Education Amendment Bill

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I’m just seeking your guidance in light of an earlier ruling, and I’m in no way questioning that, but in light of the fact that partnership schools were the policy of the ACT Party and the member for Epsom was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Education in the previous Parliament, who did much of the work on this, I’m just seeking clarification as to whether he is able to take part in the debate on these particular amendments, given that partnership schools are a significant aspect of the bill we’re debating, and I’m not quite sure whether he is allowed to return to the Chamber in order to take part in the debate.

I thank the member for his point of order. The rule is that it’s solely up to the presiding officer as to when the member returns. I will discuss this matter with the Serjeant-at-Arms, and he will be informed of that decision.

I’m happy to take a call on the second part of this bill, which is on changes to the education update legislation passed by the previous Government. I hope most of the provisions in this second part will be less controversial than those in the first part, although I’m always open to being surprised.

The Education (Update) Amendment Bill, among other things, passed what are some of the most significant changes to school planning and reporting requirements, compliance requirements, that New Zealand has seen in quite some time, and replaced the requirement for schools to have a charter with the requirement for schools to have a four-year strategic plan setting out the board’s strategy for achieving its objectives. It requires them to prepare an annual implementation plan to give effect to the strategic plan, and to prepare an annual report.

The amendments in this bill make some minor but significant, you could argue, changes to that. The first thing it does is it moves out the requirement for these new provisions to come into force, from the beginning of next year, 2019, to the beginning of 2020. As I indicated, these are quite significant changes, and schools have indicated that they would like to have more time in order to prepare for those. I think that that’s reasonable, given the significance of the change.

It changes the term of the strategic plan from four years, as proposed, to three years. One of the arguments that schools and boards have made in favour of that is that that would align that with the board of trustees’ electoral cycle, and that’s something that I think does make sense.

It reinstates a requirement that the Secretary for Education consult with the Auditor-General on the form of the annual financial statements. This was a mistake in the previous legislation, in that it was omitted, so we are fixing the mistake in that. And it supports the transition to the new arrangement by allowing, for example, a school that has only recently adopted a charter to adopt that charter as its first strategic plan and not have to go through the whole exercise all over again.

So these are relatively straightforward, I hope, and common-sense amendments to what is quite a significant change to schools’ planning and reporting requirements.

Look, I want to take a call on this, and I just want to comment on a number of things that the Minister Chris Hipkins has said. As I’ve said before in this House, as much as possible, we want to try and get cross-party agreement on areas that shouldn’t be contentious. The reason that National members on this side will want to take a number of calls around this part is because the provisions, while there aren’t that many of them, are hugely significant in the context of the accountability of our education system.

Now, I agree with the Minister in terms of what he’s just outlined: it was National that put through the Education (Update) Amendment Bill 2017 to shift to this new framework around accountability. But let’s just talk through some of the amendments. I do have a range of questions for the Minister, and I’m glad that he’s in the chair so that he can take a number of calls on them, but, again, let’s just remind ourselves what we’re dealing with here. We’re moving to a new reporting framework.

So the first question that I have is around this amendment, which is “We’re just going to shift out the transition from January 2019 to January 2020.” Look, I’ve been in this House; I’ve seen many pieces of legislation. People tend to pluck out January as the month. Now, that may make sense in this context—we have a school year; many schools come back at the end of January or early February—but it would be good for this committee to know, given that as much as possible we want to support amendments that make sense, why it is that we need those additional 12 months. I know that we’ve had a bit of discussion in the Education and Workforce Committee, but it would be good if he could talk to that.

Then, I guess, one of the parts I am very supportive of, and I’m sure my colleagues will have a number of things to say about it—I was swayed by the New Zealand School Trustees Association, and can I acknowledge Lorraine Kerr—is just this issue of shifting from a four-year cycle to a three-year cycle. Again, there were several submissions on that. On this side of the committee, we think that does make sense, but really the devil is in the detail. Again, I just want to raise a couple of issues that were raised in select committee and by officials, and it comes back to the process, and particularly the powers of the sector. While that three-year cycle might make sense for schools in the normal course of their business, of course, in the select committee process, many of us were sitting there and recognising that schools will be established outside that process.

There will be multiple issues, when you’ve got 2,500 schools, which will occur that mean that they may need to fall out of cycle. There is a provision in the bill that addresses that, but it’s not detailed in terms of the criteria that the secretary might need to take into account. We didn’t have a whole lot of advice, from my perspective, around what those situations may be, and it is really important because, again, we need to be thinking about those schools that could be in a vulnerable situation or in a situation whereby they’ve been established mid-cycle. There is a provision there. There’s not a lot of detail around the exercise of the secretary’s powers in this particular situation. I am interested in the Minister’s view: has he had advice around how often we think that we may see something done mid-cycle?

I think the other issue that I want to raise—which, again, has been dealt with in the amendments in this part—is this issue of, effectively, financial sign-off. We’ve gone from two board members to the board member and principal—and, again, I have huge respect for the many principals out across New Zealand. At an operational level, I would love them to be spending less time on things like infrastructure and potentially financial issues, so that the board could get on with their job, but clearly there has been a shift, as part of this legislation, to go from two board members to a principal and a board member. So I think it is worthwhile for this committee to traverse that, and I would love the Minister to stand up and take a call and talk us through that.

I think the other thing that I did also want to raise is just around this issue of 2020, and the fact that, effectively, the strategic plan will become the charter at that point. I think that, again, the conversation that some of my colleagues and I have had has been around the shift—[Time expired]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take this call. We’re in Part 2. It’s my first call on Part 2, and I have an amendment that I wish to speak to. It’s one of those amendments where you could possibly say, “What’s in a word?”—and in this regard, a lot. It seeks to amend clause 21(13). In new section 9A(2) in clause 21(13), replace the word “may” with “must”. So there’s the word, but wait until you hear my rationale around replacing the “must”.

💬 Tamati Coffey: Give it to us, Denise.

I’m going to give it to you. It’s going to be good. It’s very weighty—very weighty.

What this amendment does is it ensures that when amending the strategic plan of a board—so this is very important—the board “must” consult with the community, not “may” consult with the community. Now, that is weighty, and we’ve got nodding heads on the other side of the committee. The board must consult with the community, not may. It’s not just the community either, to the other members on that side of the committee; it’s also staff and students, and all this must take place before that approval of the strategic plan be given by the secretary.

Now, if we just step back a little bit, at a higher level, I guess you could say, what this is doing is—and we’re, obviously, on the part where we’re looking at amendments to the Education (Update) Amendment Act of 2017. So that’s where this takes place. In that particular Act, “In section 158(2), [and] after the new clause 9 of schedule 6 of the principal Act,”—that’s where in this current bill that we’re debating this morning—there is an insertion that’s about strategic plans. It says in new section 9A(1) in clause 21(13), “A board may amend its strategic plan, but if a proposed amendment is significant the board must obtain the Secretary’s approval of the amendment before amending the plan.”

So this is new. And while I agree with the intent here that if an amendment to a strategic plan has enough gravity—I guess you could say—that it’s going to require the secretary to look it over, that’s a good principle, I think. But I do have a query and a question for the Minister of Education around the word “significant”. How will it be deemed to be significant? What’s that bar? Where’s the test? Where’s the line if a proposed amendment is “significant” to warrant the secretary stepping in at that stage and approving the amendment? It’s a query. While I think the intent is right, it could be quite interesting and variable to determine where “significance” kicks in.

Now, back to my one word change. New section 9A(2) says, “Before approving an amendment, the Secretary may require the board to consult the school community, staff, students, or any other person or body [that they deem] should be [considered].” Why is it “may”? Shouldn’t it be “must”: “the Secretary must consult”. Now, this is a one word change of absolute gravity and gravitas, right? Why should it be “may” consult? Of course it should be “must” consult. If you look through all of the education bills that we’ve debated over the last couple of months—and, indeed, the content of this—you will see, scattered all throughout, the principle of consultation.

We’ve heard members on the other side of the House speak strongly, vigorously, and often on principles of democracy. To my mind is coming the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Act and how much the other side of the committee really underscored the principles of consultation. Well, here we are. We’ve got a chance—right here, right now—to agree that if the secretary deems that the bar is such that they should step in and be part of a school changing its strategic plan, well then, it should be a “must”. Why would it just involve the board and the secretary? Why not—and again it’s the school community, the staff, the students, or any other person or body that the secretary considers should be consulted.

I would like to underscore, one last time, the principle of consultation, and remind the other side of the committee that it’s a principle that they have said that they hold dear. I don’t think that we should be apologetic about putting in the word “must”. If the secretary thinks that there’s something going on in a school that requires their oversight, well then, it should require the oversight of the all-important and very integral members that make up the school community, the staff, the students, or any other person that the secretary sees fit.

I’m hoping that when we get to voting, this will be something that the other side of the committee pick up. I’m not sure they’re going to pick up much else, especially after—[Time expired]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to speak to my amendment that I have just tabled, which, in clause 21(13), after new clause 9B(2) of schedule 6 of the Education (Update) Amendment Act, inserts new clause 9B(3), which basically states that the strategic plan for a school which has transitioned from a partnership school to a designated character school expires five years after the plan takes effect, rather than three which is currently there.

There are many reasons for this, but I want to go back to the fear that we’ve always had about the transitioning of charter schools—that is, that all of those good things about charter schools that make them so successful will be lost. I had a number of Supplementary Order Papers in Part 1 that I didn’t get a chance to speak to today—and it was very sad—where I wanted greater transitioning of these charter schools into special character schools. I didn’t get to do that, but the only way that I feel that I can now do that is in this amendment, by extending out that strategic plan to five years.

Now, the reason that I want to do that, and I want the other side of the Chamber to consider that, is because of the learnings that we need to take from charter schools and why they’ve been so successful: why Māori achievement has been so good; why smaller class sizes, why pastoral care have been so good to these students; why, for example, at Vanguard Military School, exercise and discipline has been so good; why respect for your elders—and if we look at their results, low levels of truancy, and high achievement, they have been so successful. If we take a three-year plan and we put that out to five years, I think that we will have a much better chance of taking the amazing things that made those charter schools so successful and carrying them on.

One of the most worrying things that I and my colleagues have about this transition period is that there are all of these learnings from these charter schools that will disappear, because what we’re trying to do is take a square peg and fit it back into a round hole by this so-called transition. We keep bandying this word “transition” around. The Government are saying “transition” but, actually, what they’re doing is not transitioning at all; it’s just squashing something that doesn’t fit into something else. If we had a longer period for that strategic plan to take place, I would feel better about the fact that some of those learnings, some of the values, some of the things that make those charter schools so successful will actually be able to be carried on.

There are many things that have been stripped away from charter schools that we’re not going to get back. There will be changes in staff, the CEO won’t be there, the boards will be different, and the unregistered teachers will be gone. So there are a whole lot of things that made charter schools so successful that will be stripped away. All we’re left with is the strategic plan. It’s the only thing that we have left to make sure that we take the learnings, and we take the things that made charter schools so successful, and we implement those for as long as we possibly can.

I mentioned in many speeches before now that I worry that the Minister and the Government and the ministry won’t take into account the learnings from these charter schools. They’ve had some incredible successes in terms of their successes with Māori students and Pasifika students with achievement, with truancy rates, and we’re never going to understand why that occurred, because the model’s gone. If we have this longer period of transition with a longer strategic plan, I think that the ministry will have a much longer time to be able to take a look at the things that made charter schools so successful, and perhaps that can then spill over into special character schools.

There are so many learnings that we are not taking and if we had a five-year period under my amendment, I feel that the ministry and officials would have a much greater period of time to actually take a look at some of those really amazing successes, and perhaps, as I say, with other special character schools, maybe take those learnings and put them across them as well. We’ve seen the incredible success of many students at charter schools and it would be such a shame for us to waste that. I think a five-year period of transition, rather than a three-year period with a strategic plan is a much better idea and I hope the Minister takes that into account.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Kia orana. May I begin very quickly with a word of thanks. Last night, in a separate part, I asked Minister Hipkins some questions relating to fraud and the potential for fraud within the student loan scheme. At the time, he indicated he was unaware of any. He did go away and ask some questions, and I thank him for doing that. He has, nevertheless, now indicated that there is some, so I encourage him to continue to investigate that very serious issue, but I do want to acknowledge that.

However, I was concerned that a short time ago this morning he described the Opposition’s Supplementary Order Papers as filibustering. I want to assure him that this is a very significant bill. The Opposition is not filibustering. We’ve had three excellent speeches so far, since we started this debate, which have demonstrated the range of important issues that are under consideration—

💬 Simeon Brown: Here’s the fourth speech.

Thank you very much, Mr Brown, I appreciate that. Education matters. We all want the best schools in our communities, and what we’re talking about in this part of the debate relates very much to quality education. Could I just quickly acknowledge the outstanding schools in my own electorate, up in Hamilton. I’m very proud of them, and I thank each and every one of those who’re working in our schools, either in the teaching side or as board of trustee (BOT) or as parent teacher association members—that sort of thing. They all make a great contribution.

The Hon Nikki Kaye kicked off this particular debate in talking about the new reporting framework, which is obviously crucial to what we are now discussing, and she raised a question: why has January been reached as the date? Now, it isn’t a frivolous question, and I just want to add to the point that she made by pointing out that school staff, particularly management teams, have to work incredibly hard on a wide range of administrative matters, and, clearly, this strategic reporting is an administrative requirement.

Realistically, the only time in the year that they can have a bit of a break is over the Christmas holidays, leading into the early part of January, when most New Zealanders are enjoying a bit of a summer break. Therefore, while it may be, as the Hon Nikki Kaye has pointed out, logical to have a date in January, I want to ask the Minister whether he has actually consulted widely with school authorities—boards of trustees, management, etc.—in order to ascertain whether that will work for them, because it might be—I’m not saying it will be, but it might be—that a reporting date, say, to coincide with the end of the financial year, on 31 March, would work better or would at least be preferred. So I just want to endorse the Hon Nikki Kaye’s question and echo the great respect and appreciation she uttered for principals, boards of trustees, and teachers right around the country.

But I’d also want to endorse very strongly the amendment that has been put forward by my colleague the member for Maungakiekie, Denise Lee. Government members scoffed when she talked about an amendment which moves from the word “may” to “must”, and it appeared, at least to Tamati Coffey, to be of no consequence, but I want to ask the Minister: what is the reason for the vagueness? In fact, those two words are fundamentally different, and I do believe that members of the community in my area who do have a strong interest in the way their schools are managed might want to support Denise Lee’s amendment very strongly.

Now, let me give Tamati Coffey an example. He’s now an electorate member. A large number of people in his constituency and in mine will not care about this. Let’s acknowledge that at the outset. But there will be some—

💬 Tamati Coffey: Very serious. Very serious.

OK, so Tamati Coffey, who’s clearly not being serious at the moment, is nevertheless feigning interest. I do hope that Tamati Coffey will get up very soon to explain why he considers this is significant, because he owes it to Denise Lee to debate this particular clause.

I give the example to Tamati Coffey of those who may have stood for election in the last BOT elections but been unsuccessful. They may have had very genuine and strong reasons for seeking election, and they will no doubt continue to be watching their schools with great interest. One of the things they’ll be watching in particular will be the strategic planning, because that may well have a fundamental impact on the way they feel about how the issues they were concerned about are being resolved and as to whether they should put themselves forward in the next BOT elections in order to try to continue arguing for whatever it was they wanted to change. So there could be very good reasons for them to do that, and that is why I believe the word “must” must be inserted. Why have the vagueness of “may”? That simply says to a school that isn’t functioning well, “You don’t need to consult your community.” That is ridiculous and mustn’t be accepted.

Before I call the next member, I just want to encourage members that it’s not really good practice to just repeat arguments that have already been presented. I’m looking for new material. This is quite a specific part of the bill—we’re dealing with clauses 21 and 22—and, while the arguments are well made, I don’t necessarily want to hear them several times. So I would encourage us to be looking to provide new arguments to these two clauses in Part 2.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Look—a few comments at the outset. I would, though, just acknowledge, at the beginning of my speech, that I haven’t had answers from the Minister to a range of questions that I have asked that are very specific to clauses 21 and 22. Just to recap in terms of the answers that I haven’t had answers to, they’re around both the 12-month period, which is going from January 2019 to January 2020, and I’ve also asked about this issue of shifting from two board members to, effectively, a board member and a principal. So I do want answers around that. One of the things I also want to deal with in this speech, and the reason I would say to Madam Chair this is so important, is that while people might think, “Well, these are minor amendments.”, this is about 2,500 schools and what the accountability framework is for those schools. So one word does matter. The process does matter.

I want to come back to a part of that process that is about, in the event that the board want to amend their strategic planning framework, the way that they go through that process with the Secretary for Education, what a significant issue is, and when it needs to be consulted. This is really important because it cuts to the heart of an aspect of our education system, which is that boards are the masters of their own destiny. We now are writing into law a process that does involve the secretary having greater power, in my view. I think we should have an explanation from the Minister about what his interpretation is of the word “significant”, because that cuts to the heart of how often we think that boards are going to be told by the Ministry of Education, “Well, you need to go out and consult on this.” That is important because that means it’s community time. As I say, I completely support Denise Lee’s very specific amendment around changing that word, but this is another issue. This cuts to the heart of the word “significant” and what that actually means, because that will determine how many boards are, effectively, being rejected by the ministry and may need to go out and consult. So I would like the Minister to answer whether he’s had any advice on that.

The other thing I want to say, specifically around that, is it’s not uncommon in our education system for the Secretary for Education to delegate that power. We know how busy she is: we’ve got 2,500 schools. At the moment, part of the whole aspect of these provisions is now timing it to this three-year cycle, which does mean that we are compacting a process whereby we may have approval of the strategic planning frameworks. So what I am worried about is just to understand whether the Minister has sought advice as to whether the secretary may delegate that power—whether he thinks that’s likely. You know what it’s like: we get all of these strategic planning frameworks trying to be signed off at the same time. Is there an issue there in terms of workload, and should we be considering, actually, whether we should be having an amendment right now to make it explicitly clear that the secretary could delegate that to a deputy secretary?

I think the other thing that I did want to raise, specifically around the strategic plan and the transition that we’ve got under clause 21 and 21(13), is that this, again, cuts to the heart of exactly what the transition is. I do note that through the select committee process, we had this discussion about the statement of variance and what will actually occur as of January 2020 if, for schools, effectively, their charter becomes their strategic planning framework. So if we have a situation where a school hasn’t met its objectives and targets around achievement or, potentially, well-being, what do we actually think is going to happen there? Is it the case that some schools are going to get off scot-free in terms of not being able to report around major variances? Can the Minister give an absolute assurance to the committee that every community can expect, at the changeover of that transition, to see that variance? Again, there’s been a little bit of confusion in the Education and Workforce Committee about whether there will be a mandatory requirement for that to occur. Again, I’m looking at one of the provisions here—[Time expired]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take my first call on Part 2 of the Education Amendment Bill. I’d like to focus my contribution on clause 21 and in particular, firstly, in regards to the change of date from 1 January 2019 to 1 January 2020. I know this has been covered by a number of members on this side, but the question I want to ask the Minister is: why he is making this change so late in the piece? We understand that this bill—yes, it’s been before Parliament throughout the year, but schools and boards of trustees have been working towards 1 January 2019. They have been working towards a date which has been in law for a couple of years now. They have been putting together plans around the changes which the Education (Update) Amendment Bill put in place. As he outlined, he thinks these changes aren’t that significant. We would dispute that; they are significant, they do make some substantial changes. So why make a change so late in the piece?

The second question which follows on from that is in regards to the change in the cycle—the four-year cycle or three-year cycle. Why is he making this change when he currently has the Tomorrow’s Schools review under way, which will potentially make substantial changes to the ways that our boards of trustees are managed, potentially how they’re elected, potentially how the community’s involved, how the school is involved—there are a range of different decisions which are being looked at as part of that review. So is this bill pre-empting that review? Is this bill making a call which that review may require further law changes towards? Is this legislation meaning that that will need to be looked at again?

I think the Minister owes our schools, our boards of trustees, our principals, the unions, and our teachers and parents the opportunity to understand where he thinks this is going so that there is an understanding as to whether there may be a further change in the future and potentially back to a four-year cycle, maybe to a five-year cycle, which has been recommended by other members such as Erica Stanford on this side of the Chamber. So I think the Minister has some big questions to answer, particularly in light of all of these reviews that he is currently undertaking in the education sector.

The other contribution that I’d like to make at this stage is in regards to the changes being made in section 43 of the Education (Update) Amendment Bill—this is in clause 21(3) and (4)—which basically repeals two sections in the principal Act; that is, the new section 61(b), which was put in through the Education (Update) Amendment Bill and also replaces new section 62(2) of the principal Act. Essentially, what these changes do is they remove any reference to national standards in the principal Act and the reason for that would be because he’s removing the whole basis of national standards. But I think the issue here which is—you know, the Minister said these aren’t significant changes; this is a very, very significant change because this goes to the crux of how schools are monitored and how they are held to be accountable.

What the changes do, essentially, is remove reference to national standards and change it, in new section 62(2), to “Monitoring and evaluating must include, but is not limited to, monitoring and evaluating the performance of the students in relation to—(a) any foundation curriculum policy statements and national curriculum statements in force under section 60A;”. Essentially, what that does is that it says, well, we’re not going to measure schools according to national standards because we’ve got rid of them, but we’re going to measure them according to any foundation curriculum policy statements and national curriculum statements.

Is the Minister satisfied that this is going to provide accountability for parents and students to ensure that they know where their child is at, how their child is doing with numeracy and literacy, and to ensure that they are progressing positively along the educational journey? So I challenge the Minister to actually explain to this committee why he thinks that’s just some sort of minor inconsequential amendment when this is a significant part of this legislation that removes significant accountability measures from the bill.

I’ll respond to the arguments that have been raised so far. There’s been quite a lot of comment on why extend the requirements out by 12 months for the new strategic plans to be in place. There’s a couple of reasons for that. One is that schools have indicated that they’d like more time, but one of the other ones that’s quite significant is that there is an interrelationship between the schools’ strategic plans and the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs), which the Government is now required to put in place as well. There are some consultation requirements around that and the Government, of course, has begun to fulfil its commitments under the requirements to put NELPs in place. There is quite a lot of logic in having the NELPs in place before schools have to adopt their strategic plans, so this will allow for a better sequencing of that work to take place.

Nikki Kaye asked about why have a principal and a board member having financial sign-off rather than two board members. The reason for that is it simply reinstates the status quo that applied prior to the mistake being made. So, basically, it isn’t making a change; it’s reinstating what was the previous status quo. The requirement around two board members applies to other Crown entities, so this was intended to reinstate the status quo.

Erica Stanford covered a number of issues around charter schools which we have talked about at length already in the earlier parts of this debate, but, particularly, she wanted to extend the charter school plans to apply for five years rather than for three years. There isn’t really any good justification for treating one group of designated character schools—which is what most of them will become; some of them will become integrated schools—differently to the others, and so I wouldn’t support that.

Tim Macindoe asked why the calendar year. It is simply because it aligns with the school year and, actually, it would be impractical for schools to have a year that was based on something other than a calendar year. It does create some accounting challenges for government, of course, who run a different year, and so school years are split across two calendar years, but we’ve been doing that for years.

Simeon Brown asked why make this change so late. The answer is we’re not, actually. We introduced this legislation some time ago. It’s been through a full six months’ select committee process—in fact, longer than six months, because the select committee asked for extra time to consider it—and, therefore, we had foreshadowed well in advance to schools that this extension of time was coming.

Then, finally, he referenced the review of Tomorrow’s Schools and asked whether this would pre-empt it. No, it doesn’t. Actually, pushing out the time frame allows more time for any implications from the review of Tomorrow’s Schools to be considered.

With regards to the powers of the Secretary of Education and the issue around consultation and what’s significant, there are always going to be subjective judgments around what is deemed to be significant. Ultimately, I think if we wanted to set very specific criteria in that, it would kind of defeat the purpose of the flexibility that we’re trying to build in. We do want to be a little more flexible. If you set really rigid criteria, you get absurd situations where a school finds that they are trying to make what is a relatively insignificant change to their strategic plan, but because it happens to hit a particular criterion, you end up with a bizarre situation where they can’t make what are relatively minor changes.

So there’s going to be an element of subjectivity. Any law change like this does create subjectivity, but, of course, there’s a democratic answer to that. If school communities don’t feel that their school boards are consulting them sufficiently, then they have a board election every three years, and aligning the strategic plan with the three-year electoral cycle actually enhances that level of accountability.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity. When we look at this whole bill, there are five main objectives. Part 1 covers some of the things that are to support these main five objectives and there are things in Part 2 that support these five objectives. I want to focus in Part 2 on clause 21(4) because out of the five main objectives, one of the objectives, I believe, is a very important one. We can say, yeah, it’s resolving errors and omissions—we can fully understand that; we have no issues with that—but there is the objective that says that it is to strengthen the quality of school education by removing the provisions relating to national standards and the partnership school model from legislation. In this, I’m really passionate about the reporting system in our education system, so I would like to talk about clause 21(4), because that is actually to give effect to the policy objective of removal of national standards.

I repeatedly hear, when we talk about national standards from the Minister, that there is no evidence that national standards have improved the performance of students. I actually—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Dr Parmar, we have traversed this discussion quite fully in the previous part. I will ask you to stick specifically to clauses 21 and 22, and your arguments for the discussion on clause 21(4). Thank you.

Thank you. So what I’m talking about is clause 21(4). In subclause (4), it says, “In section 43, replace new section 62(2) of the principal Act with: ‘(2) Monitoring and evaluating must include, but is not limited to, monitoring and evaluating the performance of the students in relation to—(a) any foundation curriculum policy statements and national curriculum statements in force under section 60A; and (b) any qualification systems referred to in section 61(c) that are offered at the school.’ ” So this comes to the fact that in the Education Act 1989, section 43 is about requiring monitoring and reporting of national standards, and that is where my argument comes—that, repeatedly, we hear that national standards are not helping in the improvement of students’ performance. What I would like to ask the Minister is to give us some evidence, because we haven’t heard the evidence that the Minister has used to base this argument on.

We haven’t heard about the evidence. This is a reporting system that we are talking about, and what we are saying is that we want to stick to that reporting system, but what the Minister has jumped to is the performance of students. So that is another effect that we can see from having a good reporting system. But when the Minister says repeatedly that there is no evidence that student performance has improved because of the system that he is replacing with this new subclause (4) here in clause 21, I want to know what the evidence is that the Minister is basing his—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Dr Parmar, we’ve had this discussion in Part 1. We are not having it again. Please move on.

Because this clause 21 and subclause (4) relates to—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Do I need to repeat myself? We are not having this discussion again. Please move on to other arguments.

So I actually thought that it would be good to get that answer from the Minister—that’s why I raised this, because we are really passionate about this part in this whole bill.

Now, we also know that, yeah, we can fully understand that maybe there is no data available because from day one, Labour has been against national standards. We know that they wanted to replace national standards with another kind of reporting system that we are seeing through this legislation, and this was even before someone could evaluate how that system was going to work. So, from day one, when someone is totally against a system, then we do not know if the time that has been given for the national standards to work was enough for its evaluation, and we do not get any kind of answer from the Government on this big change that the Government is making in this legislation, which, of course, is divided in Part 1 and Part 2 to give effect to the objective of the policy.

Now, the important point here, as some of my colleagues have already discussed, is clause 21(2), where we are talking about the commencement date replacement, and, again, yes, I’ve heard the Minister—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yes, and the Minister has answered that question. Thank you.

I’m just responding to the Minister.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I have already made a ruling that I’m not wanting us to traverse arguments that have already been expressed by your colleagues in this part, and the Minister has already answered that question.

Madam Chair, I fully appreciate that, but then we don’t have the opportunity in this debate to actually go back and ask another question on the same subclause to the Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to make a contribution on this Part 2 of the Education Amendment Bill, and in doing so I want to focus in this contribution in particular on those aspects that relate to the national standards provisions that have been removed. It’s worth noting right from the outset that these amendments in Part 2, of course, amend the Education (Update) Amendment Act 2017. That amendment Act in 2017 was all about putting the progress and achievement of children and young people at the heart of the education system, and in doing so it set out clear objectives and a clear framework which schools were to implement in order to ensure that the information they provided parents and their community about the achievement and progress of students was clear, was comparable, and was meaningful across the country over time.

So when we turn to what this amendment in Part 2 does, we see at new section 62(2), inserted by clause 21(4), new requirements around monitoring and evaluation, and what that monitoring and evaluation must include. Madam Chair, you will see that this monitoring and evaluation relates to curriculum policy statements and relates to the qualification system, but what is not there, and what this amendment removes, is the requirement for the provision of a base against which the board’s actual performance can be later assessed. And I want to raise this point because it goes to the heart of what national standards provide as a reporting framework for a school board, which is now removed in its entirety with this legislation.

Of course, monitoring and evaluation is only as effective as the objective measures against which it occurs. So what we will now have, if we are to read Part 2 and the amendments that it puts in place, is a situation where, up and down the country, there will be statements of variance that vary hugely from school to school. So we see, in new section 87(7)(a) inserted by clause 21(5), that “any variance between the school’s performance and the achievement of the school’s objectives set out in its strategic plan and annual implementation plan; and (b) any matters required by regulations …”. So, of course, the question that this raises is: what is the one true thing that schools will be reporting against? Because one school might do one form of assessment; another school might do a different form of assessment. One school might choose to report in some detail on literacy and numeracy, and another school may choose not to. And so that is what is lost with these amendments.

It is the systematic unpicking of that Education (Update) Amendment Act that concerns members on this side of the House, because, of course, that was a bold piece of legislation that said, “Actually let’s fundamentally update our education laws to ensure the best possible information is available and that students’ achievement is put at the heart of the education system.” And here we have an unpicking that is of the nit-picking variety and, I think, adds very little on the scale that we have seen previously.

I want to turn to the other amendments that we find in this Part 2. In particular, we’ve already had some debate about the movement of the commencement date, but I just want to add to that that isn’t it symbolic of this Government that, when it comes to progress, when it comes to change, what they like to offer is pushing things out further into the future. So we had a National Government come and amend an Act to put student achievement at the heart, and say “Let’s make sure that all this is in place by 2019.”, and then we had a Labour Government come in and say, “Oh, well, we’ll nit-pick around some of the details of that and we’ll push it out to 2020.”—entirely symbolic of a Government whose whole approach is to set up working groups, have grand discussions, have lots of hui, but not actually get on with the important work of improving what’s happening in our schools.

We then have this question of what happens with boards if their strategic plan is not replaced, and we have this idea that they will just continue to have effect. We have this concept that boards will be enabled to amend their strategic plans and that boards will be required to get approval from the Secretary of Education for any significant alteration.

Now, all of these subclauses simply go to highlight that, actually, a strategic plan and the planning that a board of trustees is doing on behalf of a school and its community is significant. It’s significant enough that we have big expectations around how often those plans are reviewed, the role of the secretary in reviewing them, and we do expect that from time to time significant amendments will occur, and yet it is not considered serious enough that we would have a baseline of what we expect to be reported, and I find that incredibly concerning, and it is these sorts of details at the expense of the big picture—[Time expired]

I move, That the question be now put.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. It’s nice to be back, and it’s nice to see you in the Chair. This committee stage debate is put in place by the Standing Orders so that a committee might debate whether or not the bill, as reported from the second reading, actually aligns with the intention of the House at second reading, and I intend, of course, Madam Chair, to stick very closely to that brief.

I’d like to draw your attention, for instance, to clause 21(9), which amends the treatment of a partnership school charter and, effectively, makes it the plan of a new special character or a new integrated school. I think that if someone was to ask themselves why exactly is this necessary, you see the Government’s intention and what it said it was trying to achieve in the second reading was actually the closure of partnership schools.

The Minister’s stated intent in public since he received his warrant has been that the partnership school model has no place in the New Zealand education system, and yet we are now seeing a proposal in the text of this bill which tells us that, actually, it’s all just exactly the same—that, actually, a charter school’s philosophy and ethos will simply be brought on and turned into the strategic plan of a board. I make the case that, actually, this part of the legislation does not reflect the Minister’s stated intentions. It does not reflect the agreement of the House at the second reading. What it does is it gives the lie to the rhetoric of the Minister and the Government, who have told us at great length that these schools are a failure when they put in legislation clauses that are there to ensure the smoothest transition possible. What it shows is that, actually, the Government accepts—contrary to what they’ve brought to the House at second reading—that the partnership school model worked, so much so that the provisions that were operating under a partnership school should be facilitated to continue as flawlessly as possible under new models, be they special character or be they integrated.

I go back one clause before that to clause 21(8), which says that the principal Act will say, instead of “for each 4-year period”, that charters will be “for each 3-year period”. Now at no time has it been made clear by the Government why a three-year period of planning for a school is better than a four-year period. We often have that debate in New Zealand politics about the term of this House, and there are good arguments for why a longer term actually allows educators to plan with greater certainty. Bear in mind that some of these schools cover seven year levels of students, so three years is nothing. Arguably, they should be able to plan over longer periods than even four years, but there’s never been an expression from the Government of why it is necessary, as clause 21(8) states, to actually shorten the time horizon of planning in these schools. I would argue that that is something that should be struck out of this legislation. Our educators need less bureaucratic interference and longer time horizons over which to plan, not shorter ones.

I’d also take you to clause 22, which considers amendments to other enactments. We could go through a few of them. The State Sector Act amendment, I think, is absolutely critical to debate in this stage because it seems to reveal perhaps a political difficulty for the Government but also a contradiction in the direction of this bill. We’ve heard considerable debate about how the Minister has said that national standards were not national and they were not very standard. Well, you know, he’s entitled to that view, but I think what he was trying to express was that education workplaces are eroding the goodwill of teachers through a lack of autonomy—through a lack of choice about how they conduct themselves and how they educate students—and I’m a bit sympathetic to that view. I think the Minister may actually have a point on national standards.

But we come to schedule 2 and amendments to other Acts—and, in particular, the State Sector Act—where we are going to remove the possibility of a State-funded school that is outside of the State Sector Act. You only have to look at the discussion and the debate over the last several weeks over teacher shortage, and it is precisely the inflexibility and the frustration that teachers feel that is making it more difficult to have teachers.

Now, again, I don’t believe that the Minister and the Government have been clear in their intention with this legislation that the real objective of abolishing partnership schools was nothing to do with funding, it was nothing to do with profit, and it was nothing to do with teachers’ registration status with the Teachers Council—no. This State Sector Act amendment tells us what it was really about, and it was really about ensuring that teachers would have to be employed upon a collective agreement if they were to work for a State-funded school. That’s what it was really about. It is incredibly pertinent to the political debate about schools and their teacher shortages today, as well as to whether or not this Act truly fits the stated intentions of the Government and what was debated at second reading, because we simply have not heard enough from the Minister about why it is that the State Sector Act must be amended so that all schools, including partnership schools—or whatever form they take—become a part of the State sector and, therefore, are bound by collective agreements.

Let me give an example of why this might be problematic. A well-circulated story in the New Zealand Herald just recently told the story of a woman from the Waikato who is about 60 years old. Her son is 30 years younger than her. They both have the same education. The only difference is that due to the grade inflation—which is another topic we could go into another time—her son was awarded a degree and she was awarded a diploma. Now, under the State Sector Act, that, of course, is what you expect. That is the result of decades of collective bargaining and one-size-fits-all agreements. In a partnership school, that would not be a problem because, being outside the State Sector Act, it would be possible to negotiate a contract based on the sponsor’s judgment or the principal’s judgment of the value of that particular teacher.

This part here, amending the State Sector Act, is going to take away that possibility, and I don’t think the Government has been remotely transparent in its public utterances or in its second reading speeches that the real intention of this legislation is not anything that they’ve talked about. It wasn’t about funding, it wasn’t about teachers’ class sizes, it wasn’t about registration, and it wasn’t about any of these other standards. It wasn’t about the curriculum. It was, fundamentally, about whether or not people employed in schools funded by the State would have to have union contracts, and, ironically, the Government is shooting itself in the foot because, contrary to the assertions that it’s made about national standards, it’s actually requiring teachers to work in a less flexible work environment. I would suggest that a good start to improving this bill before the third reading would actually be to remove that State sector—[Time expired]

I move, That the question be now put.