Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

On behalf of my colleague the Hon Chris Hipkins, I wish to commend the third reading of this bill to the House. I want to acknowledge the incredible collegial, collaborative way that this Government has worked together to make sure that when we were in the Opposition listening to the tens of thousands of teachers having their identity stripped away from them by the previous Government—by taking out the word “Teaching”, for example, from the council, which they almost 100 percent fund from their own levies—we listened to them. We worked together to try and put some sense back into what at that time was a National Government who didn’t care about the tens of thousands of people represented by those that submitted to the Education and Workforce Committee, nor did they care about the fact that there should be no taxation without representation—that if the teachers themselves fund the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, they should have the right to elect representatives to it.

What was interesting in the readings we’ve seen up to this point is the fact that the National Party, the Opposition, has argued that because there was a low turnout by the teaching profession—a profession which had been under attack for over a decade, a profession that had been overworked and underfunded. This is something that this Government, on this side—all three parties that form up the decision-making body of this coalition Government, this MMP Government that works constructively and collegially, in an adult way—is doing to make sure that the issues that are important to New Zealanders are addressed as quickly as we can, as constructively as we can.

So we recognise that they were under-resourced, ignored, and insulted by the previous administration. They were overworked. Often—and this is the other bit—all consultation was done over the Christmas - New Year period, or during the fourth term. Now, anybody who has anything to do with education knows how difficult it is or would be to consult on a document such as this bill in the fourth term of a teaching year, but that was often what was done, and, some might say, deliberately done, by the previous administration.

So it is with a real thrill that I stand here today on behalf of the Minister of Education, the Hon Chris Hipkins, and on behalf of New Zealand First and say that we support this bill through the House. It brings back the level of democracy that should never have been removed. Rather than remove democracy, why wouldn’t anybody support a greater education programme or support programme, or even some sort of investigation to find out why teachers didn’t participate in the election of representatives on to the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand? This side of the House, who works much more collaboratively with the education sector, will ensure that there is greater understanding about how that process can be undertaken and about why it is of value to them, and will make sure that they are represented there, along with other members.

So, with that, I don’t want to take any more of the House’s time. Everything has been traversed here. The Opposition will stand and say something about money, remembering, of course, that they spent millions upon millions of taxpayers’ dollars renaming things in the last 10 years and re-announcing things that had already been announced. But they will go there in an attempt to justify their opposition to bringing back democracy to our education profession by bringing back recognition of teachers into the name of this council—by bringing back what is the voice of educational professionals to their professional body. The fact is that it is funded by them and it administrates and is the overview of them, and the fact is that they are the ones who are going to either benefit or be derided most by the Teaching Council of Aotearoa, so, therefore, they should have a say.

We support the bill. I recommend the bill to the House. Kia ora.

Look, at the outset of my speech on this piece of legislation, I do want to take a moment to acknowledge this incredible week for New Zealand and, actually, some women MPs in this House from both sides. I want to acknowledge the Hon Hekia Parata, I want to acknowledge Dame Jenny Shipley, and I want to acknowledge the Rt Hon Helen Clark. We are very fortunate as a country to have had some outstanding female politicians. This is a week to acknowledge them, and more so than ever in our education system.

So I want to start with that theme. If we actually think about why this bill is incredibly important, we can take a moment to acknowledge that in our education system, there are huge numbers of incredible women delivering extraordinary things for young people, and probably none better than many of our teachers out there. That is why this body is actually so important. It represents more than 50,000 people who are in the workforce in terms of teachers but also the many principals out there and the support staff that work so hard every single week in our schools.

So when National previously made these changes, they were not out of a whim. We were not interested in getting rid of democracy.

Actually, we took on board very significant amounts of advice through the workforce advisory report. It was on the back of really serious issues around sex offending, and the way that our system might vet those people coming through into the profession. There was a huge amount of work done in that Education Workforce Advisory Group report, and then there were reports to Ministers. It was years of work. What it, basically, said was that when it comes to those hundreds of thousands of children in our schools, when it comes to the millions of parents out there that engage with our schools, and when it comes to the tens of thousands of teachers, we cannot afford to have a body making so many important decisions around registration, qualifications, and leadership that may possibly be vested. We must have a skills and competency - based model.

Now, we took into account at the time that we would have that as the main policy driver, that there would be independence, that there would be significant amounts of funding, and that we would have cost efficiencies in the way that that entity was run, and, with the stroke of a pen and some legislation going through Parliament, it is our strong view on this side of the House that we are seeing the reversal of major changes to this entity that will lead to, potentially, not the best decisions in our education system. That’s why we’ve fought it. That’s why we’ve opposed it. We believe we are doing the right thing in trying to ensure that people understand that the best-possible entity is one with a skills and competency - based model, and that’s why we fought so hard.

We do know, and we’ve heard throughout the course of this bill—these are some facts for you—that this entity will cost more than $700,000. That is 30,000 teacher-aide hours. This entity will go from nine to 13 members, and, again, we have not seen the arguments as to why that should occur. But, more importantly, what is extraordinary is that this House has gone through months of select committee processes, we’ve been in this House debating this bill, and we’ve had lectures from the other side about the importance of these changes in terms of the membership to ensure the independence of the profession and to ensure that that profession has an adequate voice. Again, what happened last week? Minister Hipkins, as I said—as I warned members would happen—has put forward a bill in Parliament that is hypocritical. It is. The whole purpose of that bill is to say that the Minister can then direct this council—which is supposed to be independent—on its functions.

So what I would say to the tens of thousands of teachers out there and the principals that are listening is to listen up. He may have argued that this entity was going to be independent and more of a voice for you and, somehow, that that would lead to better educational outcomes, but you need to look at the piece of legislation that is coming. The members in this House cannot consider this piece of legislation without considering that legislation, which, in my view, not only means we’re going to see greater cost. It means we’re going to see a larger entity, but it means that the independence of the profession is severely compromised with the legislation that is coming on board.

I think the other thing that I do want to acknowledge in this House is exactly what we are talking about. If we are really serious about lifting our education system—and I’ve just been through about an hour of conversation about governance and the difference that a great principal will make in terms of a school—then we have to get our leadership right. Again, I want to acknowledge all of the incredible principals out there that are working long hours. As I say to many chief executives that I meet, when I meet some of our best principals in New Zealand, they would give them a run for their money. They are dealing with often very complex situations and major social issues, they’re running major financial organisations, and, again, they deserve, in my view, to have the best-possible entity setting out the rules of the profession that is actually going to lift our education system, and we have not got that. We’re reversing to a model that will see, again, vested interests.

I want to acknowledge, I think it was, Nicola Willis in this House, who made the very eloquent point that it’s one thing to put up an entity and argue for a representative model, but the reality is the turnout is really low. I think it’s 13 percent in terms of recent elections. So we’ve not only got an entity that is shifting from being independent in terms of the profession to one that will be controlled by the Minister and we’ve got an entity that’s going to cost more but we’ve also got an entity that has been argued to be somehow more valid on the case of representation, but the turnout for some of these elections is around 13 percent.

So we on this side of the House feel very strongly that there is no greater cog in the wheel of our education system than, probably, something like this entity of the Education Council. The rules that it sets around qualification, registration, the discussions of policy around what the requirements are for someone to come into the teaching profession, and the way that we foster leadership in terms of principals will make one of the greatest differences in our education system.

We are sad. We are sad that we are moving to a system that was rejected by multiple reports. We are sad that we are moving to a system that will take away front-line funds from the teaching profession—$700,000 of that. We are sad that we are moving to a profession where it will be run by a larger entity. We are sad that we are moving to a profession that is going to have a ministerial direction that will see the profession less independent. Ultimately, we are sad for those incredible teachers out there that deserve the best-possible entity working on education policy. We are sad for those parents out there that deserve the best-possible teachers in our classrooms. We are sad for those principals out there that are working long hours and want the best-possible leadership policies, whether that is mentoring or whether that is the way that they deal with teachers in terms of their professional development.

I do want to finish with this: not only did the last National Government give this entity full independence, which is being taken away by this Government in the next piece of legislation; the other thing that the previous Government did was it said, “We are prepared to put up $200 million worth of professional development funds and give that back to the profession.” At this point in time, we are unclear as to what exactly is happening to the professional development funding. The message that I have for the tens of thousands of teachers out there is: you do deserve the best. You deserve the best in terms of this entity. You deserve the ability to have greater say over your destiny. [Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I’m sorry to interrupt the member. The constant barracking from this side of the House is not appropriate.

So you deserve the best. You deserve to have an independent entity that has the heart of our education system at its forefront. It deserves to have the funding and the power and the independence to be able to do that. We are sad in this House that we are seeing the reversal of major changes to an entity like this, because children and parents and teachers deserve better.

Thank you so much, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise in strong support of the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill. I’d like to, first of all, acknowledge the Minister of Education, the Hon Chris Hipkins, for his leadership in the education sector. I’d also like to thank the Education and Workforce Committee and everyone who came to make a submission on this bill. I agree with the Hon Nikki Kaye that our teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand, our parents and everyone, our students, as well—they deserve the best. Education is one of the keys to a successful, flourishing country. This legislation will ensure that we get the best, especially for our teachers.

I have spent the last couple of months talking with parents, with teachers, with students, and with community leaders right across Aotearoa. Initially, I started with Pacific communities, and I’m now talking with our ethnic communities. They have been generous with their time, giving us ideas about how we can ensure the best education system for their children’s future.

It is in all of our interests to ensure that we continue to have the best education system in Aotearoa. But we know that the education system does not work for all of our students, which is one of the reasons why we are supporting this legislation, because it is in our interests to ensure that our teachers—and many of our teachers have told us this—have a say in who is on their governing board. One of the best ways that we would ensure the support of our teaching profession is to ensure that they have full democratic participation in what it is that governs them. We know that teachers—because they’ve told us—would like to ensure that their name is in this council, so ensuring that the Education Council is changed to Teaching Council reflects that intention. Also, as a result of the select committee, one of the things that was recommended and added to this legislation now is that we should have Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, with the inclusion of “Aotearoa” in the name. That is really crucial, because it also reflects the bicultural nature of our country, Aotearoa New Zealand.

This House has heard many times before when we were talking in the second reading of this bill about how, in 2015, the previous council cancelled the right of teachers to elect their own representatives. This legislation, once it’s passed, will still have the majority of teachers being elected on this board, because seven of the members will be elected; only six of the members are going to be appointed by the Hon Chris Hipkins.

We fully support this bill. I strongly commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m taking this call to oppose this bill. This is a very interesting bill, because this bill was originally a member’s bill under the name of the same member who is the Minister in charge now, the Hon Chris Hipkins. This was put forward as a member’s bill when he was the education spokesperson in Opposition. I believe what happened is that when this Government was formed, for several months, even now, we are seeing that there are several National bills that are being debated in the House. They didn’t have any programme of theirs to go on the Order Paper. Even the Ministers were rushing to the House to take calls to extend readings on bills, because they didn’t have any legislation to put on the Order Paper.

I believe the Minister of Education thought “Well, education is a very important sector. We should have something to do with education on the Order Paper.”, and he decided to put this member’s bill of his on as a Government bill. It is very typical of this Labour-led Government, which believes in spending, and this is wasteful spending.

As we know, they are spending millions of dollars on working groups. They are spending millions of dollars on various summits. This bill is also going to incur expenses that are wasteful, because this is not going to deliver anything for the education sector. This bill will not deliver anything for the teaching profession. This bill will not deliver anything for students and deliver nothing for parents.

For a minute, if we look at the substance of this bill, this bill will change the name of the Education Council to the Teaching Council. Even the Education Council didn’t make any comment about the name change, so we can understand how insignificant that issue is for the Education Council. This is about changing the composition of the Education Council. It’s increasing it from the current numbers to 13—that is, seven plus six: seven members will be elected and six members will be appointed by the Minister.

From day one, the argument that we had from the Minister about this bill was that the Minister wants to make this council independent of the Government. That was the argument we heard from day one—that by having that mix of elected and appointed members, he believed that this will become an independent organisation. But what we know now, if we look at the Order Paper, is there is this bill, which is No. 7 on the Order Paper: the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). There are several provisions in that bill and one of the provisions is that this Teaching Council should work within the parameters of Government policy. So that independence that the Minister talked about from day one is out the window. It is not going to be an independent body. This is going to be run by the Minister. This is the level of transparency we have from this Government. So they’ve put this legislation in one bill and that it will actually be run by the Minister in another bill, thinking that this won’t get noticed. But it definitely will get noticed, and we will make sure that this is noticed. It’s not going to be an independent body, because it’s going to be run by the Minister.

Now, we know that the structure that the Minister wants to put in place is going to revert it back to the structure that we know was dysfunctional. There were some serious issues. We have heard about them again and again. There were even some serious financial issues, and that’s why the National Government decided to do an in-depth review of the body. Because of that in-depth review, we came up with the structure that has been put in place by the National Government. There is no evidence that the current structure is not working. There is no evidence, because the current structure is working really well. It is working within the code of ethics and responsibility. It is providing that stable governance that is needed in the sector, so I do not see any reason why we need to change this structure.

There is another point in this current legislation—not this one that we are debating; the one that was put by the National Government. The Minister cannot appoint any political cronies on the council. I believe that is the reason why the Minister wants to change this whole legislation, because that is what is going to happen. The Minister is going to appoint politically motivated people on this body—that is what is going to happen. As we can see, the other legislation which is on the Order Paper might come up tonight or some time this week for its first reading. There is no transparency. So this whole legislation which is going through here is based on them making this body independent, then we have another piece of legislation which takes that independence away. So this is a very serious issue. Why could this whole thing not be put into one piece of legislation? That’s a big question.

The other thing we know is that the previous structure was broken. It was not working. That’s why National decided to fix that. Now this Minister wants to revert back to that broken structure. Why does he want to revert back to that broken structure? There has to be some motivation. I believe that this is going to be a body that is going to be run by union members, run by the Minister. That is what the Minister actually wants to see happening in this body. This is not going to help with the teaching profession at all.

We know that unions are already complaining, saying that they put Labour in Government and Labour is not rewarding them back. FIRST Union—yes, publicly they have criticised this Labour-led Government. So here what we’re seeing is that this Government and unions are scratching each other’s backs. They’re just looking after each other, and that is what is going to happen with this change that is going to be put in place through this legislation that we are debating.

If the Minister was so keen on having proper representation on the Education Council, then why did he dismiss my Supplementary Order Paper 102, that was about bringing representation of experience that comes from the partnership school model? Very easily, the Minister dismissed it without realising that the Hon Jenny Salesa, the Minister who was in the chair before the Minister in charge of the bill, said yes, that would happen, because there are six positions that will be appointed by the Minister. But the Minister in charge, the Hon Chris Hipkins, said, “Oh, we are actually getting rid of partnership schools.” Yes, when I challenged him again—National has already announced that we will be bringing partnership school models back within 12 months of getting elected—the reply that I got from the Minister was that he doesn’t have a crystal ball to see what’s going to happen next. He doesn’t need to spend on a crystal ball, because we have already announced it. All he needs to do is be aware of what’s being done and what is being announced by other parties. So he doesn’t need a crystal ball.

If the Minister is so, so desperate to have a crystal ball—they have a crystal ball, and that is Greg O’Connor. Greg O’Connor knows what the Labour Party should be doing, what the Labour leaders should be doing, what the Prime Minister should be doing, and how the Prime Minister should be dealing with troubled Ministers. They already have a crystal ball, so they don’t need to go out to find another crystal ball.

Will this body do anything to improve the teaching profession? No. Will this body do anything to help students achieve better outcomes? No. Will this body help parents to know what’s happening in schools, giving them the assurance that the teaching profession is going to be kept to the level that parents expect? No, it’s not going to do that, because this is going to become something that is going to be run by unions and also controlled by this Government and controlled by the Minister, which is going to become very, very clear when we debate this other bill, the Education Amendment Bill (No 2).

So, overall, yes, we know that the Minister wants to revert back to the model which has significant flaws. We actually fixed that, but the Minister doesn’t care about that because it’s all about control—it’s about making sure that the Education Council is delivering what the Minister wants to deliver. So I want to finish by saying that I do support Greg O’Connor being the crystal ball of the Labour Party, but I do not support this legislation. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

I have great pleasure in rising to reiterate New Zealand First’s strong support for this Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill. This bill, of course, looks to amend the Education Act 1989. Of course, at its heart, this bill is about giving the profession of teachers their own voice on their own council. I cannot believe we are actually having this debate. This is such a no-brainer that it shouldn’t even really be of any contention; it should be supported from across the House, and it is disappointing to see, indeed, that that is not so.

At its heart, it’s about democracy. It’s about teachers having that voice and the balance. I would push back on the previous speech from the member Parmjeet Parmar: this does have an absolute balance. There are seven teacher-elected members out of 13. They have the majority. There is a balance from primary and secondary, principals and teachers, and early childhood—and we’ve heard how important that is from the second reading speech of Jo Luxton, as she represented her area of expertise in the early childhood sector. The six appointed members—it gives the Minister of Education the ability to look at where the skills gap might be and to appoint the appropriate people. It’s a totally appropriate, well-balanced board set-up which will serve this profession well.

This is a profession that is indeed in some sort of crisis. We are seeing that the number of teachers coming forward into training is down 40 percent, at a time when we have rising population and greater demand. Just last week in Southland, in the newspaper—in the Southland Times—there was a school that had to send a class home because they didn’t have a teacher. So this is about addressing the issues of making teaching a more—lifting it as a profession. We have talked quite a bit about this on our side of the House: how do we value teachers more? The absolute minimum we can do is allow them to elect their own representatives on their own professional body. It is absolutely demeaning to that profession not to accord them that courtesy.

There was a recent study this week—it got quite a lot of media coverage—about the number of young people, school-leavers, that are considering teaching as a profession, and it is concerningly low. So this is yet another measure we are putting in place. As the previous speaker alluded, there are a number of education bills before the House at the moment as we seek to redress a lot of the problems that besiege that sector.

There has been some talk that previously there was only a 13 percent turnout in those elections, and I did get mocked a little bit for pointing that out in my second reading contribution. It’s about having that mechanism. I’ve had some experience in this in my own industry—in the meat industry. We sought to change our cooperative, and at that stage we had 14 percent participation in our director elections. Within two years, that was sitting at 60 percent, as farmers rallied, and that’s the point: that mechanism exists. If teachers wish to rally around a cause, they’ve got the majority on their council and they’ve got the ability to vote for it. So it’s the mechanism that’s there. Sometimes when turnout’s low, it suggests some form of comfort with the status quo, so I wouldn’t use that as a measure, particularly. It’s about having that mechanism and the ability to have that voice.

Also, the cost has been brought up. The majority of those costs are spread out over three years. The $700,000—most of that cost is in running these elections, and since we’ve established that that principle is important, that is a small price to pay. The rebranding—I wonder how much the rebranding cost in 2015 when the New Zealand Teachers Council was replaced by the Education Council. It would be interesting to go back to the Hansard and hear the railing of the then Government about the cost of that particular transition, which I would imagine would be the same.

It is a little bit galling to be lectured by the Opposition about costs. At least we’re not having first-class airline tickets for sheep to go to Saudi Arabia, and absolutely outrageous and ridiculous expenditures like that. So I think that in terms of putting democracy into the Teaching Council, this cost is not something that we should be quibbling over in terms of the importance of this step.

So, in saying that, I will just conclude by, once again, reiterating New Zealand First’s strong support for this bill. It does demonstrate, again, the strong, cohesive Government on this side of the House getting on with the job and pulling together good legislation with a united front as we stand in lock step behind this bill. Without further ado, on behalf of New Zealand First, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Before I call the next speaker, can I remind both sides of the House that the third reading is about the bill as accepted by the committee of the whole House. We’ve had two speeches since I’ve come to the Chair that have drifted off on to other matters that are not part of this bill. So I just want to remind members.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I appreciate that contribution from the New Zealand First member of the Labour-led coalition Mark Patterson. I would like to start with referring to some of the contribution that New Zealand First—I don’t think I quite realised there was going to be a New Zealand First speaker before me. I thought it very interesting, back in the first reading—and then, of course, we highlighted this in the committee of the whole House stage—that New Zealand First had quite a significant contribution to this bill: it was ensuring that the term “New Zealand” stayed in the title. Unfortunately, that was the only contribution that I can recall, and it was—I’ll give them credit where credit’s due—vigorously debated by the Hon Tracey Martin, who said that she had an issue with the bill. They’d campaigned on it, but the one thing was the name.

If you want to see what quality debating looks like, then have a whole entire first reading speech around the title “New Zealand” being inserted into the name—that was it. That was the sum total of the contribution. I think, possibly, New Zealand First could have done a little bit better than that. We had an entirely vigorous committee of the whole House stage—loads of Supplementary Order Papers, loads of amendments, and not a squeak from New Zealand First, except for “insert the term NZ”. It sort of reminds me of their attempt to do something else in education, the Education (Protecting Teacher Title) Amendment Bill, and we know how that turned out—

💬 Hon Members: Too soon.

—too soon—trying to take away the term “teacher” from dance teachers and cooking teachers and music teachers.

Look, I will move on from New Zealand First to some of the points that I raised, again, in committee of the whole House, and it was when we looked at, as the committee, reasons to delay the commencement of this bill. There were three really valid arguments that I raised and, unfortunately, it’s not quite what we see here in the House today. One is that we do need—and the previous speaker raised this—to increase participation in these elections. There’s no two ways about that. If the commencement was delayed and that particular amendment was passed—it wasn’t, and it was in the name of the Hon Nikki Kaye—then there may have been time to get some really good grunty, decent work around increasing participation. If the honourable aim of making this teacher-led and elections-led is, ultimately, around participation, then why not delay and plan for that?

The other is lessening the financial burden. Perhaps if we had a little bit more time before this came into play, that $700,000, which has already been quoted tonight, and I’m sure will be quoted again—$700,000 is a very big figure. Now, if you think that’s just a figure that this side of the House is bandying about, it was mentioned not only by the Education Council itself during the select committee process but also by the Waitakere Area Principals’ Association, strongly opposing that particular figure, and, lo and behold, it was also mentioned by the New Zealand Educational Institute, the union who said they urge “a cautious fiscal approach”. So there you go: three really notable submitters who had something to say around the $700,000 cost.

The other, third, point that was raised in regards to delaying the commencement was the lack of clarity and direction for the education sector at the moment. Sixteen reviews are taking place right now. This is some change around a peak body, the council, that has some big work ahead of them, and we don’t know what the work is that they will be looking over. In fact, they might find that coming into their jurisdiction and in their responsibility are results of reviews, results of reports, and working groups that they might want to take into account. Well, they won’t know what that is, especially if the commencement date takes place early next year—and that’s how it seems that this is going to roll out.

I’d like to also refer to what I’ll just call a really interesting thing that’s taking place, and you can see it for yourself on the Order Paper of today. I’ve got two yellow marks here for two particular bills on Parliament’s agenda—Parliament’s Order Paper—today and there’s a really interesting point to make here. So, right now, we know that the stated purpose of this bill is to raise the teaching profession status and give greater independence, going back to an elected membership model. In doing so, we are arguing that it’s going to sacrifice some of that really determinant direction that we had under our Government about bringing the skills and competency focus to the council. It’s been extremely successful. No one has been arguing that the current council is not successful. That’s, I think, a really strong point that should not be lost.

We’ve never heard, during submissions, from the other side of the House at any point that the current council is not successful. It is. So we’d like to know: if you’re going to sacrifice some of that skills and competency focus that’s there now, is it going to be worth it for what we see coming down the pipeline as potentially less independence? The irony is that what you’ve got now is a set of points and legislation for increased independence, yet on the Order Paper there’s another bill that we are possibly going to be debating later tonight and that bill would possibly see the Minister of Education being, in our opinion, extremely disingenuous by following up with legislation that gives him increased influence over the council. So here we are, from the other side of the House, saying we want increased independence and we want a lifting of teachers’ status and the profession, and then, later tonight, we’re going to be debating the first reading of a bill that takes away some of that independence.

I would like for someone to tell me how that stacks up. It does not stack up, and I think the other side knows it. It’s going to be a hollow gesture, I think, to pass this now and potentially have a first reading for something that blatantly takes away the independence that the other side of the House so-called longs for. I hope that we will not see the current system—the current council and all their work and all their proven work—sacrificed. If you’re going to go from no resulting increase, you’re going to have no resulting increase in that independence as a result of these two bills somewhat back-to-back.

I want to, in relation to that topic, finish by raising, I think, the travesty and the irony that when the Hon Nikki Kaye raised this back-to-back bill irony, she was called out by the other side of the House—by members Jamie Strange and Mark Patterson—as fostering a conspiracy theory. Well, to those two members, take another look at your Order Paper today and tell me if you see a conspiracy theory here. [Holds up Order Paper marked with two yellow tabs] There are the two yellow check marks. This is the bill that we’re on now. This is the bill that we’re going to be on later. One undoes some of the other, so that’s something that needs to be incredibly locked on—do you want to see the yellow marks one more time? It’s the colour of ACT. Is David Seymour contributing tonight? I’m not sure.

So, look, I would invite members from all sides of the House to acknowledge the work that the current council have undertaken. I’d like to pay special tribute—and I’ve done this before, but I’ll do it again—to Barbara Ala’alatoa as the chairman of the council. She happens to be the principal of a school in my electorate of Maungakiekie. I know that Barbara not only does fantastic work in her local school but is often involved in education sector big pieces of work. She must be one incredibly busy woman. I’d like to lay down one final plea, for the other side of the House: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill. I personally am stoked to hear the Opposition members of the National Party declaring that teachers deserve the best. Welcome to the party, guys! Welcome to the party. This is, obviously, happening alongside their new flagship policy of decreasing class sizes. I mean, it’s not like they were in power for the last decade or anything! So we’re stoked that you’re now joining this party, members of the Opposition. You’re welcome to it, and we’re looking forward to working with you on implementing these policies and, obviously, ensuring that we get the best for the teaching profession—indeed, what they are asking for.

When the Nats removed elected representation in 2015, we heard from the likes of the New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI) and the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) on the changes, who all, I would note, vehemently opposed it. The NZEI said “how can it be independent when all of its governance … is directly appointed by a politician?” There will be a lack of ownership by members. Extensive consultation showed the sector clearly wanted an independent body whose members were directly elected out of the profession, by the profession, along with appointments made in the public interest. This bill delivers on exactly that, I would note.

The PPTA at the time, in 2015, when the Nats were pushing through these changes and removing elected representation, said “provisions about membership of the Council which could result in there being no current practising teachers or principals on the Council, is very dangerous.”, “Members of EDUCANZ must understand that they will serve the minister and the government of the day—not the teaching profession.”, and “The EDUCANZ model as it stands allows the minister to hand-pick an exclusive club. By stripping away the professional voice of teachers and not allowing us to elect our own representatives to our own professional body, EDUCANZ will struggle for credibility.”, and, indeed, those are arguments that we heard throughout the select committee process. This select committee, I would note to the House, is a fun one to sit on because it does happen to be one of the most polarised, I would note, in this 52nd Parliament.

To the point about cost—which has been raised time and time again by members of the Opposition, who are so fixated on this cost that I think they’re forgetting who is paying for it—I ask members of the Opposition if they’ve heard of the teachers levy that they use to pay for this body?

To the point around participation and around turnout, with regard to those who are voting in these elections and the kinds of discussions about who turned out throughout the previous elections—before the National Party removed them in 2015—no one is proposing, with declining turnout in general elections, that we replace politicians. So I would simply say that often what the response tends to be when we notice a decline in participation or turnout is we try to reinvigorate democracy, and a good way to do that is to engage people on the issues and, indeed, to shine a light on the professionalism of the body, not to stomp on them.

So this is a professional body that we’re talking about—our teaching procession. The National Party themselves have said that teachers deserve the best, and, interestingly, they’ve continued to speak about skills and competency focus when it comes to the board. But what they’re doing is not talking about elected representatives from the teaching profession; they’re talking about ministerial appointees. To that point, I would ask: who has a better insight into the profession than current teachers? It’s as simple as that. Teachers deserve to be able to elect their own representatives in the same way that doctors and lawyers get to. This is, indeed, about recognising that professionalism.

I am stoked to stand here as a member of the Green Party, in confidence and supply with this Government, to be delivering on this, returning elected representation back to the teaching profession and, more so than that, the broader work programme that we are undertaking to transform the education sector in Aotearoa New Zealand. I am proud to stand on behalf of the Green Party and to commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. “I am stoked to be here.” is what I would say if I was indeed at a party, but I am not at a party; I’m in the House, so I will say that I am very pleased to speak on the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill at its third reading.

One of the things that I would like to start off by saying is that there has been quite vigorous debate over this bill through all of the three readings, and I have spoken at all three of them. The one thing, though, that I would like to say is that we agree, on both sides of this House, about one thing, and that is how much we all value teachers. We all value the incredible job that they do, going above and beyond their regular duties to look after our kids, to make sure that our kids get the best start in life. I spend a lot of time in schools in my electorate talking to teachers and listening to their stories: the amount of extra work that they do with special needs kids, with priority learners, with high-needs learners, and with gifted students. We absolutely value that work that they do, especially the work that they do above and beyond.

But the question has always been, throughout this debate—and the question remains—what is the need for this bill? Has that need been established? We’re still asking these questions with the bill as it stands today at the third reading. All this Government has said is that the teachers want it. That’s their first point. Their second point was that we need a council with teachers on it. Their third point was independence, and their fourth point, made by Mark Patterson today, was that it would encourage more students into teaching. Well, let’s just take those things one by one, because they’re still very relevant with the bill as it stands now.

The teachers want this: as I mentioned, I’ve been to speak to many, many teachers in many schools throughout my electorate—in fact, all schools. I note that Jenny Salesa said today that she’s heard from many teachers who have said that this is what they want. I have heard from teachers, and they’ve got a lot of concerns. One of those concerns is their pay. They say to me that they don’t want $2.8 billion spent on the fees-free policy. They would rather that they were better paid. There’s a range of things that they’ve said to me when I’ve been out, but one of those things is not: “Hey, by the way, we’d actually quite like you guys to change the name of the Education Council. That would be just great if you could do that for us.” They’ve never once mentioned that—not in a single visit. And I don’t think any of my colleagues—if I can get some nods around—have ever heard that from any of the teachers they’ve ever visited. Not one. They’ve got many valid concerns but that ain’t one of them.

Another thing that they’ve never said to me is that “We want to be able to elect our own people on to this council”. Never said it—not a concern. So for all—

💬 Marja Lubeck: You weren’t listening.

I’m not listening? I’ve been to every single school in my electorate and I’ve spoken to hundreds of teachers, and not one of them has ever said that. It’s all very well for the members opposite to get up and say that they’ve heard that from a couple of teachers, but in my experience and the experience of my colleagues, it’s not come up a single time.

One of the things that we’ve traversed and that is still relevant is the fact that they haven’t established that there are any problems with the current Government’s model. There hasn’t been a single person get up in a single debate, from the opposite side of the House, to say that there have been any decisions made by this council that could have been improved if there was a different governance model—not a single one. There haven’t been any contributions that have made that claim. The Government’s cry of “We need teachers on the council.”—and that’s been made many times, and it’s being made again today. We have pointed out so many times that the current council has six of the nine members on it who are current teachers, and the others are incredibly well-respected individuals who are leaders in their field. This is a council of highly respected, highly knowledgeable, incredible individuals who are making great decisions.

This brings us to the point of independence, because one of the points that this Government has made in their contributions throughout—and it’s still relevant at third reading—is the fact that by having elected members to the council, the body will be more independent. Independence is questionable with only 13.7 percent of teachers actually voting. I do remember at second reading we pointed across the floor and we asked Mr Jamie Strange if he voted in the council elections, and I do believe that he said that he couldn’t remember or that he didn’t think he did.

💬 Jamie Strange: Pretty sure—pretty sure.

He’s not sure—he’s not sure. But, look, only 13.7 percent of teachers actually voted, so the ability of the parties with vested interests to put up candidates to get successfully elected is very high, and that is a concern for the independence of this body, especially when the majority of the body is elected. None of the amendments that we put up were accepted. I had a really good one about making sure that we know the affiliation and the backers of candidates. None of those were accepted to counter this point, so we have a question around independence.

Given all this talk about the independence of the council by the Government, one would hope that the Minister doesn’t interfere with this council any further, say, by allowing a Minister to issue a direction relating to the teaching council. Surely he wouldn’t do that, given the cries about the importance of the independence of this council. Or perhaps by—I don’t know—requiring the council to consult with the Minister prior to making changes to teacher qualification requirements or registration criteria. Surely he wouldn’t do that, because if he did consider such changes, surely this would seriously undermine the independent nature of the council, which we have been so vigorously debating in this House, and talking about how important it is. Surely he wouldn’t do that. Oh, but wait, he is doing it.

💬 Denise Lee: Here it is. [Holds up Order Paper marked with two yellow tabs]

That’s right—two yellow markers. He is doing it later on today—watch this space.

I think it’s important to traverse some of the other issues with this bill as well, because one of them, as we’ve mentioned, is the cost and working out the value for money. Now, Chlöe Swarbrick did actually say tonight, “Oh, but it’s not Government money. It’s not taxpayers’ money. It’s teachers’ money.” I think the point is that it’s someone else’s money, and the Government has a real disregard when it comes to other people’s money: “Oh, don’t worry that it’s $700,000. It’s not taxpayers’ money; it’s the teachers’ money. Don’t worry—it’s not our money.”

Chlöe Swarbrick: Teachers are asking for it.

Teachers have never mentioned that they wanted this, yet they’re paying for it.

It’s important to go over the history of where we’re at today, because we had an old elected model, and we’re back. Here we are again: out with the old, in with the older. The reason that we got rid of the old model was because of—well, a multitude of reasons, but one was the serious financial difficulties. It needed to be bailed out, and in 2010, the council was described by the Education Workforce Advisory Group as lacking the capability and the capacity to carry out its functions. It was not best placed to carry out its functions. It had no ability to self-regulate or to self-review, and it was not the best body to serve teachers.

It’s been said before, and I’ll say it again: we didn’t make those changes on a whim. We did them on good advice. We did them on the advice of a review, because there were serious problems with the existing body. A review told us that we needed a body with capability, with knowledge, and with people who were well respected in their field, and that’s what we ended up with. So here we have this highly competent body, with 66.6 percent of the people on the council being teachers, doing a great job that nobody questions or has a problem with. But it has to be changed, because—well, why, actually, we don’t know, because we actually haven’t had a good argument from the Government as to why these changes are needed. It hasn’t been adequately answered. It hasn’t been established.

I’d like to take my final minute just by acknowledging the current members of the council—highly respected individuals, highly capable individuals—one of which is Claire Amos. She is the principal of Albany Senior High School in my electorate—just one of the many teachers that are represented on the council, despite what the Government has said. I’m not going to go through them one by one, but they’re all highly respected individuals. One of them is Clare Wells. She is the chief executive of the New Zealand kindergartens association and, despite what Jo Luxton said at first reading—that there wasn’t any early childhood education representation on the board—she is a fantastic representative of the early childhood sector.

All of the people on this current body are highly respected, incredibly knowledgeable individuals, who were put on there because of their skills and because of the fact that we had a body that wasn’t performing, and here we are, potentially going back. Out with the old, in with the older; back to a seven out of 13 board—

Order! Sorry, the member’s time has expired.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am really, really thrilled to stand and take a call in absolute support of this bill, the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill. Why am I thrilled? Well, because today is the day we give back the power and the ability to teachers to manage their own governing body. These teachers pay registration fees towards this governing body, so why on earth should they not be able to be part of this governing body? The reason that we are giving this back to them is because we believe in democracy, on this side of the House. We trust teachers, unlike the previous Government, who took that choice away, did not trust them, did not value them, did not see them as professionals, and did not see them as being capable of managing their own governing body. Well, we do. On this side of the House, we do. We trust them and we believe in lifting the status of teachers.

We hear from the other side that “Oh, it’s just, you know, changing a few words—changing a title.” Well, actually, words can be extremely powerful, and these words have a lot of meaning to the teaching profession. I too go out and speak to teachers about various things, but I actually make the point of asking them what they think about this bill. Sarah, the principal of the Timaru Girls’ High School, is really, really rapt that we are undertaking this piece of legislation because she was really, really disappointed when the choice was taken away from teachers previously, and we hear that, “Oh, only 13 percent come out and vote for this.” Well, you know, does that mean that when we don’t get a high turnout in voting for our local council and stuff, we should just not do it? Absolutely not. People still should be given the opportunity to stand up and have a voice and have a vote on what they believe in.

I think that it’s really exciting, as I’ve said many, many times before, that early childhood education (ECE) is going to have representation on this council, in the form of an elected ECE teacher—elected by their own sector, I might add—and an educational ECE leader in that space. It’s time that we had a seat at that table, and I’m so proud that this Minister of Education recognises the importance of ECE education and ECE teachers in the profession. I absolutely, wholeheartedly commend this bill to the House.

I call Sarah Dowie—five minutes.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s an absolute surprise, actually, to take a call on this Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill in its third reading, because I am no longer the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, and I certainly didn’t expect to take a call after the previous speaker, Jo Luxton, had only spoken for two minutes, despite her being so excited about this pedestrian bill that simply goes to change a name. This Government is something else. They campaigned on having a fairer, transparent Government. Did we get that? No. We got the sacking of their Minister for open and transparent Government Clare Curran because she is a disgrace.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): And that’s not in the bill, so come to the bill, please.

I will certainly come back to the bill, because I’m coming to the fact that this is a Government that is completely out of ideas. They’ve been disgraced in the record that they campaigned on, and I’ll come back to it: transparent Government, fail; environmental record, fail; industrial relations—look what we’ve got. We’ve got a Labour-led Government trying to grapple with New Zealand First and with the Greens, and they can’t seem to bring them together.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Second warning. Please come to the bill—the third reading of this bill. Thank you.

And now what have we got here? We’ve got the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill, and what does it do for $695,000? It changes—

Tim van de Molen: How much?

—$695,000—a name.

We know that this Government likes reviews, because I lost count when we got to about 300, but this is on the back of a review that was done in 2010—a comprehensive review that looked to raise the standard of teaching in New Zealand. We’ve heard on both sides of the House that that’s what we agree on: we want our teachers to be held in high esteem, we want our teachers to be well-supported, and we want to enable our teachers to innovate, and the way we do that is to have them represented by a body that is full of competency.

Now, all you have to do is look at that side of the House to see what elections bring about. You’ve got people that are cut from the same cloth, rather than people that have core competencies, and, certainly, it is true what we’ve heard on this side of the House: this is not top of mind for teachers. From a Government that spent billions on tertiary education, yet promised to support teachers, where is this Government with respect to pay negotiations? A big fat fail. We need to support our teachers and recognise them for the work they do.

We need to move on from this ideological situation that the unions have put us in and innovate with regards to teaching, and that’s what the current Education Council does. That’s what the current council does. We have core competencies and appointed members that represent teaching across the sectors that are there to enforce standards to make sure that all teachers meet the bar and to improve teaching performance, and that’s not necessarily done the way it was in the 1950s.

Let’s look at innovating. Let’s look at, actually, communities of online learning—which I believe the Government is looking to scrap also. I can tell you that I’ll be opposing that one, given that my students on Stewart Island learn singing from a teacher in Nelson.

💬 Jamie Strange: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would the member like me to give her a copy of the bill so she can—

Oh, I have a copy of the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! That’s enough of that—both sides. I do not need help from Jamie Strange or anyone else. It is the sole decision of the Chair. I have given two warnings. This is the third and final warning. I don’t usually give third warnings. The member needs to speak to the bill.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Well, I am speaking about education in general and what is planned by this Government, and, certainly, this bill, in my opinion, is a waste of money. It’s about a name change, and it’s simply playing around with a configuration that won’t bring about core competencies. What it says in the bill, Mr Strange, is it’s a prescription—a list of teachers that hold various positions. Now, that does not ensure competency. It does not ensure competency through election because, let’s face it, when you look over that side of the House, any old Joe Bloggs can stand.

We want a council that is going to perform, that is going to raise the bar, and that is going to innovate and hold our teaching profession in high esteem because, let’s face it, these are people that shape the minds and hearts of our future, and we need to make sure that New Zealand is in a fit place to lead going forward.

I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill. This is an exciting time for education in New Zealand, as we reach the third reading of this very important bill, which will once again ensure that teachers are elected on to the teachers’ council.

I spend a lot of time—as Erica Stanford mentioned she does—in staffrooms, and whenever I talk to staffroom teachers about this bill and I talk to them about teachers going back on the council, without fail, their heads are nodding and people are saying, “That’s fantastic news.” This Government has been listening to teachers around putting teachers back on the teachers’ council.

We have heard from Opposition members around competency and around knowledgable people, and teachers, teacher educators, principals, and early childhood leaders are competent. They are knowledgable. They do know what’s taking place in their field. In fact, they are at the coalface, so they know better than anyone what’s happening in their industry.

I’ve got a few friends who are real estate agents, and I thought I would have a look at the Real Estate Agent Authority board, just to compare. On there, we have a barrister, a Queen’s Counsel, an accountant, a consultant, and we have a director of a real estate company on the board. We have a real estate agent on the board of the Real Estate Agent Authority.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Get out of here!

I know—outrageous! The point I’m making there is that if it’s OK for the real estate agent board, why isn’t it OK for the teachers’ council?

I’m particularly excited that the name is changing from Education Council to Teaching Council, because it highlights the important role that teachers play in our society. It elevates the teaching profession.

We heard from the Hon Nikki Kaye that people on the teachers’ council have to make decisions around registration and leadership. Who better to make decisions around registration than teachers who are registered and who understand the process? Who better to make decisions around leadership in schools than principals or than early childhood leaders?

I commend the work that the Minister has done on this bill. I think it’s common sense. It’s certainly welcomed by the profession. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

I rise to speak on this, the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill, or, as I have suggested, what should be better named the “Back to the Future Bill”, a bill that, like so many initiatives by this Government, is just another step in the long march backwards that Labour have planned for this country.

Now, in describing this bill, I want to turn to the words of the Ministry of Education. I want to turn to the words of the Minister’s own officials, who, in the impact summary released today in this Parliament on the bill that’s about to be introduced following this bill, have said that the Teaching Council of Aotearoa amendment bill: “In making changes … [this bill] … will reduce government’s ability to protect the public interest”—this bill will reduce the Government’s ability to protect the public interest because—“Council could exercise its function in ways that do not align with government’s policy directions for the wider education system.” This could have implications for the safety of children and young people, for teacher supply and diversity, for the quality of teaching, and for Government’s fiscal commitments.

So if there has ever been a statement that would confirm what this side of the House has been saying about the potential impact of these changes, it is this impact statement that has been released today—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order! Members can’t anticipate business that is about to come to the House, and you need to turn your attention to the third reading of the bill before the House.

I am very much paying attention to the third reading of this bill, and I am sure—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I’ve made my ruling. That’s the end of it. The member continues on her speech.

What this bill does is it claims to introduce independence for the Teaching Council, and what the Minister gives with one hand in this bill, he intends to take away with the other. This is a comment that members on this side of the House have made throughout the passage of this bill, and we continue to state at this third reading that it is one thing to say we are going to elect members of a council and it is another thing to truly give them independence.

I turn to what this bill disestablishes. This bill disestablishes, effectively, the Education Council, and I want to take some time in this third reading to acknowledge the work of the Education Council, because this is the existing professional organisation for teachers. It represents all teachers from early childhood education through to secondary. Its role has been to promote good practice, to promote new ideas, to provide inspirational leadership, and to boost the status of the teaching profession, and we have had words of derision from the members opposite about the way in which it performs its function. We have had members opposite claiming that somehow it is not representative of teachers and that it somehow does not give independence to the status of the profession.

I would like the members opposite to tell me which of the members I am about to describe somehow let down the teaching profession. Let’s talk about the people that currently sit on the Education Council that this bill today disestablishes. They are Barbara Ala’alatoa, who is the principal of Sylvia Park School, a registered teacher, a Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit for services to education, and someone who has been shortlisted for the New Zealander of the Year. Is she the one that shouldn’t be representative of the teaching profession, or is she OK?

I want to talk about Anthony Mackay, a moderator of the annual International Summit on the Teaching Profession, who is someone so respected by the teaching profession internationally that he is the moderator of the international summit. Is he the problem that members opposite have—that he is somehow non-representative of the teaching profession and its interests?

Or is there a problem with Claire Amos, the principal of Albany Senior High School. Is she the one that fails to represent the teaching profession adequately? Or is it Simon Heath, the principal of Renwick School, or is it Ripeka Lessels, who is on the Principals Council of the New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI) and who has taught for 30 years? Is that the member that is somehow non-representative of the teaching profession?

Or is it that we need this bill read for the third time today because of the membership of Michael Rondel, who has extensive experience as a statutory appointment adviser and who has worked with the Ministry of Education on advisory services for at-risk schools for a number of years? Is it his appointment that somehow demeans the role of the current Education Council? Or is it Nicola Ngarewa, the principal at Pātea Area School, or is it Helen Timperley, who has had a career of teaching and educational research, who is a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit? Finally, if it is none of those people that are somehow non-representative of the profession, perhaps then it is Clare Wells, who is the chief executive of the New Zealand Kindergarten Teachers Association, who works with teachers in the early childhood sector every day of her professional life.

What I put to you is that it is absolutely superficial and misleading in a sense, but not in a sense which this House would put it. But it is not fair for members opposite to claim that the current Education Council does not do a good job of representing the teaching profession, and I want to thank the members that I have listed in this House today for their service to New Zealand education. I want to thank them for their service to the teaching profession and I want to thank them for the efforts they have made to support and boost the status of the very important teaching profession. I want to say to them that it is regrettable that this evening in this House, a piece of legislation will pass that will take us backwards.

I want to remind members of this House how the Education Council came about, because, of course, there was extensive examination of the previous Teachers Council, which did exist, which today we are taking ourselves back to the future of. In that extensive review, one of the comments that the Ministry of Education felt free to make was that the Teachers Council was seen “as a vehicle for government policy and lacked a distinctive brand for an effective public voice.” But, never mind, we’re going to go back there anyway because Labour members have decided it’s important.

So we have been, throughout the debate on this bill, throughout the select committee process, trying to establish why this change is required, because change does have a cost—in this case, at least $700,000. Change also has the cost of disruption and distraction, particularly at a time of teacher shortage and at a time when primary teachers have been on strike for the first time in 24 years. We have asked why the change is necessary. The answers have not been forthcoming. But what we do know is that the previous model that we now revert to was found in the past to have had significant flaws. There were problems with enforcement of standards. There were problems in providing sustainable leadership and governance. That is why we have the Education Council we have today. Since it was implemented, this Education Council, I would argue—and members opposite have not argued otherwise—has worked incredibly well. It has adhered to a code of ethics and responsibility, it has actively engaged in policy development, it has provided stable governance to the sector, and it has encouraged leadership and professional development.

We have been told in this debate that the new Teaching Council will increase the independence of the profession and of its representation. Now, if that were the case, and if that is to remain the case, I would not expect any legislation in future to come in that would remove that independence—that would allow, for example, the Minister to issue a Government policy direction relating to one or more of the Education Council’s functions. We need to be wary that in examining this legislation that this House debates tonight, we haven’t been given the opportunity to consider what future directions the Minister might give this body.

Of course, this legislation does not allow the Minister to give any directions, and I note that that was not examined by the select committee. That wasn’t even considered as an option, I think, by many of the submitters, had the NZEI or Post Primary Teachers Association considered that a future bill might allow the Minister to issue such directions. Of course, the reason why that might happen is because what this legislation clearly does is it ensures that teachers are there, elected and—according to Ministers opposite—are elected in a representative way. But at no point have we had an answer to the question put by many members on this side, which is: how can they be adequately representative when only 13.7 percent of their peers vote for them? That is a very small number and it raises concerns.

I would put to you that when Government officials say that a bill of this sort has implications for the safety of children and young people, then it is upon us—[Interruption] Well, that is what they have said. Those are not my words; those are the words of officials. If that is the case, then we would all do well to pause and to consider that this is a bill that takes us back to the future, that has had no case for change proven, that is expensive, and that gives with one hand so the Minister later on, on the Order Paper, can take with the other.

Like my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick over here, I was getting a little bit excited coming into this debate here tonight about the fact that we might have had a new-found regard for teachers coming from the other side of the House, but when I hear this bill, which I’m very proud of, being called a pedestrian bill that simply goes to change the name—I’m sorry, but that excitement has really gone right down.

This is about raising the status. This bill is about giving democracy back to our teachers. While the other side of the House might not value democracy, because we’ve heard that “Oh, it’s about competencies. We couldn’t have those teachers you know just being elected. Imagine the skills that they’re bringing.”—while we see that from them, we do value democracy on this side of the House and we do value our teachers. So we are bringing democracy back to our teachers.

While that side of the House might not listen to their teachers and might not talk to their teachers, I certainly do. In fact, just prior to coming to this House, I had a group of teachers in my office who were excited about this bill. They are absolutely excited. I was a teacher in 2015, when the Teachers Council became the Education Council, and back then it was like the straw that broke the camel’s back. In education, we had been demoralised through legislation after legislation that showed that the then Government did not value us as teachers.

This is about putting this right. While that side don’t listen to their teachers, I do, and I hear in staffrooms right around this country that they are excited about this bill coming back in and they’re going to have that democratic representation back on their professional body again. This is what is right, and we are putting it right, so I therefore commend this bill to the House.

The question is that—

Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): A point of order? I’m about to put the question, so unless it’s about—I’ve started the question—

Tim van de Molen: Yes, but not completed it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Tim van de Molen.

Thank you. I draw your attention to Speakers’ ruling 59/7: “It is a longstanding convention that when a member is speaking from the backbenches other members who are sitting near that member do not interject, because of the effect it has on the live microphone.” That has been a constant—

Order! You can raise that after the vote.

Just ruling on the point of order: that is the sole discretion of the Chair.

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