tried just then: saying “I won’t say something but …”, which has just been evident there, and I would ask, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you reflect on that ruling.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t need to reflect on it. I was already glaring at the speaker who knew jolly well that he had transgressed. I don’t need the help; however, it’s nice to know that you have been reading the Speakers’ Rulings.

That’s very good. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

These changes are supported by the unions, but parents know what is needed, parents know what they need to know about their children, and parents will be voting for National to be back so that we can bring back into law standards and bring into law the opportunity for accountability in the education sector. I can’t wait for the next election once more.

Thirdly, I’d like to touch on the changes that this bill makes to the governance structure of our universities and polytechs. Again, this is about removing accountability and weakening the governance of the structure. It’s putting in place student voices and teacher voices around the governance tables and the councils. What we know is that these bodies are governance bodies; they require governance skills. But the changes that this bill makes are that those who are elected by the students or by the staff will be deemed to have the knowledge and skills and experience that those who would be appointed by the Minister have. It is essentially a weakening in the governance and structure of our universities and our polytechs. It is about weakening the governance of these institutions, and it is about weakening our education institutions further.

The last point I’d like to touch on is around the fees-free changes. We know on this side of the House that the fees-free policy has been a $2.8 billion policy that has achieved no increase in enrolments in our university and tertiary institution sector. It is $2.8 billion that they have poured in without any impact on enrolments or any impact on the number of students going to university and studying. But what this legislation does—and we know the process was put in very quickly. They got elected and then they had to put the process in. Now what they’re doing is they’re putting a $5,000 fine in place if you make a false declaration that you haven’t studied before—$5,000. That’s all it is. A $5,000 fine if you’re caught. And it’s not a statutory declaration, it’s just an ordinary declaration, so it’s a lower standard. It’s not the same standard that most people have to do for many other things that they go and get Government services for and get a statutory declaration, which they have to have witnessed. This is a lower form of declaration, and that is what this bill has put in place. It’s almost a year late. The fees-free policy started at the beginning of this year and now we’re discussing the second reading of the Education Amendment Bill, which puts in place a scheme. Will they be going back and checking on all of the students who enrolled at the beginning of this year to ensure that they actually qualify for free fees? We’ll be asking these questions in the committee stage. We’ll be bringing some Supplementary Order Papers through to clarify what is meant by this legislation.

But I’d like to go back and touch on partnership schools and the partnership school model. We know that on the other side of the House they’re not united in their opposition to partnership schools. We know that they’re not united in their opposition to partnership schools, because we know from what we’ve heard from Willie Jackson and Peeni Henare. Peeni Henare said the bottom line is “Why would you stop something that is working?” That’s the question that the other side need to answer: why do you stop something that is working? That’s not said by me; that’s said by one of their own. They need to answer that question here in the House tonight.

My challenge to them is show me some evidence. Show me why they believe that partnership schools should be closed and how they are failing our schools, because they are not. The evidence is clear. They’re making a huge difference in the lives of many of our most disadvantaged young people.

I want to take these first moments and probably the only moments of my contribution to actually talk directly to—directly to—the parents and the students of the charter schools here in New Zealand. Your schools will all be open again at the beginning of next year. Do not listen to the scaremongering and the politicising of your children by the National Party in an attempt to try and convince you that your children will not be able to walk into their schools again next year. But what I can guarantee you of is that they will have registered and qualified teachers in front of every classroom. What I guarantee you of is that the Minister of Education has made sure that the Ministry of Education has looked at the property some of your children have been taking their lessons in, and we will not allow them—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t bring me into it.

I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. We will not allow the children that have been in of some of those partnership schools to stay in those substandard conditions.

💬 Nicola Willis: You know better than their parents.

Ms Willis, you wouldn’t put your children in them. Ms Willis, some of us wouldn’t put our dog in them. But we will make sure that those children are inside a property that is of an adequate standard. The Opposition challenges this side to visit those schools. I have visited several of those schools—I have visited several of those schools. So it’s interesting that they haven’t visited the schools with substandard property—that they stand there and are quite happy for those children to be taught by unqualified, unregistered teachers in property that we wouldn’t put dogs in. But, no, no, they are prepared to use those families and those children for political gain. And to suggest that this is an ideological movement! I sat on the select committee with Ms Kaye, who couldn’t even pass the changes to the legislation they required by majority—

💬 David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We all have a duty not to bring this House into disrepute. I’d put it to you that suggesting that parents of New Zealand children have been treating those children worse than dogs in their educational choices is actually going to bring this House into disrepute, and the member should apologise and withdraw for that comment.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Look, I understand that feelings run quite strongly on this debate. There has been some robust debate and I think I’ll ask the Hon Tracey Martin to continue.

Can I clarify—I appreciate the member’s statement. If he’d like to go back and check the Hansard, he would see that I accused the National Party of deciding that they were quite happy for children to work and be educated in those circumstances. I’d be really interested to know whether they’re—

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry to interrupt the member again—the Hon Nikki Kaye.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: I appreciate that the Minister was attempting to clarify, but actually I believe that she made it worse when she, effectively, accused the National Party of believing that a situation would be OK to treat children as dogs. That is absolutely appalling and disgusting. I want the Minister to withdraw and apologise.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, it is a debatable point. Quite frankly I’ve heard much worse accusations in this House. I think you’re being a bit sensitive. The Minister can say what she thinks and people will judge her on that. I call the Hon Tracey Martin.

All right, let’s move on so that we move away from the sensitivity of the National Party about what they allowed these children to be in, shall we?

Let’s go to the conversation that said that there was no way to measure the achievement of children before the former National Government had an epiphany about national standards. So let’s talk about stanines. Let’s talk about the bell curve. Let’s talk about the two-year progressions inside the back of the national curriculum. The problem with the contribution from the National Party is the fact that they wouldn’t know education if it jumped up and bit them. That’s the problem that has been going on here.

I had a conversation with Mr David Seymour way before he was a member of this Parliament, way before he was an MP, where he articulated at the Kōwhai Festival—in the middle of the road—how he was going to make sure that this country had charter schools. So for that party to decide that this was ideologically driven after that young man spent six months inside some sort of brains trust in the middle of Canada is unbelievable at this time. The fact that that party at the select committee when they created charter schools couldn’t even get it through without a majority vote from New Zealand First, who was the only party that decided that we would have the Ombudsman make sure that when you kicked a kid out of a charter school that you had to be accountable to the Ombudsman. [Interruption]

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mark Mitchell—it’s a barrage.

I will tell you that at the alternative education providers forum the other day, they told me how many children had been kicked out of charter schools that they were dealing with because there was no accountability by those charter schools. We fully support this bill.

Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Kei te whakanuia te kaupapa o ngā kura hourua. Kei te mihi tēnei kaimahi mō ngā tamariki, tauira Māori, ngā tamariki tauira Pasifika, ngā tamariki katoa o ngā kura hourua, ēnei kura ngā kākano o te ao hou, te ao mātauranga.

[I would like to celebrate charter schools. This worker would like to acknowledge the children, Māori students, Pasifika students, and all the young people of charter schools, these schools that sow the seeds of education in the modern age.]

I celebrate Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. It is a special week, and it’s also a real privilege to talk tonight in regards to partnership schools. What I just did there in my mihi was refer to partnership schools as the seeds of the new world: the world of learning and the world of knowledge.

So it’s actually quite fitting that in Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori we reference the importance of partnership schools to the Māori and, of course, to the Pasifika community and to all children, as I did in my mihi. I want to focus on the human side. It’s always about the human side. That’s our role. That’s what we are here for. I couldn’t be any more clearer, we couldn’t be any more clearer here, that the Government has not fully understood the impact that partnership schools have had on individual lives.

So it’s fitting tonight that I read a submission, and that submission is from a parent of Middle School West Auckland. Here’s what it says: “My daughter started going there after several attempts to stop the bullying in her school. My daughter’s schooling went down, and she ended up having her lunch in the toilets so she would not be picked on. Middle School West Auckland has made a huge difference to her schooling and confidence. My daughter has found her voice, her place in society, and is learning so much that she is asking for more challenges. The model used in this works for her and many other children similar to her. Most of these children would have been classed as truants and deviants by society, but they are all talented and smart children who needed another way to bring it out of them.

As a strong Labour supporter, I have always believed that Labour supported difference, individualism, experiences, and thinking outside of the box. Let these charter schools continue in their work, and allow the children, who are mainly in poverty and disadvantage, have another chance of not ending up another statistic in the criminal and social system. Even though it is an hour trip for us outside our route to work, and paying for bus and ferry for their return, I would do it again. Talk to the children. Remove the fact that it is a National initiative. My daughter is a strong wāhine who needs to be uplifted and empowered, not to be told that her education is wrong and pointless. Let the children have a chance, please.”

Those words say it better than I ever could. There’s a reason why people have rallied behind these schools and communities have actually grown around these schools. It’s because they recognise the positive and life-changing, amazing impact that these schools have on individual children and their families. They want these schools to stay. They have been very loud, clear, and vocal on that. Calls for compassion, literally, have been ignored. The Treaty of Waitangi claim is being lodged. As a select committee, we listened to Toby Curtis, Dame Tariana Turia, and a massive number of other senior Māori leaders, yet the Minister fails to recognise the gravity of this situation. He continues to unabashedly remove the schools; on what—the basis of pure ideology.

I received a letter today from those leaders—those same Māori leaders, as I know every other member in this House did. Every single MP received the same letter where those senior Māori leaders appealed directly to the Prime Minister to reconsider these changes. Despite what Tracey Martin has said tonight in the House, there are still calls today for an appeal against these changes. The letter says that by removing partnership schools, the actions of the Government are compelling them to return to a system that’s been “failing our tamariki for 178 years.” They do not want a return to that system. They only ask for the most basic consideration. What’s that? That the Prime Minister actually visit the schools so that she can see and understand for herself why they’ve achieved so much. They ask that affected students, parents, whānau, and communities are consulted with before any further changes—that’s reasonable. And they’ve asked, first and foremost, for a commitment to the principles of the partnership from the Treaty of Waitangi. What they’re doing is simply asking the Government to wait.

They acknowledge that we’ve come in the process up to this point tonight, and they’re asking the Government to wait—wait until the Waitangi Tribunal has made findings on what has been, we all know, a massively flawed process. That’s the least that the Government could do. The least the Government could do is to make sure that—and this is another quote; the final words in that letter to the Prime Minister—“justice and fairness prevail.”

Now, I want to pick up on something that Tracey Martin said earlier. She’s laying the claim that students will get over the summer break and return to school just as they had it before. No, they won’t, because it’s not a partnership school model any more. Tonight and the continuation of this debate, which will probably be next week, is closure. So they might get over the summer break and go to school, but it’s not going to be the same school that they were in. That’s a definitive fact.

What they don’t have is flexible funding and flexible governance arrangements—the things that they’re asking for and they’ve been wanting to keep the same. They don’t have that assurance. They’ll be coming back from the summer break to a different school. That is a fact.

I also want to touch, in my last few moments of time, on what is—and the letter refers to this—a flawed process. It is quite unbelievable the process that some of these partnership schools had to go through to get to the point where they are today: massive moments of uncertainty and letters back and forth from the Ministry of Education. They did not know whether they were up or down, starting or closing; all they knew was that they had been placed into huge uncertainty and didn’t know whether they’d have a school to go to after the summer break.

The Minister also left our committee hanging, and I take personal exception to that. It’s actually fascinating that I’m standing here, along with my other colleagues from the Education and Workforce Committee, because, as of yesterday, we didn’t know that we would be debating this bill. This is a massive, massive seismic shift in the education system, and, instead of certainty for us to be able to debate this, we were possibly—well, we actually didn’t end up going—going up to Auckland for our Education and Workforce Committee on another topic.

So it’s right and it’s fitting and interesting that the Minister of Education—who also wears another hat as the Leader of the House—saw fit to do the right thing, and here we are tonight. My heartfelt plea is that the Government continue to see the human side of what they’re doing and to pay very close attention to that letter that has gone to the Prime Minister and to all of us: pleading for a pause, pleading for the opportunity to hear through and see through that Waitangi Tribunal process, and to do right by mokopuna all around this country. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I look forward to hearing that the Government will do the right thing.

Tēnā koe e Te Mangai. Tēna koutou e Te Whare. I’d like to rise to tautoko the final point of Denise Lee and to affirm that the Government will indeed be doing the right thing. So I rise to do the right thing in support of this legislation.

As has been well canvassed by my colleagues in Government, this legislation does a number of things—not the least, removing charter schools and national standards. But the point that I want to raise tonight in this short call is that, whilst the Greens are in support of these changes, as presented quite fulsomely in the select committee report back—and it’s not worth reiterating those points—what I want to touch on is the issue of tertiary council representation, as was brought into this debate by one Simeon Brown. He actually did so in a very disparaging manner, speaking to the involvement of staff and students around the decision-making table, disparaging their skills and expertise as though their lived experience and perspective were not important around that decision-making table. Mr Simeon Brown, if that is the elitist attitude that you have towards democracy, if it is good enough for us, why is it not good enough for the governance of tertiary institutions?

So, on that point, the Supplementary Order Paper in my name, which I’ll flesh out more broadly in the committee of the whole House stage of this bill, reflects the submissions—the 481 submissions—on the issues of staff and student representation around those tertiary institution councils. Four hundred and fifty-one of those submissions supported guaranteed places for elected staff and students, but 421 of them—that is, 87.5 percent—commented that tertiary education institutions should have more than one staff or student rep, and that is exactly what the Greens are standing for tonight as well as being in support of this bill, and we commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Tonight is a great night for some people. It’s a great night for the education unions, but it’s a very sad one for parents, caregivers, and those of our young people who are most at risk. It is a great night for the “We Know Best Brigade” in the Labour Party caucus—and there are plenty of them, and they have felt that way for a very long time. They have asserted that opinion sometimes in quite a pious fashion while they’ve been in Opposition, and yet even they couldn’t quite believe when they cobbled together a Government that suddenly they had the numbers to do something that, actually, the public of New Zealand has not requested. [Interruption] So it’s a great night for those people, but, at the same time, it is a very sad night for those who live—and I hope the members opposite, instead of chirping away to each other, will instead sit back and reflect on this, because they claim to represent these people in the Parliament, and they lecture us frequently about the needs of these people. But this tonight is a very sad night for those in our small, less advantaged communities, where the benefits of educational choice and opportunity are so vitally needed—most vitally needed.

A successful education is the greatest gift that our society can offer those children and those communities. And it is a great night for those who believe that all children should be educated in a one-size-fits-all model of State education, but it’s an incredibly sad night for those whose children and tamariki have always struggled in that environment, and who have the evidence to back their belief that a range of options work better and provide hope and real opportunity to communities, whānau, and children where and when alternative models and systems can be life-changing and successful.

I ask all members who are present in the House tonight: which deprived community of New Zealand will be improved by the demise of the kura hourua model partnership schools? Silence—no one opposite can tell me a single community in New Zealand that will be improved by the demise of the partnership school model, and yet tonight they are determined to put one more nail in their coffin. I ask members: which young person who previously fell through the cracks and was destined to become another juvenile delinquent statistic will be better off by the demise of the partnership school that, for the first time in his or her young life, inspired, motivated, and encouraged them to achieve; to discover their talents and potential; to gain hope, self-esteem, and purpose in the process, because that’s what they offer? And what is the answer opposite again?

💬 Dan Bidois: None.

None, as Mr Bidois has said; a deafening silence from the members opposite.

And yet for ideological reasons, to appease a certain faction in the education union movement, they carry on in this way, determined to ignore the evidence, determined not to listen to the submissions of those who came to the select committee—not just at the time that this bill was being considered but at the time that the partnership school model was first introduced. I acknowledge the ACT Party; it’s good to see David Seymour here tonight. And his predecessors—I want to acknowledge Catherine Isaac, who was such an impressive submitter when I was on the select committee several years ago, who brought the evidence to show that this was a model that could work where no others have.

So this is a tragic night for those young people, for those who work with them, for those who care for them and, by extension, for all of our communities who will be the poorer and who will pay the price for their demise.

Earlier, at the start of this second reading, the Minister focused on three issues. He commenced by talking about the removal of national standards, and he used his cliché that I’ve heard him utter so many times—that they were neither national nor standard. Well, how trite, and how completely that misses the point. Now, this Government ignores the fact that national standards may not have been a panacea, may not have been a cure-all for problems, but they provided vital evidence, in a timely fashion, for families and caregivers who needed that, and for schools who could use that to inform their decisions and to enable them to target resources to best effect—to enable young children, in particular, to gain remedial attention if they were falling behind in those building blocks of a solid education: literacy and numeracy. Without that achievement at an early age, a young person is almost certain to fail as he or she progresses through to intermediate and secondary education.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So where was the investment?

As a former secondary educator—I say this to Ms Swarbrick—I have seen over and over again how vital it is for young people to have those building blocks cemented at an early age. And I don’t claim for one moment that national standards guaranteed them, but it certainly gave the information that was required to inform necessary intervention when it became apparent that those young people were missing out.

The Hon Nikki Kaye, in her excellent speech, quoted from the poll that showed a huge number—tens of thousands of New Zealanders—had been asked for their opinion, and overwhelmingly they said, “Retain national standards. Don’t get rid of them.” The evidence is there that they are a useful tool in the tool kit for our schools.

The Minister went on to talk about the disestablishment of partnership schools, that he seems to be so delighted about. I’ve already mentioned my thoughts about that, and I simply reiterate what a travesty of a policy and a tragedy it is for the vulnerable children who are being cast aside to appease the unions in a failed one-size-fits-all model.

I think all MPs have received the open letter from Sir Toby Curtis, the Hon Dame Tariana Turia, Dame Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi, and Pem Bird—a very highly respected educator from close to your region, Madam Deputy Speaker. These are people who would not normally be expected to endorse a National Party position or an ACT Party position on education, but they do so—not because it’s National or ACT policy, but because it is successful policy. It is sound pedagogy. It is evidence of something that works. In their letter—and they write in an impassioned way to the Prime Minister—they say, “We know, and we believe you would share our view if you looked carefully at the evidence, that these schools are delivering results that are significantly better than they could ever have achieved in the State-run system. Your Government”—they say to the Prime Minister—“is now compelling them to return to that system, the one that has been failing our tamariki for 178 years. The ‘designated character’ model sounds attractive but has none of the key drivers that have made our schools so successful.”

The authors of this letter plead with the Prime Minister and with her Ministers to visit those schools and see and understand for themselves what has enabled them to achieve so much. I have been to one. I know many of my colleagues on this side of the House have been, in some cases, to several. I was so impressed by the character, by the ethos, by the respect, by the sense of purpose, by what was being achieved. Why on earth would any compassionate, realistic person want to get rid of such an effective model?

The authors of the letter concluded by saying, “Prime Minister, we ask you to intervene unequivocally this week to stop the destruction of the kura hourua model and ensure that justice and fairness prevail.” I think every fair-minded New Zealander would echo that plea. Here we have a Government that is more interested in the governance of tertiary institutions, bowing again to union pressure, than they are to listening to parents and those who work so closely with vulnerable children.

The Minister asserted that there’s no question that the current governance model of our tertiary institutions has failed spectacularly, and yet not one person in my region, the Waikato, has indicated that view. I look at the governance structure of the University of Waikato and Wintec—they are working incredibly well. This bill is a travesty.

This is a split call. I call Jo Luxton.

I just want to stand here and say that I am really pleased to see national standards removed from legislation. Our young children’s self-esteem will no longer be stomped into the ground, because they will no longer be told they aren’t good enough because they are below national standards. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did have a lot of material that I prepared tonight, but I’m going to put that to one side, and if I get time to get to it, I will. I think it’s very important that I start tonight by addressing some of the concerns that Tracey Martin came up with tonight, because she came out tonight and she said that she’s been to visit charter schools. Well, the first thing I would like to say is that she is probably the only one on that side of the House that actually has, because we know that the Prime Minister won’t go. She refuses to go. But Tracey Martin’s been, and let’s have a think about what Tracey Martin sees when she goes to charter schools. She sees substandard buildings that you wouldn’t put a dog in, and she brings into this debate the children of my colleagues—how dare she. But if that was actually the case, if there were buildings that you wouldn’t put a dog in, surely that would be against (a) health and safety, and (b) the contracts of those charter schools, and this Government should be fixing it. The point is that that’s not the case. It’s absolute rubbish.

While Tracey Martin is walking around, having a look at the buildings that these children are in, I’ll tell you what she’s not looking at, what she’s not paying attention to, and that is the children in these charter schools. She is not paying attention to what they have to say. She’s not talking to the teachers to listen to what they have to say, she’s not listening to the parents, to the whānau, and she’s not listening to iwi leaders, like the rest of this Government.

Us on this side of the House, most of us—in fact, probably all of us—have been to charter schools. We have sat down and we have talked to those students, and I can tell you some stories about those students. Josie—she had a baby when she was a teenager. She went to Vanguard Military School with no qualifications, no self-worth, and no respect for herself or anybody else. She was failing miserably everywhere, she didn’t feel great about herself, and you know what? Sorry—does this House know what? Josie is now achieving beyond her wildest dreams. She is the first female at that school to make the 300 club, and the look on her face when she achieved that was absolutely amazing. The self-confidence that that young woman had, that she’d never had before, and she probably never would have in the mainstream, was out of this world.

What about Parris? Self-harming; a dad in jail; again, failing; miserable—turns up at Vanguard Military School and her life is turned around. It’s an inspiring, incredible story that I cannot do justice to. Everyone should watch that video.

Brad—I know Brad. He lost his mum early last year, and it was terrible for his family. I’m emotional about this because I know that this school has turned his life around. He was not having a good time at other schools, and his dad didn’t know what to do, and this school has given him another chance.

And, yes, I get emotional, and, yes, I get a little bit angry about this, but I have sat in front of these students, I have spoken to them, and I have looked at the hope and the confidence in their eyes because they know they have a chance of success now—and they never had that under the mainstream.

Jamie Strange has been yelling across this House all night “Special character schools! Special character schools!”, and Tracey Martin’s been going on about how they’ll all be open next year and it’ll all be fine. These schools have existed since 1986, and they have been failing students since 1986. What this Government thinks is that, suddenly, by just giving them this different title, everything is going to be fine. Well, they’ve been failing them since 1986, and they will continue to fail them, because they don’t have the flexibility, they don’t have the ability to pay teachers more—which is what they do now—and they don’t have the ability to innovate. Charter schools offer parents, they offer families, and they offer students something different, something innovative, and something flexible. And the mainstream has been failing these students for such a long time.

I’ll tell you what Tracey Martin really likes to talk about, because I’ve heard her talk about it before. She likes to talk about attendance rates, and she does it in the House a number of times. She talks about the fact—oh, I’m a bit out of breath—that, nationally, 66 percent of students are attending school regularly, which is not very good. Vanguard: 94 percent—but this Government doesn’t want to know about it. And they’re not taking any learnings from charter schools; they’re going back to a model that’s been failing kids, with high truancy rates, and they’re not going to look at these incredible models and take any learnings from them. They’re forging ahead despite all of the submissions against this bill—from Vanguard Military School, from Alwyn Poole, from Sir Toby Curtis—which are damning of this Government. And they’re forging ahead with this bill to remove charter schools, one of the only things that are succeeding for young, vulnerable students and, especially, young, vulnerable Māori, who have been disadvantaged by the mainstream for so long, and this is the only thing that’s working for them—that ever worked for them. And this Government, and this arrogant Minister, is throwing that all down the toilet. Shame on them.

This is also a split call. I call Jamie Strange.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe in this bill with every fibre of my being. I’m proud of it, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and what a debate—what a debate. I have to say that the contribution from Tracey Martin was a disgrace, and to say to the parents of children in partnership schools—and she did say it—that they are treating their children worse than dogs is a disgrace. Not quite so disgraceful but amusing was Chlöe Swarbrick, who talked about “lived” experience. I don’t know what other sort of experience there is, but that’s the most we can say for her contribution. Jamie Strange, by name and nature, got up and said “I oppose this”—or support it, I don’t know—with every fibre in his body. Well, I guess you just have to take the support you can get sometimes—not a lot. I want to commend the speech from Erica Stanford. I thought that that was outstanding, and it shows the passion that partnership schools have engendered in just about everybody that they have touched.

I’m proud to stand here for the ACT Party that initiated this policy. I’m proud that, as a much younger, more optimistic, and smiley version of myself, I was John Banks’ adviser when we put together the legislation this Government is trying to erase tonight, and I’m proud that over three years as the under-secretary for education in the previous Government, I presided over the partnership school policy.

I put a question to the members on the Labour Party benches, especially the newer ones. They’re here because they want to make a difference in the world—they want to make the world a better place. Some of their maiden statements were quite moving. They showed that they had seen the human waste of people underserved by Government services, underserved by the world, who found themselves unable to access the skills that would allow them to succeed in the 21st century. They came here because they’d seen that human waste, and they wanted to make a difference in the world. I’d ask them what difference they believe they are making by supporting a bill that gets rid of partnership schools. What problem are they trying to solve?

The Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern—their leader—said that if partnership schools taught the New Zealand Curriculum, had registered teachers, and were funded at the same rate as State schools, then they would be able to stay open. Well, every single partnership school teaches the New Zealand Curriculum, so there’s no problem there. Every single partnership school is funded at the same rate as a State school with an equivalent student population and of the same size. I know this because I designed the funding formula, and I had just as much trouble with the sponsors saying that they were not getting enough money as I did from the opponents saying that they were getting too much.

So ask yourself: what could be the remaining problem? Well, teacher registration. We heard from Tracey Martin that there were unregistered and unqualified teachers. Well, I had a little bit to do with the Cabinet paper that said that teachers in partnership schools can have an exemption from registration with the Education Council (EDUCANZ) if they have the “skills, qualifications, and experience” to raise student achievement. They were not unqualified; they were people who were able to raise student achievement by engaging with them, even if they didn’t have a certificate from EDUCANZ.

So, given that they meet all of the criteria the Prime Minister has set out, why, oh why, do we have this bill tonight? Is this really the difference that Labour members came to this House to make, to make the world a better place? No. The sad truth of it is that the real difference between a partnership school and a special character school is the use of union contracts. They weren’t afraid that 12 small schools would fail and shut down. They were afraid that these schools offered a glimmer of hope—a crack in the Berlin Wall of the education monopoly—that would allow children to succeed.

That is why they are trying to close partnership schools tonight. It is nothing to do with children. It is nothing to do with girls like Hope at Vanguard Military School, who said to me, “I never knew I was smart until I came here.” It’s everything to do with preserving the monopoly of the elites in the teacher unions. I think that’s a terrible reason to come to this House, and I’m not surprised the Labour members all have their heads down as I speak. What a shame—what a shame.

Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, e tēnei wiki, Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. In what sadness I stand in this Māori Language Week, the week that this Government chooses to prioritise and push through a bill which takes away the right of Māori to attend schools that their community have chosen to establish, that their leaders say serve their people, and that they believe have lifted the achievement of Māori young people.

What a sad thing it is to be this week progressing a bill that is subject to a Treaty of Waitangi claim that has led to a letter being written to our very Prime Minister urging her to await the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal and urging her to be aware of the serious concerns Māori have over the failure by the Crown to consult Māori on the closure of the 11 partnership schools—a letter signed by the Hon Dame Tariana Turia, who once sat with members from the party opposite; signed by Dame Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi; and signed by Pem Bird.

You know what? This is a Government that’s quite happy to sit around the Cabinet table with Tītiwhai Harawera and talk to her and talk to Māori about partnership. This is a Government that’s very happy to take a photo opportunity and to say that it wants to make sure the Crown meets its Treaty commitments across Government, and that it will do this by providing an independent Government view on Treaty issues. And we had Tītewhai commenting on what this would mean. She said, “I want to be able to come to you in your Cabinet and say this is not working—can we try something else?” Well, you know what, Mr Hipkins? Māori said, “The State education system wasn’t working for us—partnership schools provided an opportunity.” They went with that opportunity, and it has been delivering for their people, and what are you doing? That Minister is taking that opportunity away.

I’ll tell you what—Winston Peters knows it. He knows that it is absolutely farcical to do a photo opportunity saying you believe in Crown partnership in the same week that you’re ignoring this kind of letter. Winston Peters knows that the talk, talk, talk doesn’t match up to the do, do, do, and that is why members opposite should hang their heads in shame.

But for those who may be listening to this debate, let me remind you about what partnership schools really are about. What this taking away of them represents is a triumph of fear over hope, because what partnership schools have meant is that many people who have been failed by the traditional school system—a system that for many generations has, sadly, failed many young people, particularly Māori, particularly Pasifika. This is a system that has not been able to deliver, and what these schools have done is offer hope. They’ve said, actually, let’s give communities the power to solve their own problems. Let’s allow innovation. Let’s try something different. Let’s give it a go. Let’s see what happens if we alter the model. Let’s see what happens if we actually allow teachers to be paid a bit more, if we take away some of the rigidity of the funding systems. This little experiment, this beautiful, budding thing, has delivered goods, and what the Government has said is “No, no, no—we’re afraid of this doing things differently business. We’re going to shut them all down. We can’t have it being different. We’ve got to have the square box that makes everyone the same. We’ve got to take away the agency this gives parents. We’ve got to take away the agency this gives to communities who might be able to choose to reject the State system and do things differently and take away the monolithic power that sits within that State system.” This is a triumph of the belief in a resignation to failure instead of believing that we can do better.

As my colleague Erica Stanford said, what this actually comes down to is the people that will now be failed that these schools have delivered for. I want to take the words of Parris, who used to self-harm and whose dad went into prison when she was 11, and who says of the partnership school that she now takes two trains and four buses to get to—she says, “This school shows me I’m worth it now.” And what do the members opposite want to do to Parris? They say, “You’re not worth it. This school model isn’t worth it. Our ideology is worth more than the innovation that this school represents.” We say on this side of the House that that is wrong, that somehow believing that a community catering to its people better than a Government can is a threat shows that you are giving in to fear at the expense of hope.

If this is the best that the Government has to offer for education, then they are set to fail our children. If their answer to progress is to say they’ll take things away—“we’ll take partnership schools away, we’ll take national standards away”—if that’s the prescription for making things better, then already you are on the course to failure. The people that you are failing are the parents, who deserve choices—the parents, who deserve information about how their children are achieving at school and deserve the certainty that that information is being passed on to the Ministry of Education, as national standards provided. The people that are being failed are the young men and women who were offered the opportunity of a different model.

The members opposite should remember the words of their wise colleague that they sit around in their ministerial robes with, Willie Jackson, who said, “When you look at the success [that] this alternative style education model has had for Māori, then it gets an [A] every day.”, and “as far as Māori are concerned, … Chris Hipkins’ … bill to scrap partnership schools [ranks] an E.” That’s what Willie Jackson had to say, and I wonder what he has to say now, or whether the joy of being a Minister is such that his conscience has gone. Certainly, today we see a Government whose conscience is not there for the individuals who are benefiting from these schools, whose conscience is not there for the reality of the Crown-Māori relationship—a Government who is actually more focused on its internal dealings and its disputes between the coalition partners than it is on the well-being and progress of New Zealand students. Hang your heads in shame. We will oppose this bill.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.