Education Amendment Bill

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

This is a watershed moment for New Zealand’s quality public education system. It is a moment in which we put education over ideology and we reject the notions of privatisation and deregulation, instead returning our focus to a quality public education system for all New Zealanders. This bill is a major first step in fulfilling the Government’s promises for education. It delivers on the commitments made by the Labour Party, the New Zealand First Party, and the Green Party, through successive elections, to put the focus back on quality public education that works for all New Zealanders. We have a collective vision as a Government for a quality education system for actually measuring a student’s progress across the whole of the New Zealand Curriculum, for restoring student and staff voice and representation in the education system, and for a schooling system that supports all of the children in it.

This bill delivers on these commitments. It strengthens the quality of school education by removing national standards, which did not work and which prevented teachers from doing the job of teaching young New Zealanders. It removes the charter school model from New Zealand law and brings an end to the privatisation and deregulation of our public school system. It improves the governance of our tertiary education institutions by restoring places for elected staff and students on their councils. It supports the introduction of fees-free tertiary education by making it an offence to make a false representation about an application for free tertiary education, and it improves the new strategic planning and reporting framework for State and State-integrated schools, and I will speak to each of those provisions now.

We are removing national standards. They were neither national, nor were they standard. They led to an enormous increase in workload and compliance costs for schools, and they did not lead to an improvement in student outcomes. They were passed by the incoming National Government at the end of 2008, under urgency. They didn’t send them to a select committee, which is ironic, because they’re now accusing us of being undemocratic in their removal. This bill went all the way through the democratic process, including a full select committee hearing at which every New Zealander could have their say on it, unlike the introduction of them, which was passed in a matter of hours, under urgency, by the incoming National Government. National standards were a woeful failure and will for ever be a blight on the track record of the previous National Government, because they showed that they were putting ideology over education—the obsession with measurement and accountability over what is in the best interests of New Zealand children.

While national standards were introduced and implemented, the performance of New Zealand children went backwards. They did not improve the ability of New Zealand kids to read, write, and do maths. In fact, during the time national standards were in place, that got worse. So we want to see the focus go back on teaching and learning because that is the thing that is going to improve the lot of young New Zealanders.

This bill removes charter schools from New Zealand law. We are committed to having a quality public education system. When it comes to disadvantaged young New Zealanders, we do not believe they should have to be driven out of the public education system to get the education they deserve, and that is what the members opposite continue to argue for. They continue to talk about Māori and Pasifika educational achievement as if the answer to that is to take a handful of them out of the public education system and put them in a deregulated education system, where the safeguards are not in place to protect them. We don’t agree with that approach. We think the answer to Māori and Pasifika educational achievement in New Zealand is to make sure every public school in the country is delivering them the education that they deserve, and that is what this Government is going to deliver.

To give two examples of the failures of the charter school system: first, we had a charter school fail within the first year of operation, and the money still has not come back—and probably never will come back—into the public education system. Millions of dollars were flushed down the drain by the members opposite in the name of their ideology of charter schools. The second example happened under this Government, where we had to step in to stop a charter school closing in the middle of the school year and putting kids out on the street, because they had a lease that expired in the middle of the school year and they couldn’t renew it. That’s the kind of dodgy, slap-up model of education that was being promoted by members on the other side.

We don’t believe in that. We believe that we should have a quality, robust education system that delivers all young New Zealanders the quality of education they should have, that has qualified, registered teachers who actually know what they’re doing delivering education to young New Zealanders—they should be teaching to the New Zealand Curriculum—and that should have education, first and foremost, as its priority. The privatised, deregulated model of charter schooling did not guarantee those things.

Now, as for the claims by the members opposite that those existing partnership schools, as they call them, which everyone knows to be charter schools—to claim that they are being closed is wrong, because, actually, we recognise that while the model was flawed, there were some people within it who had absolutely the right intentions. So we will work with them, and we have been working with them, to transition them into the public education system so that they can continue to do what they are passionate about, which is educating young New Zealanders.

It is absolutely wrong for the members opposite to continue to mislead and claim that those schools are being closed when they know they are not. But, what’s more, it is also wrong for them to trash the reputation of the schools that are transitioning into the public education system before they’ve had the chance to do that. By saying that those schools will no longer be able to do and no longer be able to deliver equality of education to the kids in their schools, they are trashing the reputation of those schools, and they are not putting the best interests of the kids who are attending those schools at the forefront of their consideration. That’s not just me that’s saying that; that’s the operators of those schools who are saying that, who have been outraged at the way their kids have been politicised by the members opposite because they are not operating in the best interests of those kids, and that is what this Government is committed to doing.

With regard to the governance changes for tertiary institutions they should never have been removed. The National Government said that it would be better—we would get better governance of our polytechs, for example, if staff and students weren’t on their councils. Well, how’s that worked out? How’s that actually worked out? We’ve got a polytech system that is in the worst state that it has ever been. The Government has had to remove several of those councils because of chronic governance failures. Millions and millions of dollars in taxpayer funding is having to go into bailing out those institutions because they have been failing, and that all happened under National’s watch. When they were claiming they were going to improve the governance of those institutions, they failed spectacularly. Staff and students bring a legitimate perspective to the governance of those institutions. It’s one that never should have been taken away and we are putting it back and we are making it right.

The final changes that I want to talk about are the changes to the strategic planning and reporting requirements that were introduced under the previous Government. We believe in those changes—or at least most of us do believe in those changes—but we think that they were being rushed. We need to take our time, and we need to get them right, and that is what the provisions in this bill allow for. They change the time frames, and they ensure that we will get that right so that schools have the ability to plan for the future and that the interests of their kids are being put first in that process.

This bill fulfils commitments that all three of the parties in Government made during the election campaign and committed to when we became the Government. We have worked hand in hand to deliver these changes for New Zealand because we know that they are going to be in the best interests of our education system. I want to particularly acknowledge the members of the Education and Workforce Committee—the Labour, New Zealand First, and Green members in particular—who worked as a cohesive, stable, solid team to deliver these changes which are going to be in the best interests of all New Zealanders.

Look, I cannot believe the speech that we have just had from the Minister of Education. He has said this is a watershed moment in New Zealand’s history. I’ll tell you what a watershed moment is: a watershed moment is the fact that, as of today, with this legislation, there is an urgency application in the Waitangi Tribunal. They are a Government that claim they care about Crown-Māori relations, and they are pushing through legislation for no urgent reason but to get rid of partnership schools. Here is my message to the iwi leaders of New Zealand who have backed these schools: we believe in you, and we will bring partnership schools back. Under a future National Government, we will bring the model back and we will expand those partnership schools. Why? Not because we believe in ideology but because we actually believe in vulnerable young people and helping kids with complex needs.

It is not just the National Party that believes this; we heard from the schools. We heard from the schools not only about their achievement. We saw the Martin Jenkins report. We saw the huge independent evaluations of partnership schools. And do you know what? It isn’t just the National Party that believes in these schools; it’s Sir Toby Curtis, it’s Dame Iritana, it’s Lance O’Sullivan, it’s huge Māori leaders—the tōtaras of Māori education—who have supported these partnership schools. And do you know what? It isn’t just the National Party. It’s also Willie Jackson and Kelvin Davis, who, prior to the election, said they believed in these schools. Kelvin Davis said that he would resign if these schools closed. We believe in partnership schools, and it is a very sad day for New Zealand to see this legislation going through the House. It is about ideology, and I am very sad for those students who have had to be put through this.

I do want to acknowledge the leaders from partnership schools: Alwyn Poole, Karen Poole, Nick Hyde, Raewyn Tīpene, Roanna Bennett. I know that it’s been a really tough time for you. The National Party has not trashed their reputation. We have spent months fighting for these schools to ensure that they don’t close. We realise that today is, effectively, the legislative process to get rid of the model, but we also know that we completely disagree with the Minister of Education’s process around terminating the contracts—effectively, publicly before the legal process but also prior to this legislation occurring. The question that we have asked for the people of New Zealand has been: what is the cost of that?

So we won’t take a lecture from the Minister of Education around the costs around partnership schools, because there is a secret amount of compensation and deals that have gone on to transition these school to designated character schools, which is not in the public domain, and the estimates that we’ve had from the Minister and the ministry is that that could be around $30 million. So we support these schools. We know they’ve been through a tough time. We really hope that they are successful under the designated character model, but it is not the same as a partnership school model. There are some fundamental differences. Those differences are flexibility and management, and flexibility and funding.

But I do want to make this point, which is what we made throughout the process, and, again, I want to quote the Prime Minister here. She said there would be a pathway for these schools if they, effectively, had registered teachers, followed the Curriculum, and had comparable funding. Well, here are the facts. The facts are that just like every other school in New Zealand, there is limited authority to teach. There are unregistered teachers in other schools in New Zealand. The facts are that the partnership schools were following the Curriculum. The facts are that, actually, the partnership schools had a comparable amount of money, and it was worked out on a formula level to a State school.

So the reality is that these schools and this model have gone because of the Minister’s blatant ideology, not because of what’s best for schools. The Labour Party has continued to spread misinformation about the model. National will bring these schools back because we fundamentally believe not only in the iwi leaders who have gone behind these schools; we believe in the people who established these schools. We believe in the fact that Martin Jenkins has said that these schools have done a good job, and that’s why we will bring back partnership schools.

The second issue that I want to cover—again, to get a lecture from the Minister of Education about ideology—is national standards. We accept—and, in fact, I was the Minister that put a Cabinet paper through last year—that we want to transition to a system of progression. We accept that. We put through the Cabinet paper last year to do that. But what we hoped—and what I did with that Cabinet paper—was that we could get cross-party agreement and work with schools over a two-year period to ensure that they had not only the Curriculum resources and the ICT systems to improve quality reporting for parents; but we also believe in accountability around that data.

What the Minister of Education did was rip up any cross-party agreement late last year—this is, effectively, legislation that cleans up what he’s already done. Late last year, he scrapped national standards by changing the national advisory guideline. He did that without consulting a million parents. And do you know what? It might be novel to the Labour Party, but we actually back parents. We actually believe that they have a right to have a say in the reporting system for their children, and it’s a Labour Government that took that away late last year and is now passing legislation to clean that up. It is not correct to say that somehow there’s been a select committee process around national standards, when they already got rid of national standards at the end of last year.

So my plea to the Government, my plea to all of those educators out there, is to know that we do support moving to a system of progression. We believe that the teaching profession needs to be supported in the way that we do that. We believe there should be some data that comes back to the Ministry of Education for this single reason: we need to be able to stand alongside many other countries in the world and demonstrate that we have a good understanding of the nationwide picture of achievement. That is a partnership between the profession and the Government. We need to do that because we need to be able to target some of our most vulnerable young people in areas like numeracy and literacy.

What the Government has done is they have moved ahead of the sector. There is now chaos and confusion in some schools because they are not clear what the status of national standards has been. And also, we don’t have that nationwide picture of achievement at an individual school level, and that means that we’re not going to be able to help some of our most vulnerable people. That is why the National Party has opposed this bill. Our plea to the Government is: stop trying to be so ideological and be so arrogant in the way that you are doing these things. Work across the House around a system of nationwide achievement. Work across the House around models like partnership schools for disadvantaged young people, because we owe it to the parents of New Zealand and we owe it to the families of those children in schools like partnership schools.

I do want to acknowledge that in this bill there have been a number of other changes, including to the tertiary education and governance model. But I think I want to end my speech on this note: again, we all come into politics to help young people. I don’t know a member of this House—and it doesn’t matter what side of politics you’re on. Everybody thinks about how we can ensure that we have equality of opportunity? What makes me so sad about this bill is that there is so much in this that cuts to the heart of how you deliver that equality of opportunity—how you ensure that we know where those young people might not have the skills that they need to succeed in life.

It is about recognising that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to education; that, actually, we back innovation, we back iwi, we back the education entrepreneurs of this world, and that we accept there are multiple ways to deliver education. I’m proud to come from a party that backs private schools, that backs State-integrated schools, that backs partnership schools, but also that believes in a strong public education system. I reject the notion that we can somehow believe only in a public education system in New Zealand.

There are multiple other people who make a huge difference to the lives of New Zealanders. If we’re going to continue to have that ideological debate, we’re going to continue to leave a group of young people behind. That is why we have been incredibly sad about this bill. We make a plea to the Government at this last hour: why have you done this? Why have you ignored the Waitangi Tribunal and the urgent claim there? Why are you scrapping these schools? We believe in partnership schools. We believe in accountability. We believe in good reporting to parents. We believe in the power of teachers and principals, and this is a very sad day for New Zealand. It is a watershed moment. That Government chose ideology and not what’s best for young people, and we support young people.

What a load of nonsense from the previous speaker, Nikki Kaye. As the only person in this House who has set up a charter school, I think I come from a much more informed base. What a load of nonsense, in terms of the Māori leadership and what they’re trying to do at the moment—Māori leadership who are very close to myself: Sir Toby Curtis, my wife’s uncle; Whaea Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi, someone we love very much, particularly Māori members in this House; and Lance O’Sullivan, who doesn’t know what political party to join and is disoriented most of the time, sadly.

When you talk about Māori independence, when you talk about tino rangatiratanga, try to come from an informed base, because that member is not coming from an informed base at all. Māori tried the system out—the system that the National Party allocated 0.1 percent of their funding to. That was their commitment to charter schools. They weren’t interested in charter schools. My whanaunga Hekia Parata was involved in it. They were not interested. I know this because Mr Seymour told me. So I know that for an absolute fact. Now they’re interested because it serves their political purposes. Now they are the great advocates for Māori. Now they’re worried about what’s happening. At the end of nine years—

💬 Nuk Korako: Fifty-nine Treaty settlements.

—we found out, and that Māori member should know—34 percent of Māori leave school without qualifications.

💬 Nicola Willis: So what are you doing about it?

What we’re doing about it is we’re going to get a mainstream right to incorporate the values and the principles we learnt.

I know, you see, because we set up a school, and we set up a school because it was going to be set up less than one kilometre from our marae—less than one kilometre from our marae. And when we heard that, we felt at the Manukau Urban Māori Authority that we should give this a shot. It wasn’t about embracing the free market model that Nikki Kaye and the National Party and David Seymour want to promote. It wasn’t about embracing that; it was about embracing our tamariki. It was about embracing our kids, giving our children opportunity. And in our organisation, we dealt with prisoners who had to go back into the community. We dealt with disorientated youth. We dealt with domestic violence. We dealt with every aspect of Te Ao Māori. So we decided to give the charter school a crack—and why not? We put up my wife as the principal—my wife, who’s been a long-time educator. And we had people like Barbara Ala’alatoa and others who were advisers and supporters. We gave it a crack. Why wouldn’t we give it a crack when your kids are failing? We gave it a crack, and our kids came through the system and did well. There’s no doubt about that.

But through that process there were a lot of anomalies that appeared in terms of our school—the compliance and the reportage were just ridiculous. My wife was working until one o’clock in the morning every night trying to get reportage back to maintain that school. It’s ridiculous. Mr Seymour knows this. He acknowledged this. We had compliance costs on my—I would say today if I supported charter schools, I would not be standing for the Labour Party now. But we saw at the coalface, when a board was meeting every night, when the principal was working till one o’clock in the morning, when a small community organisation had to foot every cost because the National Party only wanted to give 0.1 percent to the charter schools, that it was a flawed model—a flawed model.

💬 Simeon Brown: How did the children do at your school?

The student achievements at charter schools were expected to be—some schools were at least meant to be 20 percent higher than mainstream. And we were dealing with students who were excluded from mainstream that had already been given up on. So stop trying to promote something that clearly, clearly wasn’t working for us.

💬 Brett Hudson: The member said it did work.

You make things work—you make things work within the system. You know, you can change as you go through. We would try anything to turn around our kids—anything. And the reality is that just because we embraced the model for a little while, it did not mean that mainstream shouldn’t work. As our Minister of Education said today, mainstream should allow and embrace all kids. Mainstream should embrace all kids. We need to learn the lessons in terms of the charter schools—learn the lessons in terms of tikanga Māori, in terms of whānau ora, in terms of looking after prisoners when they come back into the society. A quarter of our kids’ fathers were in jail. Should mainstream still be looking after those kids? Of course they should—of course they should. These are the things we did under charter schools. We should be able to do them under mainstream. There is acknowledgment from everyone that that could and should happen. So we have become converts; we challenged mainstream. We said, “This is what we do. Can we embrace? Can we change? Can we do things?” The answer is yes, yes, yes, yes. And you can do it in a character school; you can do it in an integrated school—[Interruption]. You can. You don’t know—you weren’t involved. You’re not involved. All you’re interested in putting down this side. You have no experience.

Our people who have worked at the coalface—people you appointed, like Barbara Ala’alatoa, worked on my board. They were our advisers; they were our supporters, and now they’re saying mainstream must adopt and embrace what we have learnt within the charter school system. Stop waffling on about stuff you don’t know. And Māori here, stop trying to challenge us about what we are doing. In terms of our Māori leadership, they are a leadership who I have the utmost respect for in terms of things they’ve done through their lives. But on this particular kaupapa, they are being used by the National Party and by the ACT Party.

💬 Nicola Willis: Shame on you.

Shame on you—I’ve told them to their faces. I tell them to their faces. These are people who I’ve worked with who wouldn’t even know if you walked across and met them—wouldn’t even know who they were. We are being used. Iwi leadership who come to the party here, I asked them today to relook at what’s happening here. We know that mainstream has not delivered at times in the past, but people like Jan Tinetti and others in this Whare today have learnt the lessons, have put the challenges, are putting the challenges to our Minister of Education, who has been terrific in accepting some of those challenges and saying to mainstream, “Mainstream should be for everyone.”

And the charter school model for us failed. David Seymour would say the same thing if he was being completely honest. He knows the type of support he got from the National Party, which was absolutely minimal—absolutely minimal. They didn’t care at all about what he was talking about. They just wanted to tick a box.

So I say today: congratulations to our party for listening to everyone, for accepting criticism, for understanding the Māori position. And myself, Peeni Henare, and Kelvin Davis stand by our schools, who have gone through quite a process. We reject some of the lies that have come in the Facebook posts and the madness that has come from some of the people who keep waffling on about these schools being closed. Not one school has been closed—not one school has been closed. And even Alwyn Poole has become a convert and has said stop the rubbish and stop the lies. They have Alwyn Poole: the biggest critic of us early on is now a convert—is now a convert. So the Opposition must understand that they have lost badly.

💬 Nuk Korako: Is that all you’ve got? PR work.

Stop trying to use Māori. Stop trying to promote something that is not true. A free market model, Nuk, will never, ever, ever resonate with our people. We must make mainstream understand our side of things in terms of tikanga Māori. Mainstream is doing that right across the spectrum and we should be able to do it in health and housing, and we’re doing it now in education. And you have an obligation, Nuk Korako, to stand up today and support what we’re doing instead of constantly putting out the waffle and nonsense that your right-wing—anyway I won’t carry on—party waffles on about. Nō reira, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. That was a load of nonsense—just a load of nonsense. I am taking this call to strongly—I’m saying strongly—oppose this bill, the Education Amendment Bill. I’ve never seen any member doing such a big U-turn after just a few months’ time. Before this election, Willie Jackson was saying that he would resign if partnership schools closed. Today, he got up to give this big explanation and to tell us how his partnership school did, and he said that the students were doing better. The students were doing better, but they had to work harder, and that’s the reason they don’t support partnership schools. So it’s not about students; it’s not about students’ performance; it’s not about us putting in that hard work to help students to do better in their life; it’s all about them, because it is the Government’s stance. He has been forced to stand up and take this call. We can tell that in the way he has done a U-turn in this situation.

It’s really embarrassing. He challenged my colleague Nuk Korako. Nuk Korako is here standing with senior Māori educators. It’s that member who doesn’t stand with those senior Māori educators. I have never seen someone undermining senior Māori educators like the member did just now. Why would they care about them because now they’re in Government? Before the election, they were desperate to get into Government. They wanted to get that extra percentage of votes, and that’s why they were saying everything to please those voters. But now, yep, they’re in Government. Why would they care about the support that they received from Māori voters? They don’t. This is their real side. This has exposed their real side, and this is really sad.

Māori MPs in the Labour Government said that they would resign if partnership schools were closed, and now we have seen one member, who stood up, doing this big U-turn, saying that he supports the Government stance. We are here standing with Māori educators, and we are here standing with 1,500 students—those who are doing really well in partnership schools. We could see that they can reach their potential through these schools. Yes, we agreed with the ACT Party to bring partnership schools in. The legislation was passed in 2012, and, yes, we had 12 schools in this short time since 2012, and the schools were giving us really good results. So we wanted to try this model and we did, and the model was working, and we are against the removal of this model from our education system. It was clear to us that the mainstream was not working for the students, and we wanted to provide them with another education model. What’s wrong with that? Why would you put these students back in the mainstream where we know that they were not able to reach their potential?

This Government, as I heard from the Minister of Education before, said that, actually, they’re not closing—well, there is no continuity for partnership schools, because what is happening is that all these schools have been approved to be transitioned into State-integrated schools. It’s not the same thing. There’s a big difference in the two education model systems, because they’re going to lose that flexibility that they have around teaching resources and the flexibility that they have around the governance model. That was the key thing in partnership schools that actually worked, and we want to retain that. That’s why National is really proud to say that we will bring partnership schools back because we care about these students. We want to see all students, including Māori, Pasifika, and other disadvantaged students doing well in their life. They are taking away this model from a society, and the end result will be that these students are going to suffer, and then the whole community is going to suffer, because if a future—that is, if children don’t do well, the whole community and whole nation suffers.

The other point in this bill: national standards. That is again another tool that was put in place by the previous National Government. We care about precise reporting systems because we want to see how students are doing in the big picture, but the Minister, the Hon Chris Hipkins, was saying that actually if parents want to see where their child is at in a competitive model, that is not helpful. So instead of going out and consulting with parents on what kind of reporting system parents want, the Minister is actually telling parents what kind of reporting system he’s going to deliver. So this Government doesn’t care about parents. They don’t care about students’ performance. They don’t care about consulting. They don’t care about the select committee process—because, as the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, I know the process we had to follow—and they don’t care about the Māori voice. They have undermined that strong voice. It is because of that—those senior very, very respected members were pleading in the select committee, and when nobody heard, they went to the Waitangi Tribunal. And, again, they have undermined their claim that is still outstanding.

We have this third reading that means this bill will be passed. The other thing I want to bring to everybody’s notice is with every piece of legislation, it’s a requirement that we test our legislative content. This report here—which I have, a departmental disclosure statement—is dated 30 January. One of the things which was looked for in this bill, as is done for other bills as well, is consistency with the Government’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations. Yes, we have this obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi to see that it is in line with our obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi. This was prepared on 30 January, and it was in June when the Crown was served that notice of the Treaty of Waitangi claim.

I haven’t seen this redone. Why hasn’t this been redone? Why hasn’t the assessment been done again? We have heard no explanation from the Government or the Minister if the criteria is fulfilled, given the current circumstances. We’re really disappointed, because this bill is actually going to damage our education system. Parents want to see where their child is, whether they are at national standards, they’re below national standards, or they’re above national standards. And if there is a child performing below national standards, they can set goals to help their child to go to that level of the national standard. Or, a child that is at national standards can be helped to improve to do better—that is, to get above national standards. What’s wrong with setting such goals? What’s wrong? Nothing. So this Minister is going to take away that aspiration from students to do better and aspiration from parents to help their children do better in school because the reporting system that the Minister wants to put in place means nothing—means nothing.

So we are disappointed. Since we started the first reading of this bill—yes, we opposed this bill, but by the third reading, the list of reasons why we are opposing it has grown. There are more compelling reasons, which I have already talked about, including the Treaty of Waitangi claim.

Then another component in this bill is about the fees-free education. So the Minister is introducing a new offence. Yeah. So they didn’t think about the policy properly before the election, because so close to election, they just wanted it to be a vote-grabbing thing. Yes, they did that. They might have got some votes out of that, at the cost of $2.8 billion of taxpayers’ money. Now, he’s realised, actually, yeah, some people can misrepresent themselves and take advantage of that system that is available for free, so we should have some kind of offence. What kind of homework did he do where he introduced the policy first and now he wants to have this new offence introduced in this legislation?

He didn’t think about the unintended consequences, and now we don’t have the data, because we don’t know what kinds of degrees people obtained 15 or 20 years ago. We don’t have any electronic data for 20-30 years ago about what people did. So there is no way the ministry is going to be able to verify the information. So for the Minister to stand up and say, actually, that “No, there is no data suggesting that people are misrepresenting.”—who’s going to believe that? There is nothing that the Minister can verify it against—there is nothing. So that is why this new offence is created by the Minister. And, again, the new offence that is created by the Minister is a joke—up to $5,000.

I think the Minister doesn’t realise that when you give something out for free, at a cost of $2.8 billion of taxpayers’ money, you have to be more accountable. He doesn’t want to be accountable for anything. He doesn’t want to be accountable for a free education system, he doesn’t want to be accountable for a reporting system, and he doesn’t want to be measured for his own performance. That is why he has taken away this national standards system of reporting, because, at the end, we can clearly see how many children are at national standard, how many children are above national standard, and how many children are below national standard.

The Minister didn’t want to be measured using these national standard achievements for his own performance. That is the reason the Minister is getting rid of national standards. It’s a big cover up. It’s nothing about education. It’s nothing about student’s performance. It’s nothing about parents. It’s the two-way street between unions and the Labour Party. They’re just looking after each other, and we are disappointed. I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to strongly support the Education Amendment Bill, but can I just say that that was bizarre. The contribution by the member who just resumed her seat, Parmjeet Parmar, was bizarre. And the fact that she is the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee concerns me immensely. We need to have a conversation about that.

The reason why it concerns me is—let’s just take what she ended on, which was around national standards. She obviously did not listen to her own education spokesperson, the Hon Nikki Kaye, who, in her contribution on numerous occasions, has talked about the fact that the Hon Nikki Kaye, when she was the Minister of Education, took a Cabinet paper to the previous Cabinet—her own National Party Cabinet—saying that national standards had failed. This was a Cabinet paper. It was only at the beginning of this debate that the Hon Nikki Kaye stood up and articulated that. It was during the negotiations that the Rt Hon Bill English articulated the same thing. The National Party had already recognised they were not working and needed to move to progressions. Goodness me! Somebody inform the National Party chair of the Education and Workforce Committee please, before we go much further into this term.

It is amazing to me that the National Party finally realised that national standards weren’t working, and now—and now—articulate, “But what is to replace them?” when it was a National Minister of Education who created the New Zealand Curriculum. This is concerning too. Apparently, none of the speakers on the Opposition side are even aware of what is in the New Zealand Curriculum, created under the guidance of Lockwood Smith, that has the progressions inside of them from year 1 through to year 13 that are attached to every single part of the New Zealand Curriculum. It was a National Government that did it. But it was supposed to be introduced in 2008. The professional development was supposed to be rolled out in 2009. What happened in 2008? An election. What happened in 2009? National standards were rushed through under urgency and implemented inside the New Zealand education system—completely crushing the amazingly good work of Dr Lockwood Smith. But there seems to be a bit of a lack of knowledge from the Opposition side. So that’s concerning—that’s concerning.

Let’s have a talk about the crocodile tears that are being used here and the rhetoric—the amazing, descriptive rhetoric. It’s an awful way that these children inside partnership or charter schools are being represented by that party. The language that they are using around these young people is incredibly concerning—incredibly concerning. I’m not going to repeat the descriptors that they have used, but I find it very interesting that that party, who refused to give alternative education, activity centres, and teen parent units any increase in funding over the decade that they were in power, now articulates about our most vulnerable students—who were excluded or expelled and supposedly needed charter schools to be developed by that party—when they were the ones who refused to actually implement any funding increase, even a Consumers Price Index increase, for the very skilled and committed individuals inside our alternative education sector. So it’s crocodile tears to decide to set up something completely new while starving those that were already working for those very students and who had begged for more funding so that they could lift their performance, so that they could provide greater pastoral care, so that they could put consistency across the country—it’s crocodile tears.

But that is something that this Government is doing. That is what we are doing. We are going to make sure that every area inside what is English medium, Māori medium, and alternative education is appropriately funded and is well-designed, with the students at the centre—not for political gain, but because those students deserve not to be set aside over somewhere else. We will not run a parallel system. These are our children, all of them, and we will keep them inside of our education system.

I thought the other thing that was incredibly interesting was the reference to the Martin Jenkins report. So let’s just talk about the last of the Martin Jenkins report that was delivered on 6 April 2018. Now, let’s remember this was a report commissioned by the previous Government into the performance of charter schools. The report failed to cover the schools’ academic achievement because they had not been operating long enough and their NCEA data was presented in a way that was not comparable to that of other schools. So that was what Martin Jenkins said.

I’m not sure where the Opposition got their information from—actually, I know where. It’s in the glossy brochures that Vanguard Military School put out, it’s in the glossy brochures that the Villa Education Trust schools put out—that is where the Opposition got their information from when they’re referring to how wonderful these schools were.

I mean, there’s no conflict of interest there, obviously, for those schools and their glossy brochures! There’s obviously no conflict of interest there—and that’s sarcasm, if you didn’t recognise it. But that is where I would suggest the Opposition has got their data from—because this is what the Martin Jenkins report said. This is what Martin Jenkins, commissioned by that Government, said. An appendix to the report said that the consultants received three years of NCEA results for students in years 11 and 13 at these schools but that it was not possible to know how many students had achieved the NCEA level expected for their year group. It said that also made it impossible to compare the charter school data with figures from other schools.

Then we go on to another report that has revealed that charter school pass rates “are out of line with State schools.” The reported “exam results of the controversial schools ‘gave an imperfect representation of overall school performance’, an analysis given to Minister Hekia Parata states.”

💬 Nicola Willis: Did you visit?

Actually, I visited Vanguard Military School. I have visited the charter school up in Whangarei. I have visited—

💬 Nicola Willis: Is that where you thought the dogs were?

Oh, he we go. It’s not the answer, unfortunately, the member wanted. I have visited charter schools. I have visited with Alwyn Poole while the idea was being floated, and I explained to Alwyn Poole, as he explained to me the deal he had been promised with regard to levels of funding to meet his private school funding—the deal he had been offered by the National Government at that time—and I clearly articulated to Mr Poole, in that moment, they will not remain: “They will not remain. Please, Mr Poole, do not put yourself in debt for these schools, because when there is a Labour – New Zealand First – Green Government, they will be gone.” And today is that day. He was told. They were all told. It has been 100 percent transparent.

But let’s get back to this. The NCEA exam results dropped massively from charter schools when brought in line with State schools. The reported results were inflated, because the charter schools, also known as partnership schools, were using a different method from State schools to report the pass rates. The report showed Vanguard Military School on Auckland’s North Shore and Te Kura Hourua in Whangarei reported they had met their NCEA 2014 leaver targets but when the figures were analysed they did not. Vanguard reported a 100 percent pass rate for NCEA level 2. However, when revised in line with NCEA standards, it dropped to just 60 percent. That is below State schools.

So I’m not quite sure where the Opposition gets their data from, but, if it’s from glossy brochures from those who are promoting themselves, I suggest it’s not a valuable source. I suggest that they go to the reports given to Hekia Parata that showed quite clearly this model was failing. I want to assure the New Zealand public that this side of the House is going to get the education system for all our students back on line and performing how it needs to. We’re not going to sideline some individuals. This is a good day for New Zealand education.

Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. It is extraordinary what we have heard in relation to partnership or charter or kura hourua schools this afternoon. This is the final reading, and when we’re finished speeches here this afternoon, that’s it: the model has gone. What we’ve heard from the Minister of Education himself—I need to go back to Hansard and read, but I am 99 percent sure he said that charter schools, kura hourua, are a dodgy model of education. He certainly used the word “dodgy”, and if anyone’s listening here this afternoon who is involved in any partnership schools, kura hourua, your Minister of Education used the word “dodgy”.

And then we had Willie Jackson. He’s not Tā Willie Jackson, like Tā Toby Curtis is; he is Willie Jackson. He said—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): He’s the Hon Willie Jackson.

All right. Well, he’s not Tā Willie Jackson; he’s the Hon Willie Jackson, and he wasn’t behaving honourably, because he, in one fell swoop—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member will withdraw and apologise for that comment.

I withdraw and apologise. But here’s what he said: “The model, kura hourua, clearly wasn’t working for us.”—and by that he meant Māori. Then he also said to eminent Māori iwi leaders that they clearly don’t know what they are talking about and they have been led astray. That is offensive and they should, and will, take action.

So here’s how it has played out: those on the other side of the House campaigned to scrap charter schools, they came into power, they terminated contracts, and they’ve held sham negotiations to force schools into a State model without acknowledging what would be lost. Meanwhile, they then introduced the bill that we’re going to sign off here—well, they are going to sign off; we’re not—and we sit in hearings, me and other members of the Education and Workforce Committee, and we hear members of schools, parents, and students imploring us to keep these schools open, or at least give it some transition time. Then the Minister puts out a press release not just saying but celebrating that they’re gone. It was predetermined, celebrating the closure of these schools—no negotiations or hearings. Hardly anyone from the other side visited these schools and talked to students. The schools were held over a barrel. Try and deny it. They can’t.

I have a question for the Minister, and it really comes off the back of the extraordinary words from the Hon Willie Jackson, and that’s in regards to kaupapa Māori and kaupapa Pasifika. These are principles—and no one here would deny it—that are bigger and bolder and more intrinsic than politics, more intrinsic than education principles and policies. It is not about what we do; kaupapa Māori and kaupapa Pasifika is who we are. We all know it.

Now, the other side of the House may think that we’re playing a political game, so I’ll take the words away from me and I’ll give the words back to those who had a voice in the hearings. I think they deserve a voice back here again today. Kaupapa Māori and kaupapa Pasifika, learning about mana, I am but a shadow, but we heard from the likes of Tā Toby Curtis, Pem Bird, Dame Iritana, John Morris, Sir La‘auli Savae Michael Jones, and Dame Tariana Turia. Just two of them alone, Tā Toby Curtis and Dame Iritana, have 130 years between them—just the two of them—in Māori education. They speak with the backing of the Iwi Chairs Forum. And here’s the difference: the other side of the House thinks that things just carry on. Well, they don’t. Here are the differences: flexibility in allocation of resources—give us the assurance for that; autonomy of management—give us the assurance for that; freedom to innovate—can you lock that down for us; genuine accountability for quality achievement results for Māori learners—they want to meet the needs of their rangatahi—can you ensure that for us here this afternoon?

Do you understand the leaders and the weight of the responsibility that they feel and why they turned up to our select committee to pour their hearts out? For Tā Toby Curtis, it was personal, and I sat there and saw him, heard him, and listened to him. These are the sorts of words that he said: “I was short-changed”—this is what Tā Toby Curtis said—“in education. The English language does not cater for my emotional, cultural, and spiritual intelligence, but this is the first time that we have had a Pākehā process succeeding with Māori children.” That does not stack up with what Willie Jackson said just moments ago. Ask yourself: why do these leaders, these iwi leaders, need to use the following terminology? This is what they said: “We deplore the lack of consultation.” You, the Government, are irreparably harming Māoridom. This is good old-fashioned bullying, and the Minister doesn’t want to talk to anyone.

And on the Pasifika front, Sir La‘auli Savae Michael Jones said, “If you’re determined to dismantle the model, know what you are doing. The solutions to our community are within our community.” He said, “Our pioneers have dreamt of this.” And I really like this: he said, “My mum dreamt of this.” She is a school teacher. He went on to say, “We had four months to set up a school with those who are most disengaged from their normal schooling community, and it’s been the most amazing waka. We are the first Pacific Islands secondary school in New Zealand, and we are unique in the world. Too many of our rangatahi are in the truant space, and we wanted to do something about it. It’s a gift to us. We want to fiercely protect it, and we are now having to fight for it.” That’s Sir Michael Jones’ words.

So where are we now? Eleven kura hourua closed by this Christmas, a Treaty settlement claim, and now a request for urgency for that claim. This Government has backed them all into a corner. It’s the ultimate case of smashing a square peg into a round hole, and the schools just simply haven’t fit the union-driven, Labour-laden ideology. They now obviously value brazen political point-scoring and payback over kāwanatanga, governance.

Kei te whakanuia te kaupapa o ngā kura hourua. Kei te mihi ki ngā kaimahi mō ngā tamariki tauira Māori, ngā tamariki tauira Pasifika, ngā tamariki katoa o ngā kura hourua; ēnei kura ngā kākano o te ao hou, o te ao mātauranga. Ka whawhai tonu ake.

[I celebrate the very purpose of partnership schools. I salute those who work on behalf of young Māori students, of young Pacific students, of young people everywhere in partnership schools; these schools are the seeds of the modern world, of the education world. We shall fight on.]

I celebrate the cause, the purpose, and philosophy of partnership schools. I acknowledge the workers for our Māori student children, for our Pasifika student children, for all the children of the charter schools. These schools are the seeds of the new world, the world of learning and knowledge, and the fight endures.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa on the Education Amendment Bill in this here third reading. It will of course be of no surprise that we support this bill and its contents, given that it is exactly what all three parties in this Government campaigned on. It, therefore, should come as no surprise to the Opposition, nor to the majority of New Zealanders, who voted for this Government, that this is exactly what we are implementing.

It’s been stated by a number of members of the Opposition that what we are seeing today is ideology. Again, I would like to raise the point that: is it not the case that the actions undertaken by the National Party were informed by their ideology, by their values of individualism, whereas we come from a place of collectivism? We come from a place of believing that all kids should be able to get the best possible education from their local school.

So this piece of legislation does a number of things for a number of different parts of our education system. As has been well canvassed, it removes provisions for charter schools. I don’t intend to labour that point any longer, but presume that the Opposition will get back on that horse. However, I will speak briefly to the point around removing national standards empowering provisions, because, in particular, members of the Opposition have cited multiple times, without any evidence to back it up, that this was about kids and their achievement.

What we’ve seen after nine years of national standards is no discernible change in achievement. In fact, in some areas it’s actually gone down. OECD measures of our poorest kids achieving averages in reading, maths, and science in 2006 showed that 36.6 percent were beating the odds. This was obviously prior to the introduction of national standards. But, in 2012, four years after the introduction of national standards, the number of those kids beating the odds had dropped by more than 10 percent, to 23.6 percent. So I’m quite perplexed by the statements by the Opposition that this is about our poorest kids, who are disproportionately, currently in our society, Māori and Pasifika, when the national standards project did not work for them.

So, too, I’m quite fascinated by the recent kinds of statements from the Opposition that they now care about teachers and that they now want to see reduction in class sizes and they want to see the workload on teachers reduced. Well, if that’s the case, I would suggest that they sit down with teachers, many of whom are represented by those evil unions they so often lament, because, in 2016, a survey by the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand showcased that 69 percent of teachers in primary and intermediate schools narrowed their curriculum as a result of national standards.

So I am proud to stand in this house this afternoon—I would note probably as the member closest to having had an experience of the education system—stating that I am incredibly proud of the fact that we are removing these national standards to focus on the needs of kids.

A third part of this piece of legislation is restoring elected places for elected staff and students on tertiary education institutions councils. It’s been quite fascinating to watch this argument play out in an incredibly polarised manner, with members of the Opposition, in particular, belittling representation, saying that there is no guarantee of expertise. I would reiterate my argument on that point: that’s exactly what we are, here in this House as MPs. We are elected to be representatives. There is no guarantee of our expertise. The point is that we bring the perspectives of our communities to this decision making.

In response to the select committee submissions—and there were a huge number of select committee submissions to our Education and Workforce Committee on this piece of legislation. There were 641, many of whom we heard, and 481 of those submissions spoke, in particular, to staff and student representation on tertiary institution councils, and 451 of those supported guaranteed places. However, 449 of those submissions wanted more than one representative of both staff and students. That’s more than 90 percent of submissions on the issue of staff and student representatives on tertiary councils who wanted more than one.

So I would just note that I’m a bit gutted that my Supplementary Order Paper 104 to see out this request from members of the public was, unfortunately, voted down in the committee of the whole House stage. This, of course, was off the back of an open letter from 14 different presidents of student organisations around the country, facilitated by the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations. It was to ensure that what we were seeing wasn’t check-box tokenism but was genuine representation, so that there could be the ability to share and discuss confidential information between at least two students, to come to robust decisions, and so that they could feel supported in putting forward their views and, indeed, in speaking up.

I also want to speak, just briefly, to the final two provisions in the Education Amendment Bill. They are, of course—one is about making it an offence to make a false representation on an application for free tertiary education. This ensures the smooth sailing of that introduction of free tertiary education. I have been incredibly pleased to be around the country recently, visiting a huge number—all, actually—of our tertiary education facilities around this country, speaking to first-year students about their absolute delight of not having to be saddled with immense amounts of student debt. If I may report my own, for the sake of members in the House who perhaps went through university before tertiary fees were instituted, the personal student debt that I racked up was to the tune of $43,000, and these are the kinds of fees that we were talking about imposing on our next generation.

I just want to touch as well on the point made by members of the Opposition that the mainstream isn’t working. That’s right: the mainstream isn’t working, and it’s not working for all of our kids.

💬 Nicola Willis: What are you doing about it?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: So what should we do about it, Nicola Willis? We should fix it, and we have an opportunity to fix that with the education conversations that we are working on. Nicola Willis and members of the Opposition have been invited to participate in this educational conversation, which we as a Government are facilitating to move into the future—a fit-for-purpose education system that works for all of our kids. And I think that this is particularly important because of the points that have been raised about tikanga Māori, about Te Tiriti o Waitangi, because our current education system absolutely does not put those kaupapa at our core, and we have an opportunity to evolve the education system so that it recognises our past and our history and so that it teaches our kids how to be engaged citizens, not just workers.

So I think that this is an incredible opportunity actually for a cross-partisan project to develop a sustainable outcome that works for all kids, moving into the future. And it’s an opportunity actually to put the petty point-scoring aside and work on something that all of us can be proud of, because all of us and all of our kids are going to be looking at this education system to carry our country into the future.

Just briefly, in my final minute or so, I want to acknowledge the incredible mahi of Catherine Delahunty, who was our former Green spokesperson on education. All of the things that are happening in this Education Amendment Bill are things that she campaigned tirelessly on and are things that she actively engaged with the sector on, and they’re things which we in the Greens are very proud to be supporting through the House this afternoon. It is something that makes me incredibly proud to be a part of this Government: that we are getting on with creating an education system that works for all of our kids, because, in the words of Mary Richmond, “All I can ask is to give every child as fair a chance as possible. As we are a formal democracy, let us be truly democratic.”

Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. This is a very sad day for our country. Today is a day when members opposite should be hanging their heads in shame, because today is the day when they’re turning their backs on some of the most vulnerable young people and communities in our country. It’s a day when members opposite in this coalition Government are confirming their refusal to listen to impassioned appeals from community leaders, iwi leaders, the staff and families connected with our country’s partnership schools, and many, many concerned New Zealanders. It’s a day when they proclaim that dogma trumps evidence and that their “We know best.” arrogance matters more than the experience, passion, commitment, and achievements of those who teach, mentor, and learn in our partnership schools. It may well be the day when the Ardern-Peters Government triggers its foreshore and seabed moment.

Māoridom will not forgive them or forget this breach of trust. And it was very well articulated earlier by the Hon Nikki Kaye as she spoke at length about the iwi leaders and the claim that is currently before the Waitangi Tribunal. The Hon Willie Jackson interjected several times while the Hon Nikki Kaye was speaking of Sir Toby Curtis, Dame Tariana Turia, and those other very experienced, very well respected iwi leaders, that they don’t know what they’re talking about, and just in case it wasn’t picked up by the Hansard reporters, I want to put that on the record now: that the Hon Willie Jackson several times interjected that Dame Tariana, Sir Toby, Pem Bird, and all the others who we’ve been talking about don’t know what they’re talking about. And I’ll come back to the Hon Willie Jackson a little bit later, because it got even worse, in one of the most incoherent and unconvincing speeches I’ve ever heard in this House.

The Minister of Education, Hon Chris Hipkins, justified his decision to close all partnership schools on the grounds that one partnership school failed early on and had to close. There’s no doubt one did close down soon after its establishment, but what a fatuous argument that is. On that basis, every State and integrated school in the country should now be closing down because a small number of them have problems with bullying, truancy, and underachievement. Yet most State, independent, and integrated schools in our country are doing incredibly well, and so are most partnership schools. So why punish all for the problems of a few? It makes no sense, it’s cruel, and worse than that, it flies in the face of all the evidence that those partnership schools were making a difference to young people in a way that no previous education system, no previous school, had ever made.

I have been so impressed by those who have advocated for partnership schools in recent years, but even more so I have been impressed by the huge impact that they have made. I mentioned in a previous debate on this bill that when I visited a partnership school, the thing that really struck me was the tremendous atmosphere of respect, the sense of purpose of the young people there, because there I saw young people for whom finally the lights had come on and an understanding of the value of an education had become apparent to them. Yet, as I mentioned, we then had to listen to an appalling and disjointed rant from the Hon Willie Jackson, who, let’s remember, is a serial party-hopper who now finds it convenient for his own political comfort and perks at this moment to turn his back on all he claimed to believe just a few years ago, including about choice and opportunities in education.

It was Willie Jackson who said, not so long ago, “I truly believe in the partnership school model.” When Labour was in Opposition and he was a leading figure in the Māori Party, he said, “The opposition’s stance on partnership schools won’t get a pass mark from me. And as far as Māori are concerned,” said Mr Jackson, “Labour’s Education spokesperson Chris Hipkins’ Private Members Bill to scrap partnership schools [ranks] an E.”, and so it went on. He was supported by the man who is now an Associate Minister of Education, the Hon Peeni Henare, who said, “The bottom line is, why would you stop something that is working.”, and he was talking, of course, about partnership schools.

This is the man—the Hon Willie Jackson—who told the nation the day after Labour’s humiliating defeat in the 2014 election that Pākehā New Zealanders have rejected the Labour Party, and yet, for some reason, Māori have embraced them. Willie Jackson shrugged his shoulders, concluding, “It’s hard to work out.” There’s a real irony there.

Willie Jackson said, “Why on earth would Māori support Labour MPs committed to such policies as abolishing partnership schools?” Well, he was right when he pointed out how incomprehensible that was, although he won’t thank me, of course, for reminding the nation today of those comments or of the contempt he felt for New Zealanders who voted Labour just four years ago. Yet, today, he has done a total about-face and proudly embraces his current party’s cruel indifference to vulnerable tamariki and communities the length and breadth of our country, and he insults respected Māori leaders he once worked hard to support. We can only hope that with his record of serial party-hopping, he will once again come to support partnership schools when he emerges as an ACT Party candidate in 2020.

In 2008, the National Party campaigned on a clear promise to introduce national standards in our primary schools. Yet, again, today the Minister of Education repeated his trite, irrelevant, and disingenuous claim that they were neither national nor standard. Yet he consistently ignores the reasons why they were introduced and the support that they secured at the polls from New Zealanders.

The evidence that underpinned their introduction was that a decade or more ago, too many parents found out too late that their children were not developing the literacy and numeracy skills that are the foundations of a successful education. Without literacy and numeracy, young people are not going to be able to succeed in education, and their life choices will be severely restricted as a result, and yet we have a Government today that says “We don’t need to give parents that information.”, even though a decade ago, parents were saying, “If only I had known in time, I would have sought the remedial assistance that my children required.” But, no, this education Minister says, “We’re not interested in the parents getting that information. We’re much more interested in dogma overtaking our decision making in education.” So that’s why I say this is a very sad day for our country.

Let me turn just very briefly to the tertiary education fees-free policy enforcement provisions in this bill, because what we have there is a Government spraying the cash around—it is a hugely expensive policy which didn’t have any real evidence behind it—and yet now we know that it’s making no significant difference at all in driving up enrolments in our tertiary education centres. Well, in the committee stage, the Minister admitted that he hadn’t looked into the question of whether this was a policy open to fraud. Then, he came back the next morning and said, “Oops! I have looked into it, and yes, you’re right—there is some. But I’ll still have to go and do a little bit of work on it.” In the little bit of time left to me, I would say get on with that work quickly, Minister. That is a huge oversight in your administration and you will be judged for it.

Let me just conclude on a positive note. I was very proud to serve briefly as the Associate Minister of Education—

💬 Simeon Brown: A very good Associate Minister.

—in the Government of Sir Bill English—thank you, Mr Brown. In that time, we were able to point to clear evidence of improving results, particularly in NCEA and particularly for our Māori and Pasifika students. It was up from 51.6 percent for Māori in 2008. NCEA-level achievement in 2016 for those young Māori was 74.9 percent, or virtually 75 percent, and it was even better, the improvement that we saw for Pasifika students: up from 50.5 percent in 2008 to nearly 80 percent in 2016. We, as a Government, were prepared to put out measurements by which we could be judged. We delivered, and this Government is sweeping it all away, to the great detriment—

Order! The member’s time has expired. I call Jan Tinetti—five minutes.

On the absolute polar opposite from that particular speaker, Tim Macindoe, I think this is the best day in our education system. Today, we are righting a vicious attack that was made on our education system over the term of the previous Government. Today, we reflect this Government’s commitment to having a high-quality public education system, and I am so excited about what we are seeing.

I was really surprised when I heard a member over in the Opposition talk about the fact that they don’t believe in a one-size-fits-all approach. However, in 2008, through urgency they introduced national standards. We absolutely couldn’t get more of a one-size-fits-all approach to education. They did that without any consultation. Today, we are putting that right.

What did that mean? That meant for me, in my school at that time, that creativity and that ability to actually form our localised curriculum became narrower. That actually meant that the ability for us as a school with a predominantly Māori population of children, where we had made great gains to get those vulnerable children all achieving by combining our curricula and teaching through Te Marautanga o Aotearoa, even in our mainstream classes—we could no longer do that because we had to report our mainstream classes against the national standards. So therefore we were forced to actually teach from the New Zealand Curriculum, which is a great document, but it didn’t meet the needs of our school. They talk about meeting the needs of the pupils and meeting the needs of the school, and yet they introduced those national standards that took that right away from those schools, and today we are putting that right. The schools are happy, and, contrary to what that side might say, parents are happy.

I have an email box that was flooded from last year by parents who said, “We are happy that our children are going to be valued.”, because not many people realise but all children were subject to national standards evaluations—all children. That means even the children that struggled at school due to special learning needs had to meet those national standards. That became really difficult for them, and they were labelled as failures the whole way through their schooling. So I’m happy to see this bill being passed today. I’m happy for the New Zealand education system, and I am absolutely delighted for all of our New Zealand children.

I call Nicola Willis—five minutes.

The bottom line is: why would you stop something that is working? Those were Peeni Henare’s words and they were wise words and they are words that members opposite have not heeded. We have had speeches today from people making all sorts of claims about partnership schools, but the people we have not heard from are the parents whose lives and whose families have been transformed by the experience of having their children attend partnership schools.

I want to read from the submission from Ms Tiffiny Hodgson, a mother of a chronic dyslexic who attended Villa Education Trust. She says, “Within 3 months of the new school year there was an incredible change. My angry, miserable and increasingly problematic son came home happy. And learning. He read his first ‘chapter book’ … He wanted to learn, and wanted to go to school. ‘Mummy, I never knew I could be good at anything.’ ” Then she goes on to say, “Not all schools fit all kids. … the idea of abandoning the Partnership model altogether … takes away a much needed option for [families] like ours. There are few enough options for some kids … without taking away schools that are already working well.”

I thank Tiffiny Hodgson because she goes to the heart of the matter, which is that today in this House, Labour members are choosing to fundamentally revoke a system that has worked for hundreds of students and hundreds of families because they believe that they know better what is right for those families and what they should choose. We’ve had the inglorious claim that somehow these partnership schools aren’t closing; that they will continue, when in fact right now there is a claim before the Waitangi Tribunal protesting the very fact that these schools are being closed. The model which allowed for their own management, their own funding, their own pay rates for teachers has been removed and where submitters have been very clear is that the process that has been forced upon them by the Minister of Education has caused inordinate trouble for parents and families.

Let’s talk about Alwyn Poole, because Minister Martin raised Alwyn Poole in her speech and said that Alwyn Poole was happy about these changes. Well, I want to quote what Alwyn Poole said at select committee: “The processes we are finding incredibly fraught and extremely difficult. We want to be respectful of the ministry but at the moment we are under two processes.” Those are the words of a school leader who feels completely pressured and bullied by the Government but who is going through a fraught and extremely difficult process. And the saddest thing of all is that the debate that we have had about the future of partnership schools, the changes that have been made, have meant that these excellent education leaders who have been transforming the lives of young people have been distracted by this sort of thing and will continue to be distracted by a new model that will be clunky and will not work as well for them or the children that they are there to serve.

We have had a State system of education in New Zealand for many decades that has delivered well for many, many children, and many of us are grateful for that strong public education system. But it is foolish of members opposite to pretend that that system delivers for every child. For far too long, that system has failed Māori and Pasifika children in particular, and for far too long that system has not delivered for groups of children. Partnership schools were a way of attacking that. They were a way of saying “Let’s try something different. Let’s not give up on those kids. And let’s not be naïve enough to simply pretend that if we say ‘public education’ enough times with a big enough smile on our face it’ll mean that it’s working for them.” Well, it wasn’t working for them, it’s not working for them, and partnership schools were, and that is why they should remain.

Instead, we have had a Government that has removed this model without considering the evidence of their success, without consulting the parents who support them, without consulting Māori who view them as a wonderful form of providing self-determination. And the people who should find it hardest to sleep in bed tonight are the members of the Labour Party opposite who said that they would campaign against the closure of these schools: Willie Jackson, who said that these schools were fundamental for Māori, that he truly believed in the model, and that this alternative style of education gets an A every day—

Order! The member’s time has expired. This is a split call—five minutes. I call Jo Luxton.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Well, I can assure Nicola Willis, the member who’s just taken her seat, that I am going to sleep very well tonight because today is a wonderful day for education. It is a wonderful day for teachers and it is a wonderful day for our children—our children. This Government is, yet again, delivering on its pre-election promises with this piece of legislation, the third reading of the Education Amendment Bill. I am proud to be part of a Government that is putting children at the heart of every decision it makes, and I am proud that we have a Minister of Education who believes the same.

I want to talk a little bit about the removal of national standards. Now, we heard from NZEI at the select committee when they submitted, and they talked about the anguish and the heartache that parents of children with special educational needs have. They talked about the fact that the children were doomed to fail from the outset—doomed to fail right from the beginning. Right from the time they entered our schooling system, they were doomed to fail.

We heard from the Hon Tim Macindoe, who said that this particular piece of legislation was going to be terrible and it was going to be a sad day for some of our most vulnerable children. Well, actually, I put it to that member that some of these children are our most vulnerable children, who were disaffected by national standards.

I want to also make comment about something that Parmjeet Parmar mentioned about how parents want to hear precise reporting. Well, actually, this isn’t some sort of forensic DNA analysis. These are children, a diverse group of young people that we are talking about, who are all different, who all have different needs, and who all learn at different rates and at different stages. I take the point that a previous speaker—Jan Tinetti—brought up around something that the Hon Nikki Kaye mentioned about how one size does not fit all, and that is exactly right. So that is why we are getting rid of the national standards.

I have my sister, Teresa, who has Down’s syndrome, and I think about how that would have affected her and my mother had she gone to school during this time when national standards were in place. Now, when someone has a child who has Down’s syndrome or some other disability like that, they know that that child’s life, and their life in turn, is also going to have several challenges along the way, and I think that it is disgraceful that children like that are faced with the fact that they are doomed to fail, right from the word go. That child might not be aware of it, but their parent certainly is, and I for one am so proud to commend this bill to the House.

I call David Seymour—five minutes.

Well, thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to proudly oppose this piece of legislation. I’d like to make a couple of comments about the debate that we’ve heard so far, beginning with Jo Luxton, the member who just resumed her seat, who says she’s proud to be part of a Government. Well, I hate to tell her that she’s a backbencher. She’s not part of the Government. The Government is the executive: the Ministers and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. She didn’t know about that, and she didn’t know anything about the policy she’s talking about, either. That’s the standard you get from the Labour backbench these days, and what a shame.

But I want to come back to Tracey Martin, who made a disgraceful speech. She said that Alwyn Poole had been in a discussion with the National Party about promises for the private school in my electorate that Alwyn and Karen Poole run. There was no such discussion, and it’s shameful that a member of Parliament would use the privilege of this House to defame an individual, especially one that happens to live in the Epsom electorate. Tracey Martin should apologise for that.

Tracey Martin said that Villa Education have been distributing glossy brochures about NCEA. If Tracey Martin knew anything about the subject, she would know that the Villa schools—Mt Hobson Middle School, Middle School West Auckland, and South Auckland Middle School—are year 7 to 10 schools. They don’t offer the NCEA and, strangely enough, they don’t have any glossy brochures about the NCEA.

This is the Tracey Martin who said that partnership schools treat children like dogs—what a disgrace. What a disgrace in this House, and Tracey Martin should be down here to make a personal statement and apologise. But I don’t think there’s a lot of time for that, because, just quietly between you and I, Mr Assistant Speaker, I’d hate to think what Winston Peters would say if he was caught on tape talking about Tracey Martin. The fact of the matter is that Tracey Martin didn’t come to Parliament because she got bored designing rockets at NASA—that’s the fact. She’s got the highest confidence to competence ratio of anyone I’ve ever met, and, by the way, she’s not even that confident. Anyhow, I needed to get that off my chest, because it’s disgraceful the way that Tracey Martin has used the House and abused parliamentary privilege to defame my constituents today.

But what was the problem that partnership schools kura hourua set out to solve? It’s this: it’s a great shame that we have increasing global convergence—that is, a billion people in Africa and Bangladesh and India are joining people in Asia and the former Soviet Union and joining the global economy, low-skilled people driving down the cost of low-skilled labour. That means in the 21st century, if you don’t have skills in a global economy, you’re toast. Added to that, New Zealand has the shame of having the third-greatest gap between the top 10 percent and the bottom 10 percent of learning outcomes in the OECD. This is a time bomb. This is a problem.

We need to do better for disadvantaged New Zealanders. We need to do better for those New Zealanders who go to Te Kāpehu Whetū, a partnership school in Whangarei, who were explicitly told in mainstream schools that they wouldn’t succeed because they’re Māori. They have gone to a partnership school where they feel valued. They are students like Hope from the Vanguard Military School, who I spoke about in the first line of my maiden statement in this House, who said to me, “I never knew I was smart until I came here.”

Partnership schools were put in place to give opportunity to that, and they did, but what a contrast between that and this Government’s consultation. It is $1.5 million dollars of asking people what they think should happen in education. It’s working groups into the NCEA and into Tomorrow’s Schools—all the asking and navel gazing and pondering and consultation—and what of this legislation? They’re saying, “Oh, well, it’s our policy, so that’s OK.”

I want to finish by paying tribute to the sponsors of partnership schools: the Nick Hydes, the Raewyn Tīpenes, the Sita Selupes, the—

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: Alwyn Poole.

—Alwyn Pooles—thank you—all of the sponsors who stood up and took a risk to make this country a better place. I want to put on record how sad it is—Ronnie Rochel, she deserves a mention.

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: And Catherine Isaac deserves a mention as well.

Absolutely—from the Waikato. Absolutely, they deserve a mention. I want to put on record how sad it is that they have had their livelihood and their project kneecapped by a Government that’s done no consultation. All it has done is the bidding of its union volunteers and paymasters. They have put comfortable, mostly white, middle-class teachers in reasonably well-paying jobs ahead of some of the most disadvantaged brown kids in this country, and it is—

Order! The member’s time has expired.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Education Amendment Bill. I’d like to start by reminding Mr Willie Jackson of his comments and his words that he spoke prior to becoming a Labour Party member of Parliament. I’d like to remind him of his comments in regards to Chris Hipkins’ member’s bill to scrap partnership schools. He said that that bill would receive an E—that’s what he said it would receive. It would receive an E. But then he said that when you look at the success this alternative style education model has had for Māori, then it gets an A—it gets an A every day. Well, I’ve got something for Mr Willie Jackson. His speech and his actions are an F, because they are an absolute fail. He has failed the people that he says he represents. He has failed Māori, and he has failed himself because of his dramatic U-turn that he made here in the House this afternoon.

This bill that we’re debating here today does a number of things, but, first and foremost, it primarily removes the partnership model—it rips it away, and it takes this opportunity away from some of our most disadvantaged communities.

The Prime Minister said that she wouldn’t be closing down these schools unless—the three conditions would be that they receive the same amount of funding as State schools, they have registered teachers, and they follow the school curriculum. We had those partnerships schools before the Education and Workforce Committee, and they ticked all three of those boxes. They told us they received the same amount of money. They told us they had registered teachers. They told us they followed the school curriculum, when they submitted to the select committee.

But the real agenda that this Government has, and the agenda which they are not talking about here in the House, is that they want to ensure that the unions have the contractual ability to have collective agreements over the staff in these schools. They want to have the power over the staff in these schools. They want to have a one-size-fits-all model for all education. They don’t believe in different models of education. They don’t believe in the partnership school model. They don’t believe in giving flexibility in teaching resources and flexibility in the classroom so that these children can have the best opportunities to learn, and they don’t believe in supporting our most at-risk young people in this country.

I want to read out part of an email I received from a mother who sent two of her children to South Auckland Middle School. Her name is Shiri Te Whatu and she said, “It is hard to put into words how invaluable South Auckland Middle School has been, not only to my own children, but also my wider whānau that have attended. I attribute my oldest son’s success to the step up that SAMS gave him when current school systems were failing him. They were able to meet him at his level and empower him to exceed all our expectations. I have three older daughters in their early 20s. It was always disheartening to see so many students—literally hundreds—start on the first day of school in year nine and then just a handful of students complete their schooling to year 13. I believe that SAMS is an important and vital bridge to this obvious gap in our current education system. We know that this problem in our education is there, but not everyone is prepared to do what it takes to ensure that this cycle does not continue. Due to the confidence”—she finishes—“and good study habits that my son learnt at SAMS, he finished year 13 well, and is now enrolled with Air New Zealand and studying a career in aeronautical engineering.”

Those are the words of a family, a whānau, in South Auckland who—their young children were failing in the State school education system, but SAMS gave them the opportunity to break the cycle—to break the cycle—and for that young man to be able to succeed. And I’m proud of that young man. He’s working at Air New Zealand. He’s studying. He has a future—a bright future—and he’s working hard towards it. He has aspirations, and that was what the partnership school model allowed. It allowed the young people from the most disadvantaged communities in our country, from the electorates which are represented on that side of the House, to be able to receive an education, to be able to break those cycles, and to be able to achieve in life.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Achievement for our poorest kids went down.

We can hear members on the opposite side of this House complaining about our position and the opportunities that we sought, and we heard Chlöe Swarbrick talk about the hundreds of submissions which were received in support of her Supplementary Order Papers. Well, I challenge Chlöe Swarbrick to read the dozens of submissions from people in support of partnership schools. The majority of submitters on partnerships schools who submitted on that issue in this bill were in support. If the member is going to talk about the number of submissions on this bill, be consistent and support what the majority of submitters on partnership schools actually said when they came before the select committee and when they made their submissions on this bill.

Kelvin Davis said that he would resign if partnership schools were closed in his electorate. Well, will we see him resign this afternoon when this bill has been passed? I doubt it, because there is another man who has broken his promise to his electorate and broken the promises that he said.

The other point that I think has been made, but it needs to be made again, is that there is a Treaty of Waitangi claim being made at the moment. Urgency has been requested to that claim, but the Government continues to steamroll this legislation through Parliament and continues to push its agenda—continues to ignore what Māori and what the people who have benefited from these schools are saying. This is a Government which has said that they want to ensure—and we have again heard members opposite talk about how they want to bring the Treaty into our education system. Well, the first thing they’re doing here is ignoring the Treaty as they let this legislation go through while there is a Treaty of Waitangi claim going before the Waitangi Tribunal at the moment.

I’d like to touch quickly on a couple of other parts of this bill and some of the other aspects that it does. I’d like to touch on the elements that it covers in regard to the enforcement powers for the fees-free policy. I think it’s important to reflect on the fact that that policy was rushed through and this has taken the Government one whole year—one whole year—for them to get to the point where they actually take some enforcement against people who might be making a false declaration and receiving potentially thousands and thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money if they were to make a false declaration on whether they had received funding before.

So I’d just like to make the point that the fine which is in this bill is only $5,000. It is a very small fine, and we have put Supplementary Order Papers in to say that this fine should be increased, that this is about accountability for those who take public funds, that their statements that they make should be truthful, and we actually believe on this side of the House that it needs to be increased to ensure that it is a reasonable fine which actually reflects the seriousness of the taxpayers’ money which is being taken. This was a rushed policy, put through and now they’re finally putting in place legislation which allows for some accountability to be held.

Lastly, I would like to touch on the clauses in this bill which relate to the boards of governance, the councils, in our Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics, the polytechs, and our universities. We’ve heard arguments from the other side around how this is going to dramatically improve governance of our polytechs and our universities. The argument has been made that we need to have more elected representatives on those boards. Well, I have a point here: we differ on that issue. These are governance bodies and the people that should be appointed to these bodies should have the required set of governance skills which should be on those bodies.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What about us, Simeon?

Chlöe Swarbrick says “What about Parliament?” Parliament is a representative body. We represent the people of New Zealand. These people are governing a specific body, given specific funds, and these require a specific set of skills on those bodies. We have put forward the case that those people who are elected, if they are to be elected, should also have those governance skills as a prerequisite to being able to stand in the elections, but that point was put down at the select committee when the argument was made.

So let me conclude. This bill is a dark day for New Zealand. It takes away opportunity for some of our most disadvantaged young people. National will oppose it and we will bring back partnership schools when we’re back in Government in 2020.

This is a great day for education in New Zealand. As the final speaker on this bill, the Education Amendment Bill, I’d just like to quickly highlight a couple of key points and just pick up on a few points that we’ve heard from the other side of the House.

But, first, I’d like to start with the partnership schools. Now, we heard from the Hon Nikki Kaye, who said that if the National Party gets back into power—if they get back into power—they will restore and expand these schools. Well, I’m just sort of curious as to their commitment to these schools, because they were in Government for nine years—nine years. I wonder how many schools they brought in. I wonder how many partnership schools. You would have thought maybe what? Two-hundred? Maybe 250? No. A hundred? No, less than that. Fifty? Less than that. Twenty? Less than that. Eleven—11 partnership schools in nine years! Do they even believe in this policy themselves? I’m not sure they do.

The next point is around national standards. I’d like to highlight one of the key submissions around national standards which came from NZEI. This is what the submission said, “NZEI is pleased that there can now be a focus on teaching and learning not just assessment, and on the broad New Zealand curricula, including competencies, engagement, and language”. NZEI also on that point said, “How soul destroying for parents with kids with special needs to have them marked against the national standards when there was already so much for them to overcome”.

The problem with national standards, and we heard it from the Minister, was that they were neither national nor were they standard. They were not accurate. That’s the key point. They were not accurate. I remember speaking to principals who would fill in their national standards data. They would send it off to the ministry, and the information would be sent back saying “No, you haven’t moved the kids enough.”, and they would send it back; “No, you haven’t done it.” So they actually had to fudge the data in order to get it accepted. And those principals would get together and say “We don’t want to do this. We want to give an accurate record.”, but the system was actually forcing them to fudge the data. So they weren’t accurate anyway.

💬 Brett Hudson: Forcing them to fudge the data. Why? Weren’t they into teaching?

The members opposite ask about being into teaching. Teachers want to teach the curriculum, and the problem with national standards was that it was narrowing the curriculum so that they were teaching maths, English, and there wasn’t enough time in the day to be able to teach the other subjects. The key focus of this Government is to enable teachers to teach the broad aspects of our world-class curriculum.

I’ll pick up on one final point, and that’s around the fees-free. So this legislation here supports the introduction of free tertiary education by making it an offence to make a false representation about an application for free tertiary education. For me, personally, the thing I like about the fees-free the most is the apprenticeship aspect. So what the fees-free policy does is it allows people to have two years free if they’re undertaking an apprenticeship. We have a huge shortage of skilled tradespeople in this country and to incentivise apprenticeships like this I think is an excellent policy.

So this is a wonderful piece of legislation. It’s an exciting day for the New Zealand education system, and for me personally, one of the key reasons I stood for Parliament was around national standards. So it’s exciting to see this removed. It’s exciting to see a broad curriculum will once again be taught. I commend this bill to the House.