Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill

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

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

I would like to refer to an amendment in the name of Nikki Kaye, and it is in regard to the commencement date. The commencement clause of the bill in its current form states that this bill comes into force the day after the date on which it receives Royal assent. However, I’m supporting this particular amendment in the name of the Hon Nikki Kaye, that changes the commencement date to 1 January 2020.

The reason for my support is that this amendment is based on the fact that the Minister of Education is clearly trying to make some changes happen overnight. The self-imposed time line of this bill states that elections must be held at least four months before members take office. So if you’re going off that, it means that the earliest possible—I’ve done the calculations—time that the new Teaching Council would be able to be formed, and this would be as it is drafted, would be late January to early February next year. Now, that’s only four months to get things up and running, but at least it’s a little bit of time for the current organisation to plan and prepare for this major transition—something’s better than nothing. But what the Minister’s done is introduce Supplementary Order Paper 94 that would exempt the first election from this four-month requirement. So why would that be? The only reason to do that, possibly—this is my calculation—is that he wants the newly elected Teaching Council up and running before Christmas, before the New Year. Now, that is simply not enough time.

The bill proposes a huge change to the structure of the Education Council, and it is a structure that is so far-reaching in its implications for the profession, stakeholders, day-to-day operations, and the governance of the organisation that it deserves a really good look, and that’s what the amendment is doing. Changes can’t be made overnight. It’s not possible. So we should look at that commencement date really closely to make sure that all those impacted by these changes can adequately prepare. They’ve got to do the grunt work, after all, and make sure that the changes—despite our opposition to change in the first place—can be carried out, and that there be no unnecessary cost and also complications around the scale and the size of the change. I’ve got three reasons that I would like to outline as to why the commencement date should be, as the Hon Nikki Kaye has suggested, 1 January 2020.

The first is that the Teaching Council itself has to make rules around the nomination and the election process. They’re tasked with doing it. They have to plan—really important—how to increase participation in those voting and getting involved in the election, because we know historically that participation has been incredibly low. I think someone has used the figure of 13 percent, and that’s going to take some time for the council to figure out how to get that participation up.

The second reason is that we know that the changes proposed will cost $700,000 over three years. That is a massive, massive bill. If we delay the commencement, it might lessen the financial burden of that particular change. I’m not sure it will, but, hey, we could give it some time to see whether in fact the financial cost could come down. Proper planning time might result in a cheaper outcome, and I don’t mean cheap in a figurative sense; I mean it in a literal sense. It is perhaps time for where alternatives can be found. Just on my point two, before I get to point three, it’s also going to spread out potentially—if we go to the commencement date of 2020—the cost over time, meaning, of course, less of a financial burden for the organisation.

My reason three, and then I would like to, with your indulgence, Madam Chair, head on to one comment around the title—I’m on commencement now. So my third reason around commencement is that there is such a lack of clarity. There is a real distinct lack of clarity and direction in the education sector at the moment. The reason why we need adequate time to head into that—if this passes—change and what that change would look like for the Education Council is around that lack of clarity and direction. The Government currently has, by my calculation, 14 different reviews going on in the education sector.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: 19

19, sorry—19. I’m being corrected. There are 19 reviews currently taking place in the education sector. The bill has not taken into account, in the commencement date, the significant changes that may result from these 19 reviews. Commencement should not occur until we know the result of these reviews, until we have some certainty about what the education sector is going to look like, and then we might have a better idea of the proper place of the Teaching Council, which is a fundamental factor in when the Teaching Council—should this pass—should get into gear and be action ready. Do they even know what the education sector, in a broad sense, is going to look like? I would argue they certainly don’t, because there are 19 reviews going on at the moment.

Now, Madam Chair, with your indulgence, I would like to switch to the title. I find it really interesting—so I’m not speaking to a Supplementary Order Paper in this regard, but I’m making a general comment about the title. I find it fascinating that, back in the first reading, Tracey Martin from New Zealand First made some very definitive comments about the title. With your indulgence, I’d like to read from Hansard, from the first reading, but it relates to the title here for the purposes of this afternoon. She said, “New Zealand First has an issue with this bill. The bill was originally drawn as a member’s bill from the ballot. It perfectly matches what New Zealand First campaigned on, what the Green Party campaigned on, and what the Labour Party campaigned on, except for the name [the title]. The Minister of Education understands that and it’s a conversation, a topic, that has been discussed. At the moment it is the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill 2017.” Here’s where she gets strong, and you can just sense the intonation in her voice: “We will lobby, and we understand we can work constructively with the Minister of Education, to amend the title to this bill to ‘Education (Teachers Council of Aotearoa’”—wait for it—“‘New Zealand)’”.

This is the sum total of New Zealand First’s contribution to the education sector of New Zealand. They want to insert the term “New Zealand” in the title. She made a very specific point in the first reading that she was lobbying the Minister, that there were discussions going on inside and outside the office—who knows where?—that they lobbied strong and hard to contribute to the education sector. And their contribution is what? “New Zealand”. Thank you very much, New Zealand First. You are engaging in the deep and meaningful as we speak. Madam Chair, thank you very much.

Madam Chair, I can briefly comment on the issue of the changes to the name of this bill and of the organisation, and I can confirm that Tracey Martin didn’t have to lobby that hard in order to get that change. It’s a sensible change, quite frankly, and so the Labour Party part of the Government had no hesitation in agreeing to it.

With regard to the commencement date, there are a number of amendments that have been moved by members opposite. One of them, in the name of Erica Stanford, is an amendment that I’m well familiar with myself, having moved it several times in the House before, only to have it struck out under Speakers’ ruling 115/2, and that is that it suggests that the commencement should be at the close of polling day for the first general election held. The reason that I know it’s been struck out is I tried to do it under the previous Government and the chairs ruled that that didn’t satisfy the requirements of due particularity around the date, because the date of the election was not certain enough.

But there are some other clauses which I’m sure will withstand scrutiny, including the ones that suggest particular dates. The question has been raised by the member about why we’ve chosen the date we have, i.e., the date after it receives the Royal assent, and whether there’s any ambition to have this new system in place before Christmas. The reason that we’ve chosen the date after which it receives the Royal assent is because the Education Council, which will become the Teaching Council, want to get on with the process of organising the elections, and they therefore want these rules in place.

They have indicated that they would like to have the new council in place, certainly in the first half of next year, that they believe they can conduct the elections during that time, and that getting the commencement as soon as possible gives them certainty as to what the rules are that they’ll be operating under. Therefore, the Government will continue to support the status quo when it comes to the commencement, which is the day after it receives the Royal assent.

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

[Greetings to you all in this week, Māori Language Week.]

I rise to speak on the title and commencement clauses of the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill. What a pleasure it is. This is the first time that I’ve had the opportunity to speak on the title and commencement clauses of a bill, and how exciting that is. I note that the Minister is anxious to remind us that when New Zealand First asks for changes to bills, it can get them. It seems to be weighing on the Minister’s mind that New Zealand First was able to achieve that with the title of this bill, and we wonder, on this side of the Chamber, on what other matters they may achieve that—

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: It’s called MMP.

—in the coming months, particularly in relation to the Employment Relations Act, Mr Twyford. Thank you for your contribution, Mr Twyford.

It’s clearly on the Minister’s mind—this question of commencement. The reason he seems to be thinking about commencement is he’s thinking about election dates. And I wonder why it might be that the Minister’s thinking about election dates today as he thinks about the unwieldy situation that he and his fellow Ministers are trying to manage on the other side of the Chamber. They’re trying their best to ensure that the election doesn’t come early, and that when it does, they aren’t voted out of office.

I turn to the title, because, clearly, there are some alternative titles that I would ask the Minister if he has considered. Did he consider calling this bill the “Back to the Future Amendment Bill”—because, of course, all this bill does is rehash the failed policies which Labour had in previous years and brings them back. There is no fresh thinking happening on that other side; this is just an old idea.

Did the Minister consider calling this bill the “Unnecessary but Very Expensive Amendment Bill”? Of course, what we know about this is that changing the name of the Education Council to the Teaching Council will come at a cost to taxpayers of around $700,000. Yet not one of the speakers on the opposite side of the Chamber has managed to put forward an argument to suggest that the current council is failing in any way. So we would suggest that naming this bill, perhaps, the “Expensive and Unwarranted Amendment Bill” could be appropriate.

Finally, we come to this issue of “Teachers Council” versus “Teaching Council.” I’d just ask the Minister: could he comment on why the previous form that Labour loved, which was the “Teachers Council” is now changed to the “Teaching Council”, and what could the semantic reasons for this evolution be?

Finally, before I sit down, after this short call, I’d ask this question: given how urgent this clearly is in terms of the commencement—it is to commence the very day that it gets the Royal assent—how does the Minister see this sitting versus the priorities that teachers have right now, which would be around settling their collective agreement so that they don’t need to strike in the coming weeks? Is this more of a priority than ensuring that settlement? Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am pleased that this is the final time that I’m actually going to speak in the committee stage of the debate—[Interruption]—and I can hear the sadness in the voices from the other side. But I did want to acknowledge and respond to the Minister, who said that every time I commented on the chair of the Education Council, it would somehow be harmful to her political career. So, instead, I’m going to make sure I compliment all of the other members of the Education Council so that there’s safety in numbers. From Anthony, to Claire, to Simon, to Ripeka, to Nicola, to Helen, and I just again want to acknowledge Barbara. Thank you very much for the contribution that you’ve made.

Secondly, I do want to just pick up on a couple of final points. As I have said previously, we don’t support this bill, because we believe in a competency-based model. We understand the history of the Education Council and we support that entity. But I also want to make this point to the Minister: part of the whole reason that we’ve spent months on this has been about this argument from the other side about giving the independence to the profession. That’s why we’ve had all of this debate about the representation.

I do think it is a bit rich to have that debate but, at the same time, have the Minister considering, basically, the ability to direct the council on a range of issues, and we’re going to continue to discuss that openly and publicly, because we think that the tens of thousands of teachers out there deserve to have real clarity about what the Government’s plans may be in terms of directions of the council, and that does diminish the independence. So if we were going to name this council something different, we certainly wouldn’t be able to name it the “Independent Education Teaching Council of Aotearoa”, because we know that the Minister has some other plans in the works.

The second thing I do want to just pick up on is what my colleagues have mentioned. Look, again, we accept that this bill is going through the House. We accept that the Minister has a different view around the entity, as do other members of the Education and Workforce Committee, but we have just pleaded, given the whole conversation—there’s 19 other reviews happening in education—as to why it is that we need to push so hard and fast now, when there’s a range of other discussions that are occurring in the education area. We don’t think this is the right time for this bill. We’ve actually argued on other bills to delay them, in part because of the education conversation that’s occurring. And I think there is a real case for having some steady hands and taking this process through in a slow and easy manner. That would mean supporting our amendment—at this last point of call, at 5.19 on a Thursday afternoon—to show some goodwill to the Opposition and that you’re very serious about this appointments process, and considering the delay in the commencement of this bill.

I will just finish by acknowledging Māori Language Week, and acknowledging “Aotearoa” in the title, and I say to all members of this House on this Thursday afternoon that we just acknowledge the important role of Te Reo Māori in New Zealand, and, hopefully we have members opposite supporting my Education (Strengthening Second Language Learning in Primary and Intermediate Schools) Amendment Bill in Parliament. That would be a wonderful thing. So I just reiterate that the members over on this side do oppose this bill, and we really plead with the Minister to consider delaying the commencement.

Look, I don’t want to prolong the debate. I fear that despite the Opposition’s opposition to the bill, there is a degree of goodwill in this debate that I don’t want to spoil. But they have raised a legitimate question about whether this bill should proceed before or after some of the reviews that are being undertaken by the Government are complete and the recommendations of those are known.

I do want to give the Opposition a cast-iron guarantee that one of the outcomes of that review process is that we will still have teachers, and they will still be a regulated profession. And I cannot envisage any circumstances through the review process where we would no longer have teachers.

Denise Lee’s tabled amendment to clause 1 changing the title to Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Act 2018 is out of order as inconsistent with the previous decision of the House.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Denise Lee to clause 1 be agreed to:

replace “Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Act 2017” with “Education (Teaching Council Membership Structure) Amendment Act 2018”