Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill

It’s an absolute privilege to be here debating another piece of legislation on education. Can I acknowledge where we’re at. Obviously, the National Party does not support this piece of legislation. We have talked extensively in this committee about the history of the Education Council. There were several reviews, in part derived out of serious issues of processes of the previous body, particularly around the sex offender situation, but also there were some financial issues in terms of the council.

We are dealing with the consequential amendments section in this part of the bill. As I’ve already mentioned, I’d asked a range of questions that I would have liked the Minister of Education to respond on. A number of people made submissions about using the word “Teaching” versus “Teachers”, and I would really ask the Minister to give us his view on that. I’ve also raised the issues around the word “Aotearoa” and what is in the title versus what may be in those rules. I also just want to, in the next 3½ minutes, deal with the schedule—so I am shifting on to the schedule—and talk about transition.

Can I take a moment to acknowledge the chair of the Education Council. What a fantastic person she is. Barbara, if you’re listening, thank you for the work that you and the council have done so far. You’ve done a huge amount of work, over the last period, to really take the profession forward.

What a number of people submitted—and it was interesting around the transition, because of course we oppose this body; we believe in a skills- and competency-based entity. But they did argue not only for continuity of membership—and I’m looking at the departmental report and advice—but also for potential staggered turnover of appointed members. Now, again, the Education Council themselves actually argued for that continuity of membership—they argued and submitted, and, again, I quote, that existing members could support incoming members through that process—but also this discussion about staggered turnover. It was actually both the Education Council and the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) who submitted on the staggered turnover of appointed members. The ministry’s response to that was that staggered turnovers are one option for managing the transition to a new council. It’s particularly useful where all of the appointments do not need to commence on the same day. In the case of the new council, officials do not consider this approach to be appropriate, because the appointed members are intended to address any gaps in skills.

I’m sure that we may hear that from the Minister, but the reason that this is particularly relevant, and I just would ask him to potentially comment on it, is because when we get to the title and commencement—don’t worry, I don’t know that we’re going to be here for hours, but just when we do have that discussion—this issue is how you manage the transition. Even if we don’t support the policy, how do you ensure that the skills and the love and aroha that have been given by people into this body is transferred to the next entity but also that there really is, effectively, a legitimate birth and that there might be an opportunity to pass on those skills in a staggered way?

I think what the Minister has instead really proposed is to get rid of it. Obviously, there’ll be elections, and then, obviously, there will be appointed members. I am just, sort of, pleading with him and asking him whether, at this stage, he could reconsider some other process that supports the existing members but also just acknowledge the PPTA and the Education Council and their submissions to the Education and Workforce Committee on this issue.

Again, the other point that I would ask—and I raised it in my last call on this bill—is that we really don’t know the exact cost. We’ve had estimates of the costs of this. This matters when we’re talking about transition. It does matter how much we think this election process is going to actually cost. I just would love him to comment more on whether he’s had some additional advice that maybe the select committee hasn’t seen. Is it about $700,000? Is it $1 million? We know that $700,000, for instance, could pay for 30,000 teacher-aide hours. But if you could just give us a little bit more advice on that, I would really appreciate it. Thank you very much.

I’m very happy to comment very briefly on the transition provisions, because, of course, they were contained in Part 1 of the bill, rather than Part 2. The only schedule that’s contained in Part 2 is schedule 4. Schedules 1 to 3 were contained in Part 1. But I will comment briefly, because I take the member at face value on that.

I am mindful of the transition from the Education Council to the Teaching Council. Of course, there’s lengthy debate about whether “Teaching” or “Teacher” is the right word. Ultimately, the profession just wants to have the word “Teaching” or “Teacher” in the name somewhere, and I think that’s something that this Government recognises.

On the transition costs, I can assure the member it’ll be a lot cheaper than the transition from the old Teachers Council to the Education Council. It will not cost even a fraction of the amount of money that that cost.

Just finally, on the transitions, in terms of ensuring a smooth transition of membership, the way the provisions have been put together to have the elections first and then the ministerial appointments, will allow, for example, for there to be some continuity of membership. I think the previous Government should give the members that they appointed a little bit more credit, in that some of those people may well be elected to those positions on the council.

I do want to acknowledge the current chair, Barbara Ala’alatoa, who is someone who I have enormous respect for and who I think has done a very good job. I want to make a plea on her behalf, because I think she’s done a great job. Every time she’s endorsed by the previous National Government her credibility with the teaching profession goes down, and I think you should set her free, stop complimenting her, and allow her to rebuild her credibility with the teaching profession. She is, in fact, I think, a very good school principal, someone who has a very credible education background, and someone who I have a lot of confidence in.

What a low blow by the Minister of Education there. I feel like this Government’s popularity is just diving to new depths, which is fantastic for us on this side of the Chamber. But I just want to take a call on Part 2 of the “Education (Teachers Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill”. Members across the other side of the Chamber might complain about my interpretation of the title, calling it the “Teachers Council”, but I now have licence to do so from the Minister, who said “teachers or teaching—no big deal”. So I just want to put that on the record before I get a further barrage of interjections.

But let me bring this back to Part 2, because there’s a very important point, actually, here in Part 2 of the bill, which is dealing with “Consequential amendments to other enactments”. This consequential amendments part is actually inconsistent. I’m not sure if the Minister has noticed, but the committee stage of the Parliament is the opportunity to fix up, whether it’s minor or major, things. I think in this bill it’s probably minor; in employment law, possibly, it’s going to be major. We’ll wait and see whether that’s the case or not. But here we have some inconsistencies.

As we read through it, clause 8 says, “From the commencement of this section,—(a) the Education Council Rules 2016 are called the Teaching Council Rules”—that’s carried through in paragraph (b) of that clause. Then what we have here in clause 9(2), paragraphs (a) and (b), there is basically an inconsistency. It says in paragraph (a), “the Education Council must be read as a reference to the Teaching Council:”; in paragraph (b) it says, “the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand must be read as a reference to the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand.” I’m not sure whether he’s willing to include the Teaching Council of Aotearoa and just have the full name in paragraph (a), as the “Teaching Council of Aotearoa”—is he trying to save ink in consequential amendments?

I would like to bring back to the Minister’s attention that the purpose of the renaming is to “better reflect the bicultural nature of this country.” I’d like to ask the Minister if he is willing to take into account some changes—I’m happy to draft amendments, or whether his officials would be willing to support him in that—to make sure that this actually does reflect the bicultural nature of New Zealand, which he argues is required to improve this piece of legislation or to improve the Education Council, by changing the name. I’d like him to answer that question, because consistency is an important point. We are talking about consequential amendments. It does have an impact on other pieces of legislation, and the reference which is made to other pieces of legislation—and a debate which will be further and ongoing in this area. I’d like him to answer that question, as to whether he is prepared to make some changes to that.

Back to clause 8, where it refers to the “Teaching Council Rules”—I’d like him to also answer the question of why he is keeping it as the “Teaching Council Rules” rather than changing that also to the “Teaching Council of Aotearoa Rules”, to better reflect the bicultural nature of New Zealand, which is what is argued in the Education and Workforce Committee’s report as the purpose of renaming the Education Council. I think those are important points that I’d like him to answer. It’s about the cohesiveness of this piece of legislation, the consequential nature, and the consistency—the “three Cs”, not the “three Rs”, of this legislation. It’s something that I think he needs to reflect on as Minister of Education, as to how he would like this Teaching Council to be known and to be talked about in other pieces of legislation. So those are, I guess, some more technical matters.

I also note that this does also make changes to the Ombudsmen Act, the Privacy Act, and the State Sector Act. When I read those parts under schedule 4, I am pleased to see that it is referring to the full name of the “Teaching Council of Aotearoa”. I’m pleased to see that the consistency has flowed through. It says here, in schedule 4, Part 2, under the amendment to the Ombudsmen Act, “insert, in its appropriate alphabetical order: Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand”; then under the amendment to the Privacy Act, “replace … with ‘Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand”; and, again, with the State Sector Act, “replace … with ‘Teaching Council of Aotearoa”. So will he be requiring some consistency, and will he support my amendments for that? Thank you.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nikki Kaye to clause 8 be agreed to:

delete clause 8.