Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I’m delighted to present this bill for its third reading, and I’m really excited that it strongly complements the wonderful work that this Government is doing in prioritising the rebuilding of the New Zealand education system. The statement of National Education and Learning Priorities—otherwise known as NELPs—sets the high priorities to guide the planning for the early childhood and compulsory education sectors.

The NELPs are our guiding statements in the education sector. The NELPs were first introduced not so long ago. They were part of the Education (Update) Amendment Bill, which gained Royal assent only a year ago, on 15 May. So it’s not that far removed that it is a good time to actually look and see how we can make the NELPs a lot better than they are.

When the National Education and Learning Priorities were first introduced, there were 286 submissions that were made to the then Education and Science Committee. While there was general agreement in principle about the value of the NELPs and how good these NELPs were, there was widespread concern around the wording of the NELPs and how, at the time, they didn’t actually align to the New Zealand Curriculum, and also concern about the lack of an explicit approach to the consultation. To the sector, and in those 238 submissions, there seemed to be that there was a little bit of uncertainty around consultation, and, generally, people at the time wanted that to be tidied up.

Originally, this particular, current amendment bill sought to amend the Education Act 1989 to enable statements about the diversity of education provision to be included in the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities. The amendments proposed in the bill aimed to align both the NELPS and the New Zealand Curriculum together. They aimed at an alignment between the two, which, as I’ve already said, was really seen to be really important. But I outlined in the second reading of this bill why I suggested that we didn’t actually progress that particular part of the amendment bill.

The changes to the objectives need to—and should—take account of the findings of the Government’s Education Conversation / Kōrero Mātauranga. That is really important. This is high-level work that this Government is carrying out in the education space. It is an ambitious work plan, and I’m really excited about some of the work that’s coming out of it. I’ve actually been invited to some sessions in that particular conversation, and I am excited to hear what the sector have to say, so it is only right, then, that if there are changes to be made, the enduring objectives take account of what comes out of that particular consultation, but where we can, we should make changes around the consultation and formalising the consultation around the NELPs.

When original submissions were heard on the NELPs, the overwhelming majority of submitters were concerned about the consultation process. They wanted surety around that process. They wanted to know that there was going to be a partnership between Government and stakeholders in determining the NELPs. They were unsure, with the way that it was written at the time, that that would happen and—unlike what the Opposition have been saying throughout this particular bill’s journey—it is important to the sector, and at that time they told us that it was important to them. We’ve also heard throughout this journey that maybe we, as a Government, are taking account too much of what education unions are telling us, but I reiterate that our unions are actually a big part of the sector because they are our teachers.

But it wasn’t just the unions back when the NELPs were introduced that told us this; it was places like the Education Council. It was places like the New Zealand Council for Educational Research, who are not only highly regarded in New Zealand but are also internationally highly regarded. At the time, this is what they had to say: “We see the Statement of National Education and Learning Priorities as being crucial to the motivation of educators to keep improving their practice, to parents to really engage with their child’s learning, and to the achievement of national strategic goals to improve education and learner outcomes. This priority setting process provides an opportunity for the education system in Aotearoa New Zealand to become the agile ‘learning system’ that is needed in our complex and swiftly changing world. However, it requires strong working partnerships between the government and its agencies, the education sector, iwi and key community stakeholders. The work in forming these priorities and the measures that will relate to them must be based on solid evidence and analysis. The nature of the consultation process for developing the priorities is therefore very important and we think [this bill] needs to be explicit about the consultation approach.”

Even though there were strong submissions like that at the time that suggested that we needed to formalise that consultation approach, sadly, changes weren’t made, and this bill is about to fix that. The changes in this bill will ensure that the Minister will consult widely on the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities, and they identify a wide range of groups that the Minister must consult with. Submitters on this bill welcomed the direction of consultation, especially with children and young people in this process.

There was general agreement that it is heartening to see children and young people as the first group the Minister must consult with in the development of the NELPs. One of our strongest submitters, the Children’s Commissioner, Judge Andrew Becroft, stated that there had been a previous reluctance to hear from children, and that future and similar provisions should become the norm. He stated, “Hearing from, and incorporating the views of, children and young people delivers better and more robust decisions.” and “We support the intention to create a more equitable system, that supports children to develop to their full potential, and that ensures our children and young people deliver better and more robust decisions.”

Other submitters endorsed these sentiments, stating that the voices of young people are essential when developing law, and, as an educator of nearly 30 years, I know the power of children and young people’s voices. If we as adults can be brave enough to listen, they will make a difference. Well, today, we say that we are brave enough and we will listen.

A number of submitters requested that new representative organisations be added to the list in the bill, but there is a fear that if you name absolute organisations, there will be some that miss out. So this is why the list of those who must be consulted are not specific organisations, but are generic descriptions.

Not only does this bill ensure consultation with children and young people; it also ensures consultation with sector groups to ensure their voices are highly valued when determining the National Education and Learning Priorities—the voice of teachers, principals, governing bodies of schools, early childhood services, parents, the disability community, support staff, Māori, Pacific, and proprietors of State integrated schools and character schools. It is important that a wide voice has to be heard, so that we are truly showing that we are working in partnership.

Rather than seeing this as a trivial change—as the Opposition have stated through this bill’s journey—we are today saying to those groups that their voices matter and that it is important that we work together in partnership during the priority-setting process. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the Education and Workforce Committee, but especially the members from the Government benches, who have understood the whole way through the enormity of the changes that this bill makes.

I started my formal journey as an educator over 30 years ago, and then spent 30 years as a primary school teacher and principal. During that time, I wanted to know that my expertise was valued and that my voice mattered, and sometimes, unfortunately, that never seemed to be the case. But today, I am so proud to see this bill through its third reading. That acknowledges the expertise and voice of my colleagues. It acknowledges that it takes a village to raise a child and that we are prepared to talk and listen to that village, and I am also proud to confirm that we will hear and we will incorporate the views of our children and young people, who are at the heart of our education system, so that they can realise their dreams and be the best that they can be. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. Let me just start by acknowledging Jan Tinetti, who is the proponent of this bill, the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill, and congratulate her as a member of this House pursuing a member’s bill through Parliament and bringing it this far, through to the third reading. I also want to acknowledge her as the deputy chair of the Education and Workforce Committee and the work that she does there as someone who has a lot of experience in the teaching profession.

I’d like to make a few comments in my short speech on this bill. National is opposed to this bill for a number of reasons, but, ultimately, because this bill, essentially, does very little—does next to nothing. I think if members were to look at the bill and to look at its progress through the House—when it started this bill had quite ambitious goals. It was going to change the purpose of the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs) quite substantially. But through the process it has been drawn back to really just doing one thing, which is changing how the Minister must consult.

Initially the bill was going to replace the sentence in the Education Act to focus on helping. The purpose of the NELPs was “to focus on helping each child and young person to attain educational achievement to the best of his or her potential;”, and the bill replaced it with “to provide learning experiences that support children and young people to reach their potential and a system that aims to achieve equitable outcomes for all;”. That’s quite a reasonably dramatic change that was proposed, and then a number of other changes through the Act were going to make a substantial change to the National Education and Learning Priorities in the Education Act.

However, during the select committee stage, I believe it was the Post Primary Teachers’ Association turned up and said, “Hey, we’re having 13 reviews. We’ve got the national Education Conversation taking place. Surely we should be waiting to actually listen to teachers, to educators, to principals, to a range of other interested parties in the education sector, before we actually make any changes to the NELPs parts of the Education Act.” And to the member’s credit, she did withdraw those provisions from her bill. However, the irony of it is that in doing so she accepted that there needed to be a wider conversation. But that’s exactly all that this bill does, which now, essentially, means that the Minister must consult with a wider group of people before changing the National Education and Learning Priorities.

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: Do they need a law change for that?

And really I think—Mr Macindoe asked the question: “Do we actually need a law change to allow this to happen?” And the answer is no. The provision is already there in the Education Act so that the Minister should consult with a wide group of people when developing the National Education and Learning Priorities. That’s exactly what Ministers do. They consult with wide groups of people—wide parts of the sector—to ensure that what they’re doing is in the best interests of the people that they’re there to serve.

And so what we’ve got left is, essentially, a list of people which this bill says the Minister must make reasonable efforts to consult. I would argue that that’s a weaker way of saying it than what it already is in the Act. It’s weaker than what it was before. It now says, “The Minister must make reasonable efforts”. The member in charge of the bill, Jan Tinetti, was a little more brave when she first put the bill forward, because it said, “The Minister must include consultation”. I think that’s even stronger, but it’s been watered down to say, “The Minister must make reasonable efforts to consult”, and we’re still not sure what a reasonable effort is.

Then we see a list of people that the Minister must make reasonable efforts to consult with, but there’s one group of people who are missing, and that’s parents. Parents are missing from the list. Parents have an incredible and important role in the education of their children, and they are missing from this list of people who the Minister must make reasonable efforts to consult. Yes, members on the other side might say, “Well, it includes national bodies representing the interests of parents.”, but that’s not consulting directly with parents. If the member in charge of this bill wanted to be consulting widely, the member would be saying, “Let’s consult directly with parents.” It says, “Let’s consult directly with children and young people.” but fails to say “consult directly with parents”.

I believe they’re one of the most important parts of the education of our children and of our young people, and they are missing from this legislation. So I think this bill is, unfortunately—while it has good intentions, I think it makes very minor changes and misses out on one of the most crucial parts of the education sector: parents.

I wasn’t going to speak on this bill, or I was going to make my contribution reasonably short, but after that particular contribution, there is so much material in there that I just can’t quite help myself. We had a contribution from that member, Simeon Brown, who said, “This bill is not necessary. We don’t need to list down who we should be consulting.” and then proceeded to complain that the list was not exhaustive enough. So I’m not entirely sure that he was being consistent even within his speech, let alone within the positions that he’s taken in the House more generally. That is the member who devoted a good 10 minutes in the House to arguing the difference between the word “may” and the word “must” when it came to consultation. He wanted us to be much more specific in legislation about consultation—so it couldn’t be “may consult”; it had to be “must consult”—and now he’s saying that, actually, this quite specific provision, quite detailed provision and quite thoughtful provision, that my colleague Jan Tinetti has suggested should be introduced into legislation is a waste of time.

I would suggest to the member that one day, if anybody troubles themselves to read his Hansard—and I suspect that the only person doing that will be himself, but if anybody else troubles themselves to read his Hansard, they will find themselves inherently troubled by the contradictions, if they bother at all to read it or if they bother to be troubled by the member, because there is no consistency in his argument. There is no consistency in his argument whatsoever.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Move on—move on.

But OK, I’ll move on—fair enough. Fair enough—I’ll move on.

I do want to compliment Jan Tinetti on this bill. I was involved in the select committee hearings on the original Education Update Amendment Bill that inserted these new provisions in the Act, that are now being amended by this bill, and I was concerned at the time that the consultation provisions in them were pretty flimsy. So I think that Jan Tinetti has done a really good job of beefing them out and making them more specific.

The statement of National Education and Learning Priorities is a really significant document, or will be a really significant document when it’s been created. It was an idea of the previous Government and one that I supported, and one that I think we should work pretty hard to try and craft a degree of consensus around. This is, ultimately, going to set out not just the Government’s priorities but the priorities for the entire education system, and so it’s only right that all of those with an interest in that are consulted and have a say in it. Yes, parents are important and so they should be consulted, and so they are included, but, actually, the voices of children and young people are often the voices that we don’t hear about when we’re making decisions about education in this country.

The Children’s Commissioner recently did a really, really good exercise where the Children’s Commissioner went out and asked young people about their views about education. You might think OK, well, you know, what do young people know, or are they mature enough? There are all these arguments that come about around whether we should consult young people, whether young people are informed enough to know and to have a meaningful say on the future of the education system. But what became really apparent to me in reading the feedback from that, and also in reading a lot of the research that sits around underachievement in our education system, is that, very clearly, culture and identity matter. Culture and identity matter an enormous amount in the education system to individual children’s success in education, and if we’re saying at a governmental level that we don’t value that, that we don’t value the voice of young people, then, implicitly, we’re sending that message down through the whole education system.

So, actually, by saying at the highest level that we want young people to have voice and that we want that voice to be heard in the way we set our priorities, we’re actually strengthening all the way through the education system the agency of the learner, of the young person concerned, and that’s actually something that we should take incredibly seriously. So I think it is something that should be guaranteed and protected in legislation, and that is what this bill does.

The other thing that we heard really clearly when I sat through the first select committee process on these provisions—I didn’t sit through the most recent ones, and my colleagues behind me, I’m sure, will speak in more depth about that. But the other thing that we heard very clearly from the teaching community was that they felt the legislation previously did not ensure that their professional voice was going to be heard in the process of setting our national priorities around education. That is actually really important. Teachers repeatedly have said that they feel their profession is undervalued, that their expertise, their wisdom, and their experience is not being drawn on when it comes to bigger decisions about education, and as Minister of Education, I can say that’s something that I take incredibly seriously. Teachers should be empowered by the Government to be the best they can be and to do the best job they can do, and, as such, we should hear their voice when it comes to establishing our priorities.

Now, teachers have got a few priorities at the moment that they’ve made quite clear to the Government, and we will do our best to meet those priorities over time, as financial resources allow, but I want to be clear that when it comes to questions around what gets taught and how it gets taught, why would we not guarantee that the people whose expertise we rely on to deliver it have a voice in making those decisions? So I think this is a very useful provision.

The disability community in New Zealand has a phrase: “Nothing about us without us”. So I think it’s really important that we embrace that as a Parliament, as a Government, and that our legislation reflects that. So this bill ensures that the disability community will be actively involved in setting out our National Education and Learning Priorities, and they should be, because there is every reason, and every piece of evidence that exists at the moment suggests that we are not doing well enough in our education system when it comes to supporting those people who have disabilities.

School support staff and those people who work in schools and early childhood services should be consulted. That’s absolutely right. Māori education organisations should be consulted, and I’d like to know from the members opposite why it is that they think that Māori education organisations should not be consulted on the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities. I haven’t heard anything from them about why these people shouldn’t be consulted.

Now, if the Opposition think that, actually, this bill is relatively inconsequential, why are they opposing it? That’s the really interesting thing. If they think that it’s not going to make that big a difference, why are they opposing it, other than the notion that one day, if they were in Government again, they would not want to consult these people? That would be the only rationale for opposing it, because if they think, “Oh, it’s no big deal. Of course the Government would consult those people.”, what’s wrong with putting it in legislation? Why do they think it is such an affront to put it in the legislation if they actually don’t have any objection to consulting these people about the National Education and Learning Priorities? I think that that’s something that all of the groups and all of the people represented in this list would like to hear an answer on.

This bill has been through a pretty rigorous select committee examination. As has been mentioned, it has been changed by the Education and Workforce Committee. It did have some provisions in it previously that would’ve changed the principles as set out in the Act, and Jan Tinetti has made the decision to defer further consideration of those until we have had further opportunity to fully consider the national Education Conversation that is happening right now, and I think that that’s a sensible decision. But I think the bill as it stands now, even without those provisions, still has significant merit. And I think that it’s only right that we should support it so that we can hear from those people who are concerned.

Now, I’m the Minister that will have to implement this. I can tell you now that I would be consulting all of these groups anyway. It was one of the points made by the Opposition. But legislation is enduring. Legislation goes beyond the Minister of the day, and, actually, one of the criticisms of the Minister that introduced this legislation in the first place—the Hon Hekia Parata—was that she didn’t consult and she didn’t listen. And, actually, many people in the education system would be concerned that a future change of Government—and admittedly that’s looking less and less likely by the day—would return to the approach of the last Government, the level of arrogance of the last Government, in refusing to listen to parents. Bearing in mind that these are the people who wanted to increase class sizes and now say they want to decrease them. But they didn’t listen to the parent community. They didn’t listen to teachers when things like national standards were being introduced. Actually, if they had, they might have been able to introduce national standards in a way that they were actually enduring and that actually contributed to some good educational outcomes. They didn’t. They stuffed it up, and, as a result, I’m very proud to say we’ve removed them.

So it is important, when making education decisions, that you do that in a way that’s inclusive, that’s open, and that’s collaborative. So I think that the provisions being put forward by Jan Tinetti here are very valid, are worthy of inclusion in the Education Act, and therefore I fully support the bill.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I don’t want to delay things too long, unlike the previous speaker, Chris Hipkins. I know that we’re very much looking forward to the debate on my colleague Simeon Brown’s Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill.

First, I just want to say that I’m very surprised that this bill has reached its third reading, and will be passed no doubt in a few speeches’ time. This is one of the Government’s ballot-stuffing bills that wasn’t quite good enough for the Minister to get through on the Government Order Paper. The few changes that it did propose back at the beginning were interesting to say the least, and focused on the National Education and Learning Priorities statement.

So it did things like—this is back at the beginning of this bill—replacing the phrase “good social skills and the ability to form good relationships” with “strong social skills and the ability to form positive relationships with others”.

💬 Erica Stanford: Revolutionary!

Absolutely revolutionary! So the slight rewording of a couple of paragraphs that explain the objective of the education system is not, in our opinion, a valuable use of Parliament’s time. We’ve had a massive workload as the Education and Workforce Committee this past year—quite unparalleled, I think. We’ve had employment relations, pay equity bills, Accident Compensation Corporation. We’ve had two education amendment bills—scrapping national standards, scrapping partnership schools, scrapping communities of online learning. A massive workload. And the amount of time that we’ve had to dedicate to this bill, which has been severely gutted over the course of the passage of it, has meant that we’re just not focusing on the important issues of the day.

Every clause of substance in this bill that we started with has now been removed, and we’re left with what is, essentially, a skeleton situation. In fact, the only things left in this bill—and it’s interesting that the Minister referred to this—are clauses that enshrine union consultation. It’s interesting that he asked the question about why we think these people shouldn’t be consulted—that’s not at all where we’re coming from. They already should be consulted in current law. The current law requires the Minister to consult with any stakeholders they see necessary. What we object to is this specific listing, and taking up Parliament’s time when we’ve got other far more pressing matters that we need to discuss. Now I’ll just repeat again: it’s already in law that the Minister must consult with any stakeholders that they see necessary.

I’ll just contrast a couple of bills, and then I’m going to finish up. The Government members’ bills so far on education have been this one, which has been gutted and removes all substance, and the other is the Education (Protecting Teacher Title) Amendment Bill, and what happened to that? Gone; removed; zipped; hey presto, totally out of this Parliament. So that’s all that we’ve been given from the other side when it comes to education members’ bills.

On this side: Erica Stanford’s bill on replacing the decile system with a risk index—an incredibly detailed, massive piece of work. And then now we’ve got Nikki Kaye introducing multiple languages to schools. Contrast their Government members’ bills with ours and you can see what you make of that.

Jan Tinetti, the sponsor of this bill, said in the Bay of Plenty Times that this bill will start to return mana to the teaching profession of New Zealand. I wonder if she still stands by that statement on the bill in its current form, and I would say that the Government needs to learn a valuable lesson around being careful with what you stuff in the ballot box.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I must say just before I start that it’s a little rich being lectured on ballot stuffing by the party that came up with that pearler of a bill, the “lost luggage bill”. And I think that shows the contrast in our Government. If this is a ballot stuffing bill—a bill that sets out to create a much better education system—then I’ll be on this side of the House any day.

It is a privilege to stand and support, on behalf of New Zealand First, the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill. Of course, we know that that amends the Education Act of 1989. I would like to take the opportunity to commend Jan Tinetti for bringing this bill forward, and, at a time when there has been some debate about the prevalence of professional politicians coming into this House, I note Jan Tinetti and her 30 years as a professional educator. The value that she has given our select committee both as the deputy chair and as the sponsor of this bill has been invaluable. She will make a significant contribution to this Parliament in terms of advancing our education programme. And what an education programme it is.

We are here, of course, in the third reading of the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs) bill, but we have a wide suite of educational policies that we are bringing forward to rebuild our public education system. And, of course, we in New Zealand First are very proud of the work that our very own Associate Minister Tracey Martin is playing in this space, and we know that she’s done a lot of work on this over the years. It’s great to see her in a position of influence so she can help this rebuilding of our public education system.

It has been 30 years since the Education Act of 1989. It was Tomorrow’s Schools, but they are now yesterday’s schools. And we have done a lot in terms of consultation with the industry—of course, the hui that was undertaken earlier on by the Minister—bringing everyone in to have a root-and-branch look at our education system. And look at what we’ve already done prior to that—national standards: taking that system out.

I’d just go to the NELPs bill and a lot of the things that the NELPs bill is looking to address: resilience, determination, confidence, creative and critical thinking, good social skills, the ability to form good relationships, participation in community life, fulfilment of civic and social responsibilities, and preparedness to work. None of those things—none of those things—were captured by national standards in their very narrow focus on education. So that shows what we are trying to do on this side of the House in broadening the scope of our education system for the 21st century.

Of course, we’ve taken the charter schools—the partnerships schools—out of the system and brought them under the umbrella of the public system, which they should never have left. Of course, there’s a lot of work we’re doing with tertiary fees and making tertiary education more affordable. What has not been widely recognised is that most of that, the majority of that funding, is going to people in vocations: our plumbers—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Apprenticeships.

—apprenticeships—our builders, and the people who really need it as we have this economy humming along.

The theme of this bill is consultation. We’ve heard from the Minister about how important this is, and we’ve heard from the member, when she spoke as a professional educator, of how she felt disconnected from the system and that her voice was not being heard. This bill obliges the Minister to consult widely—children and young people.

Of course, the Minister referenced the words of Judge Becroft, the Children’s Commissioner, and some of the work that he’s doing in talking to children about the education system and seeing how valued that voice is—teachers, principals, and schools themselves. During the committee process, I actually asked the member about rural schools because, as a member of the board of a rural area school, often our issues are different. We’ve got isolation and we don’t have the numbers, maybe, to provide all the services that, maybe, the bigger schools have. Those area schools will now have a voice that the Minister is obliged to hear, and they will be knocking at his door, I’m sure—the Lawrence Area School will be, anyway.

Early childhood: I will acknowledge Jo Luxton on our select committee as well, who has a background in the early childhood sector, and the depth of talent that we have on our side of the bench.

Disability support staff are a really undervalued part of our education system, and what a vital role they play.

Māori and Pasifika: we know that the statistics do not flatter those sectors of our community, and we must do better. The Minister will need to consult widely with Māori and Pasifika under this bill.

State and integrated schools: I think it’s worthy, from the select committee submissions, to quote once again the Children’s Commissioner, the aforementioned Judge Andrew Becroft, when he said, “Hearing from, … incorporating the views of, children and young people deliver better and more robust decisions … We support the intention to create a more equitable system, that supports children to develop to their full potential, and that ensures children and young people have a say in the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities.”

There was this quote from speech and language therapist Dr Shannon Hennig: “family and [children] voices are essential [in] developing effective educational policy [into] law.”, and that is the voice that the Minister will have to hear.

In the NZEI, they “welcome this because it gives students [a] voice and agency in the process, and recognises the critical contribution [and] knowledge … expertise of the teaching profession will make [in] the priority-setting process.”, and I know how important that is. In fact, my sister and her husband are long-standing teachers—35 years; even longer than Jan Tinetti—in the education system. I know how frustrated they too feel with those provisions and the fact that the Government often doesn’t appear to be hearing their voice. From now on in, they will.

There were 20 submissions, and they were broadly supportive—I think almost all supportive—which is a sign that this Government is on the right track with this bill, and it enjoys wide support from the wider teaching and education community.

As I said at the start, this is about another brick in the wall—

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Ha, ha!

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: He don’t need no education!

—of rebuilding our public education system. I knew you’d like that one. You’re a bit of a Pink Floyd man I’m sure, Mr Mitchell. But it’s an important piece of work for this Government. It is a priority that we set. I know our select committee, as Denise Lee referred to before, does have a busy programme of work, and that is reflective of the importance that we see this sector having, and of the need to rebuild it. Some of that goes back to that 1989 Act—30 years since we’ve had a good root-and-branch look at our education system.

Of course, may I say that Labour Governments have always had a flavour of educators and teachers coming through who strongly influence—and those Governments, supported here, of course, by New Zealand First and our confidence and supply partner, the Greens, are fully supportive of that. So the education system is in really, really good hands with this Government as we forge on to 2020, and what a story we will have to tell the people of New Zealand about education and the priority that we have put on it, and we will be starting to see the outcomes by then.

So New Zealand First—

💬 Hon Members: Ten, nine, eight.

—takes absolute pleasure in commending—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order!

—this bill to the House, and it commends particularly the member Jan Tinetti for bringing this forward. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. [Applause]

Order! I know this is light-hearted, but the Speaker, in previous decisions, said applause like that, interrupting the flow of the debate, is not acceptable. Also, a countdown is not acceptable. Let’s just return to debating the bill.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker—e Te Mana Whakawā. I think it was the final countdown. Weren’t there some delicious ironies in that wonderful speech by Mark Patterson? We were sitting over here thinking, “Well, here’s Banjo Paterson giving us his best shot.”, but, in fact, what he really delivered was the fact that deep down, he is really Pink Floyd, and he was reminding us that in the New Zealand First Party, the motto is, “We don’t need no education.” Well, Mr Patterson, I have to say that was actually a noble effort to give us 10 minutes of meaningless twaddle of no substance whatsoever—

💬 Erica Stanford: Like the bill—just like the bill.

—but, sadly—yes, as Ms Stanford says, like the bill—probably to be remembered as one of Mr Patterson’s better contributions.

I do just want to remind Mr Patterson—because he made some disparaging remarks about national standards and a former Minister in his speech—that at the time that national standards were introduced and legislated for in this House, he was a very enthusiastic paid-up member of the National Party. I don’t recall him speaking out about national standards at any time when they were in contemplation. In fact, I believe he was probably still a paid-up member of the National Party when Mr Korako’s fine bill was introduced—was it “lost luggage” or “left luggage”? What was the name of the bill? I don’t recall him speaking out against that one either, but he found it convenient at a later date to defect from the National Party, and he has now turned up in the New Zealand First Party and is having to deliver 10-minute speeches of that type, which completely waste the time of the House.

I want to say that I do agree with the Prime Minister on one point, and that is that there is a place for kindness in politics. So let me begin my analysis of this particular bill with a compliment to the member who is in charge of it, Jan Tinetti. I can’t make that compliment in relation to the bill itself, because that would be very difficult to do, but I do want to note that she chaired the Education and Workforce Committee meeting this morning, in the absence of the permanent chair, very fairly and competently. I thank you for that. And she did so with a smile on her face, so that needs to be noted. But I regret that I cannot speak so charitably about this pointless bill, that has already wasted considerable time in this House and which deserves to be thrown out without further thought, and yet it seems inexplicably destined to pass into the law of this land on the passage of its third reading this afternoon.

It is the ultimate stocking-filler. It’s that present that disappoints its recipient and embarrasses its giver on Christmas morning. I have to admit, I’ve been guilty of one or two of those over the years, but it’s only been members of my immediate family who have had to feign gratitude while feeling disdain at my gifting ineptitude. In this instance, Ms Tinetti’s useless gift is being inflicted upon an entire mystified and ungrateful nation. It’s a considerable embarrassment to the member and her Government, not least because her bill, as my colleague the member for Maungakiekie noted so eloquently in her contribution a short time ago, has been so dismembered throughout its passage through the House that it’s reached a point that there’s almost nothing left of it, and that which is left should be thrown out, as well. So there is really nothing left that even justifies having this debate this afternoon.

But I say that as kindly as I can, because I understand that Ms Tinetti inherited this nonsense from a former colleague, and I’m sure she’s having to put a brave face on her discomfort as she takes one for her team. Well, no wonder the bill’s original author cut and ran at the earliest opportunity. What a shame she didn’t drop the bill in the shredder on her way out the door. So I won’t add any more to Ms Tinetti’s discomfort, and I will finish, again, in the spirit of kindness in wishing her much greater luck in producing something of substance, with a purpose, and that will actually achieve something, when she has an opportunity to produce a bill on an issue of her own choosing.

E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It is an absolute privilege, as almost always after a piece of education legislation is before the House, to rise after one Tim Macindoe and that very eloquent contribution, which I, of course, will oppose in its entire substance in my support for this fantastic piece of legislation. What we are debating today, of course, is the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill, a member’s bill in the name of one Jan Tinetti, who I would like to acknowledge, as other members have, as a fantastic deputy chair of our Education and Workforce Committee and, obviously, a former principal and teacher prior to coming into this House, with many decades of experience, which I think that she’s really channelled into this piece of legislation by obviously taking into account the importance of—again, to borrow a term from the vernacular of the National Party—the very consumers of education.

So to get back to basics in this third and final reading of this piece of legislation, I think it’s worthwhile for viewers in the gallery and at home but also perhaps for members throughout the Chamber who may not be so familiar with the NELPs to explain exactly what the NELPs are. The NELPs are, of course, the National Education and Learning Priorities, which were instituted as a part of the Education (Update) Amendment Act 2017, which was, obviously, passed under the former National Government. Its purpose is to guide strategic direction in the early childhood education and compulsory sectors.

We heard Tim Macindoe speaking before me, asking what the point of this amendment here is—as was, indeed, heckled by a number of members from the National Opposition. Tim Macindoe also asked, “Do we need this legislation?”, saying that it was pointless and useless, which I think is somewhat contrary to the arguments raised by his colleague Simeon Brown with regard to some people who he thought may be missing from those who must be consulted with.

So let’s flip those arguments and that rationale on its head, because the fact is that this legislation is before the House. If we were to not pass this legislation, if we were to reject it, we would be saying that we don’t want to hear the voices of young people and children or from national bodies representing the interests of teachers, principals, governing bodies of schools, early childhood services, parents—which Simeon Brown noted, for some reason, were actually missing from this piece of legislation—from the disability community, from support staff in schools and early childhood services, from Māori education organisations, from Pacific education organisations, from State integrated schools, and, indeed, from designated character schools. All of these demographics, all of these bodies, and all of these organisations are critical voices in the education system, because so many of them are directly at the coalface.

So, to directly challenge the notion put forward by Simeon Brown stating—and I quote—that “One group of people is missing, and that’s parents.”, parents are directly in here. They’re listed. They are, as he noted, listed within national bodies, but, literally, the only demographic that is not listed within its national bodies is the voice of children and young people. I think that’s an important point to make because there, currently, really doesn’t exist a peak body or organisation or NGO that is run or governed by young people—that’s the point of this legislation. It is to ensure that we are making an active effort as a Government and that the Minister of Education is actively going out of their way and consulting with those children and those young people, because those children and those young people do not have a vote. They are one of the only groups—they are actually the only group that is listed among the other demographics that must be consulted with who it would make common sense to presume are not able to exercise their right to vote and, therefore, their ability to have an impact on the political system.

I also want to speak to the point raised by my colleague in New Zealand First, Mark Patterson, who is, of course, a fantastic contributor as well to our Education and Workforce Committee. He quoted Pink Floyd. I’m not sure if he did so intentionally, but he so did none the less, about not being “Another Brick in the Wall”, and I think that my dad would be quite happy that I’ve managed to get that on to the Hansard and to say that that’s exactly the point of this legislation, as well. It really cuts to the heart of it. What we are doing is recognising that young people and kids are not homogenous, by any means, and, therefore, their voices are critical in helping to formulate and inform the system that they are the major consumer, the only sole consumer, of—the primary consumer.

I also want to speak to the point raised about how this was a useless piece of legislation—as I alluded to earlier—and, again, to flip it on its head and to ask members of the Opposition, if they wanted to see more demographics listed who must be consulted with, why they didn’t put that forward at the committee of the whole House stage. But if they want to see more demographics listed as necessary to consult with, why don’t they move ahead and vote for this piece of legislation, and later add more demographics who must be consulted with? I’m simply not following the line of logic.

The whole purpose of the National Education and Learning Priorities, as I spoke to at the beginning of this contribution, is to create the high-level direction for the education sector, and that is something where I hope that we can have cross-party and cross-parliamentary buy-in, as we have, as a Government, attempted to facilitate throughout the education conversation. We would hope that members of the Opposition would like to participate in the creation of the National Education and Learning Priorities and, therefore, recognise the importance of them as enduring and as the foundation for a sustainable vision moving forward in our education system.

It is a privilege to be standing on behalf of the Green Party as our education spokesperson this evening and acknowledging Jan Tinetti as the sponsoring member of this fantastic piece of legislation—one of the only ones, I believe, that puts children’s voices at its heart—and to state that we are incredibly proud to tautoko and support this bill. Kia ora.

I rise to speak on the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill, and I want to start by acknowledging Jan Tinetti and, in particular, acknowledging her former role as a principal at Merivale School, a role that I understand she did well in for her community. It is particularly because of that experience and background that I’m a little bit disappointed in Ms Tinetti today, and the reason I am disappointed is that she is someone who has worked as a principal in a school.

A principal, more than just about anyone else in a school, should be aware of the context in which this legislation is being progressed, because if you were to look at this legislation and say, “This is the great priority for this Parliament today, according to school principals.”, then you would think that we are living in a time of great educational achievement and that we are living in a time when there is equality of outcome, when people are leaving school with good qualifications, and where people are getting what they need out of the school system.

But is that the case? Unfortunately, no, that is not the case because this is, in fact, a bill that tinkers at the edges of things and does nothing to go to the substantive problems that we, in fact, have in New Zealand’s education system today.

We are in the midst of early childhood education teacher shortages, primary teacher shortages, a secondary teacher shortage.

💬 Hon Clare Curran: And why is that?

We have just had a new global report come out, Clare Curran, and you should be concerned about this, that ranks New Zealand 33 out of 38 countries for inequality in our classrooms. And what is Labour’s answer to that report? Their answer is a bill that lists 11 new national bodies that must be consulted when the Minister of Education publishes his National Education and Learning Priorities. And what I would suggest to members opposite is that if they think consultation with 11 additional national bodies will make a jot of difference to a single child underachieving in our school system today, then they need to get real.

When it comes to making a difference to the learning and achievement of children in our schools we don’t start by adding new layers of bureaucracy. We don’t start by ensuring that people have to tick this consultation box, tick that consultation box, write some nice reports, and smile at each other. That is not where we start. Where we start is in the classroom, and it is disappointing to me today that members opposite who know what’s going on in our classrooms, who know what’s going on in our schools, choose to take the time of this House to present a bill like this.

I want to draw your attention to the orange bits I’ve highlighted. The orange bits I’ve highlighted in this bill are all of the bits that Jan Tinetti had in her original legislation that were struck out at select committee, because it was agreed that, in fact, this bill was going too far ahead of the consultation process that was happening throughout the education system. So what we’re left with is the pink bits, and the pink bits describe, as I said, the 11 national bodies that must now be consulted by the Minister.

To make it even more farcical, we had the Minister of Education in the first reading of this very bill say to us that he thought he would not be doing his job if he didn’t consult with these groups, which rather begs the question, Minister, of why we need this bill at all. Does Jan Tinetti not trust the Minister when he says that he doesn’t think he’d be doing his job unless he consulted with them? So why is the bill needed at all if this is just what the Minister would do anyway?

I expect grander ambition at a time when children are not doing well enough in our schools. I expect more from a Government that says it wants to do better for those in poverty. I expect more from a Government who says that they’re going to be doing more for the education system. It is time for new ideas. We have great challenges before us. We have great opportunities before us. We are in a time of digital revolution. The world of work is changing. Get some interesting education policy together for the good of New Zealand’s children. This is not good enough. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

This is a split call. I call the Hon Clare Curran—five minutes.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I think some leeway needs to be given to the previous speaker, Nicola Willis, as she hasn’t been in the House very long, and she perhaps hasn’t had a chance to get around all of the schools in the area for which she is not the electorate MP to actually talk to the schools, talk to them to understand what the issues are at the coalface.

I have 33 schools in my electorate, and there are four issues that are usually pretty much the main issues that are raised with me whenever I go to visit them. They are the needs of special-needs children and the resources that are needed and the lack of support workers; the enormous weight of administration that schools were put under and teachers were put under when national standards were introduced; the despair that a lot of teachers and principals felt about the inability to focus on what was really important, which was the national curriculum; and the lack of listening by the previous Government to what teachers, to what schools, to what principals were trying to say. And those things are absolutely critical.

Here we have a member who has literally come from the coalface of education—a principal, a teacher, an educationalist who understands what those issues are and what they mean. And while that bill that the previous speaker just trashed actually had parts of it that were removed because there is a much bigger piece of work going on around the education conversation and how the national curriculum and the National Education and Learning Priorities are actually expressed, one of those critical issues—in fact, several of those critical issues that I just mentioned—is touched on in this bill, and that is the listening. The listening to the teachers, the listening to the principals, the listening to the schools, the listening to the children is all reflected in that incredibly important consultation, which the member dismissed as being an extra layer of bureaucracy. Well, if listening to children is described as a layer of bureaucracy, then goodness knows what kind of discussions go on over that side of the House in terms of what is actually really important in this country.

They’re listening to support workers. They’re listening to the disability community. Those are the things that have been added into this bill in the select committee, and they are incredibly important. And those were backed up by submissions, submissions from the Children’s Commissioner, which pleaded, and pleaded with the previous Government, to listen to the voices of children and young people—absolutely pleaded. Well, this Government is listening to the voices of the support workers and the disability community. Those are the three things that I really want to focus on today in this bill and to really commend Jan Tinetti for the work that she’s done and is just beginning in a member’s bill which is obviously reflective of a wider Government agenda.

This bill obviously fits into a wider agenda, but this is her work, it comes from the coalface, and it’s about listening to the voices of young people, because as the Children’s Commissioner has said over and over again, if you don’t listen to those voices, then you’re not providing an education system that reflects what those young people need and want and will respond to. Also, listening to those support workers who work with children, particularly children with disabilities, is important. Don’t diminish it—don’t diminish it. You know, I respect that member, but don’t diminish listening to the voices of the communities.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to make a contribution on this bill. Minister Hipkins came down to the House today and he said that he wasn’t prepared to take a call but he couldn’t help himself, that he really needed to have his say—and I’m glad that he did. I’m really pleased that he did because it gives us now the chance to compare and contrast his speech at the first reading to his speech at the third reading. They are very different speeches and the reason for that is most of what he said in the first speech is completely redundant, and the reason for that is the bill has been completely gutted. It’s a shell of its former self. In fact, most of the comments made at first reading, and indeed at second reading, are completely redundant at this point, because the bill is, as my colleague Nicola Willis said, really just a few short phrases. Most of the bill has actually been thrown out.

Minister Hipkins went on to say that many of those things that have been taken out of the bill will be deferred. The question then remains: why are we not deferring the whole bill? Why are we not having this conversation in 12 to 18 months, when all of the education conversations have been had and decisions have been made? That’s the question. We are arguing that we are wasting our time at select committee, we’re wasting this House’s time, because the issue is timing. There may have been some good things in this bill. In fact, there may be some very good things that we need to change in the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs) in 12 to 18 months.

I’ll tell this House why we’re not getting rid of this bill, why we’re not tossing it out. It’s because they already had to do that with the Education (Protecting Teacher Title) Amendment Bill. How embarrassing would it be to then have to throw this one out as well? Because they’re too embarrassed to have two of their members’ bills in the education space withdrawn because they are, frankly, appalling, we are now in a position where we have to debate this shell of a bill.

It all comes down to timing, and I have to say—and my other colleagues have done this at this stage of the speech—congratulations to the proponent of the bill and what a wonderful job she’s done. But, actually, do you know what? I feel a little bit sorry for her. Having this bill drawn at this particular time must have been actually really gutting, because that member well knew, and knows, that this couldn’t have been worse timing. We’ve got 16 reviews under way—millions of dollars being spent—and she knew that it was a terrible time because she had to gut four of the seven clauses, which is more than 50 percent of the bill—cross it out and throw it away, leaving just a few points about consultation, which are already enshrined and don’t need to be there.

Frankly, it’s embarrassing, and what I would say to this Government is just let it go—let it go. We can do this again in 12 to 18 months, after the conversations have been had, after things have been changed, when, actually, we can have a really good, grunty conversation around our overarching education vision document. But this, frankly, is an appalling piece of legislation that really is inconsequential and doesn’t do anything, as much as the members across the House like to try and say that it does. But I would say today: let it go; let’s do this all again in 12 to 18 months when we can actually make some decent changes. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I, for one, am very, very pleased to rise in support of this bill, the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill in the name of my colleague Jan Tinetti, and I congratulate you, Jan Tinetti. You are the first of our “class of ’17” to shepherd a bill right through the House, and how appropriate that it is Jan Tinetti who has forwarded this bill through the House—Jan Tinetti, who is passionate about education and passionate about children achieving in education; Jan, who has many years of teaching and being a principal, and this has been invaluable in seeing this bill go through the House. In fact, we have heard that she has been working at the coalface as a teacher and principal for over 30 years.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: She must know a few things.

We heard that earlier today. Yes, you are right, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni; she certainly does know a few things.

I would like to touch on something that a previous speaker, Simeon Brown, mentioned earlier, about this bill not really achieving much. One thing it achieves is changing how the Minister must consult. And we had Nicola Willis talking about something quite similar. Well, actually, I find that quite disheartening. But, you know, I’m not surprised that it comes from members opposite, who actually have no respect for the teaching profession and do not understand how a bill like this is important and affects teachers and the teaching profession.

We have heard that there are already provisions within legislation for the Minister to consult. Well, actually, when I think back to when the Hon Hekia Parata was Minister of Education, I don’t recall much consultation happening at all, actually. So that is a null and void point, actually. And when I’ve spoken to school principals about different pieces of legislation that we’re putting through the House, they’ve talked about the fact that, quite frankly, they didn’t feel that they were respected and they certainly said that they felt really bullied by that previous Minister. So, actually, I think this bill is going to go a long way to lifting the teaching profession.

I want to thank the Education and Workforce Committee for the work that’s gone into this bill. I would also like to thank the submitters, and we had 20 submitters come and submit to the select committee, and they were very, very favourable of this bill.

This bill amends the Education Act 1989 to enable statements about the diversity of education provision to be included in the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs). This bill is part of a wider, 360 approach that this Government has, to sit alongside the biggest reform that education will see in 30 years. It puts children back at the centre of learning. And I’ve sat back and I’ve reflected on the last 12 months of this Government, and one of the things that I’m particularly proud of is that we are putting children at the heart of a lot of policy that we are putting in place. And, quite frankly, it’s about time.

It requires the Minister to make reasonable efforts to consult with various stakeholders in the development of NELPs. They include many different groups: teachers, parents, Māori education groups, Pasifika education groups, disability groups. But, at the moment, the minimum that the Minister must consult with is stakeholders with the early childhood education (ECE) sector and compulsory school sector, and that gives just two perspectives. I’m not belittling those perspectives in any way, but the fact that he must consult with these other groups now is going to provide a much fuller and better ability to put together NELPs.

So we have all these different groups that are going to be consulted with, and they all have different experiences and knowledge and are able to contribute in a positive and meaningful way with this legislation. So these groups actually represent different and important communities and, actually, pockets of society who are often forgotten about and not heard from. They have knowledge of their own sectors and what is important and what is needed in their sectors. And it underlines the collaborative approach that we are taking to reform education in New Zealand. Consulting with these groups will ensure and help to ensure, actually, that there are no unintended consequences further down the track, and sometimes that can be what happens when consultation doesn’t happen properly—unintended consequences.

It’s important that people have their say because this is a democracy, and when people have their say, then they become invested, and we see that no one voice in this consultation process will be more important than another. So it’s an equitable opportunity for people. For example, when I think about the disability sector, it’s vitally important that they’re consulted with if we are to support their learners with disabilities to participate confidently in our education sector. With respect to Pasifika education organisations, we have a hugely fast-growing Pasifika community and population, so we must provide opportunities for consultation with them. And if Pasifika communities are to be reflected in NELPs over the next five to 10 years or long term, given the growing demographic, New Zealand will see the benefits of that consultation.

It is important to Government to consult, because we value the teaching profession and education sector and their knowledge. We want to ensure that everyone has the opportunity for input, and when I think about giving everyone the opportunity to input, I reflect on early childhood centres when you have a teacher who has a specific philosophy and several others within that team who have their own individual teaching philosophies. When you come together and you sit around and consult with each other, you create a centred philosophy, and that creates a very rich work environment that’s conducive to a fabulous curriculum, good relationships with parents, and good relationships with the children. So that’s just one example of how consultation can work really well.

We’re committed to ensuring that we have a future-focused, enduring, strong, world-leading education system. We are collaborative, and this legislation shows that we are collaborative and inclusive as well, and we value the input from communities and stakeholders. When we heard from, as I said before, around 20 submitters, the majority were in favour of this bill.

I was actually reassured when I heard from these submitters, not only as a member of the select committee but as a member of Government, that we are on the right track. I want to, if I may, refer to a submission from NZEI. They said, “[They] welcome this because it gives students voice and agency in the process, and recognises the critical contribution the knowledge and expertise the teaching profession will make to the priority-setting process.” “Recognise” and “expertise of the teaching profession” are vital words here, as far as I am concerned. We value teachers. We value their contribution. We trust them. This bill is about giving them the mana that they deserve.

Jan Tinetti mentioned in her contribution earlier about the disconnect that she felt when she was in the teaching profession, which is also something that I can relate to as an ECE teacher. And, prior to coming into Parliament, I was in the ECE sector for over 20 years, so I can relate to that. Gone are the days of children being seen and not heard. And it’s really simple. I want to give a really simple example of the kinds of outcomes that can be achieved if we listened to children and their voice. We often used to sit with children and ask them about the things they would like to learn at preschool, and they would come up with some weird and wonderful ideas. But I want to give you a really basic example of a child that wanted to do baking.

When you do baking with children they learn about hygiene, turn taking, socialising, language skills, critical thinking, maths, science, sharing prior knowledge, making connections between home and centre, and healthy eating. Now, that is a very simple example, but it shows just how rich the curriculum can be when children are consulted on how they want to learn and what they want to learn about.

In New Zealand it’s important we have a strong, equitable education system. This is fundamental to our children achieving success throughout their schooling life and beyond. And I just want to again congratulate you, Jan, and I highly recommend this bill to the House.

National opposes this legislation, and, from my perspective, nothing sums up this Government more than this piece of legislation: superficial, lack of depth, and putting things in the ballot that delay the larger policy discussions in education. National believes in a strong vision for our education system, whether that is through the previous National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs), which have been mandated in law and already have the ability to consult with a wide range of people, or whether it is a vision to ensure that we have equity, to ensure that young people are lifelong learners, to ensure that they get 21st century skills, and to ensure that they have basic knowledge. We support these goals, and it is our strong view that it was the last National Government that should be recognised for bringing NELPs into law. But let’s be absolutely clear about what this bill does: pretty much nothing.

The reality is it was a ballot-stuffer by Jan Tinetti. I do want to acknowledge her as a very hardworking member of Parliament, but no one expected this bill to be drawn out, and we know that. The reason we know that is that in the Education and Workforce Committee the bill was completely gutted. Not only was it superficial and lacking an amount of depth but also it was completely gutted in select committee, which, in my view, demonstrates that it was not a significant piece of work that was worthwhile enough even for members opposite to support it back to the House. So that’s the first point.

The second point that I want to make is that people pleaded—now, this was not a bunch of people that necessarily, traditionally, would be seen to support the National Party—to halt this bill. I want to read from the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) submission. They said, look, even if you believe that there needs to be some tweaks around the NELPs, which already requires consultation with a range of different groups, even if you really strongly believe in this, how about you wait for the more than 15 reviews that are under way, of which two are directly relevant to this piece of legislation? One of them is the Education Conversations of which part of that discussion—Jan Tinetti is a member of the Government and is helping to lead discussion—is around the common view of our education system and the vision around that.

Again, the Minister of Education talks about cross-party agreement, but instead of getting to the table and having these conversations so that the sector doesn’t have the ping-pong that they had before around education policy, this Government proceeds to push through a bill that would give Labour’s view of the world around our vision of our education system, and I do think—I want to say it in this House—that’s pretty arrogant, actually. And it’s not just me who’s argued for the deferral of this bill. It’s actually the PPTA who have said, and I want to quote their submission, “More importantly, however, there is currently underway a significant and comprehensive consultation about the ‘purpose and direction’ of education in … New Zealand over the next thirty years. … If it is the government’s intent to change this legislation, surely waiting until [the] thirty year plan has [been] reported would be the perfect time to introduce new ‘enduring objectives’ to the Act.”

That is from the PPTA themselves. They go on further to talk about the Tomorrow’s Schools review, which is a potentially wide-ranging, fundamental reform. Again, the issue that is raised here is: why is a Government that has all of these reviews under way—reviews that cut to the heart of that core vision around education—enabling a piece of legislation to be pushed through? Even the PPTA are arguing to wait for the Education Conversations and the 30-year plan to come back, and also to wait for Tomorrow’s Schools to come back, at the very least. So members on this side have not only questioned the substance of the bill, we’ve questioned the very heart of the education vision of the bill, but also we are alongside other submitters like the PPTA that have seriously questioned the timing of this bill.

The other point we want to make—and, again, it was made by a range of submitters—is around this need to be hugely prescriptive around who needs to be consulted around our education system. I want to make this point: actually, there are some major stakeholders, in my view, that have been left out of education policy consultation for far too long and they are called the thousands of parents out there that want to have a strong say in our education system. And yes, we do believe absolutely that there is a very important role for all of the stakeholder organisations, and I see that this legislation, of course, has put in national representative bodies—that’s great. They have a role. We don’t need to prescribe that in legislation. But what about the parents? What about their role in policy? Why are they left out of important conversations like this?

So National has a very simplistic view, which is that we believe the timing is wrong, we believe that this is a ballot-stuffer, and that, actually, they have just proceeded because they need to waste time—and that is symptomatic of a wider issue around the Government’s education agenda being stuck in a moment of time where principals and teachers are saying to me, “We are drowning in reviews.” When we have some core critical issues, like teacher shortages to deal with, like the collective bargaining, the Minister isn’t fronting up on these issues, and this bill is, again, symptomatic of a Government that is interested in too much hui and not enough dooey, from our perspective. But even if you are going to proceed and you are going to it ram through and accept that you won’t have the reviews of Tomorrow’s Schools and the Education Conversations back, then why would you need to prescribe every possible group in legislation who has to be consulted?

It’s this simple reason: it is that lack of trust of the Minister of Education and the Ministry of Education—that is why you’d need to do this. I want to tell members opposite what actually happens. There’s a key stakeholder list. There’s a key stakeholder list and whether it’s Tomorrow Schools or whether it’s the NELPs, a group of people get consulted as part of that. I don’t see why we need to prescribe in law every single possible eventuality. There is an amount of trust that you should have in the Ministry of Education and the Minister of Education.

So, finally, I just want to end with these comments around this legislation. We do believe that Jan Tinetti is a hard-working member, but the comment by Jo Luxton—that somehow this was an amazing day in the history of New Zealand, in terms of education—is totally and utterly false. I would argue that this bill is absolutely symptomatic of a superficial Government that is focused on reviews rather than depth of education policy, and that it wants to do everything possible to delay the hard-core conversations around things like teacher shortages and special education support. So it’s ballot-stuffing with Jan Tinetti’s bill that this Parliament is spending time on.

It’s not just me who believes this. There are a range of other stakeholders who are saying this to National members across the country. When we go in and out of schools, when we meet with boards of trustees, people are saying that this is symptomatic of a Government that is stuck in a process of reviews and is not dealing with the hard-core issues. So this bill was already a ballot-stuffer, but we’ve managed to water it down even more and ignore fundamental stakeholders—and this is the irony. Groups like the PPTA have come along to the Education and Workforce Committee and said, “Please defer this for the other bits of work that you have in train”, like Tomorrow’s Schools and Education Conversations. The irony is that they are writing many of these organisations to be consulted with into law but they’re ignoring them through the select committee process.

So our party believes in a depth of education policy and a work programme right now that addresses issues like teacher shortages. Our party is on the ground talking to teachers and principals and boards of trustees. Our party opposed this bill because it is a complete waste of Parliament’s time, and our party opposed this bill because of the arrogance of this Government to be pushing it through at a time when a range of stakeholders are saying this is the worst possible time. We support a vision for education that means that there is equity, that means that young people are life-long learners, and that means that they have access to core skills and knowledge. This will do nothing to help those children to improve in the future.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It’s a privilege to take the final call on this third reading of the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill. Now, I am confused, because it sounds to me like I must have been on a completely different select committee from some of the speakers on that side of the House, because what I heard from the submitters was not what they heard. But, before I go any further, I would like to commend the other side of the House on their colouring skills. We have seen from both Denise Lee and Nicola Willis a wonderfully coloured-in bill with yellow and orange highlighting. I suggest kindly that maybe instead of colouring the bills, they do some reading. When they do reading of the bills instead of colouring, they might actually discover that there’s a lot of good stuff in these bills, and I would like to talk a little bit about that today.

I did speak in the second reading of this bill, and the last time I spoke was when my colleague Jan Tinetti was in the chair during the committee of the whole House stage, when she was very eloquently answering some of the questions that were remaining on this member’s bill. I think it’s also important to point out that this is a member’s bill, and there seems to be a little bit more confusion from the other side of the House with regards to a member’s bill versus a bill that the Government brings to the House. This is a member’s bill, not a Government bill, and it’s been done by someone, as has been mentioned, who has been at the coalface for, I’ve heard, three decades—obviously, she started when she was 10 years old! Jan Tinetti has done a great job shepherding this bill through the House. She is a very passionate and staunch advocate for the education sector. As has been mentioned, we are tremendously proud of her. She is the very first of our wonderful class of 2017 members of Parliament, and for her to bring this through all stages into law is just a really wonderful moment, so I’d like to take a moment to say congratulations to Jan Tinetti.

So, as we have heard, this bill requires the Minister to widely consult on the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs). So that I don’t run out of time to speak about this bill, I will from now on refer to this particular bill as the NELPs bill. It puts children back to the centre of learning, and it’s giving them a say on the education that they deserve. This is where I get confused. So the other side of the House has been saying to us, “Look, we’ve heard from submitters. Push this bill back. You shouldn’t be doing this yet.” Well, actually, there was not one submitter that begged and pleaded with us to put this bill back. The Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) made some suggestions that I’ll come back to, but there was no pleading involved at all.

Actually, when you consider the fact that the Opposition is asking us to just put this on ice and wait for another 12 or 18 months to consider this again, they’re basically saying that the voice of children and young people doesn’t matter. They’re basically saying, “Forget about the input of young people. Let’s just forget about this bill, and we’ll come back on this later.” That is really, really harsh, because what this bill—clause 4 of this bill—does is it changes the current situation from where it is, where the Minister at the moment can consult with maybe some of the teachers or some of the parents, as is currently happening. But what we heard from our submitters—and 17 out of 20 submitters actually supported this—was that it’s important that there’s a much wider consultation requirement with stakeholders.

So that’s what this bill does: it sets out an extensive list of stakeholders that the Minister must consult with to get their views on the priorities of education. I’m catching Mr Simeon Brown’s eye, so I will explain a little bit to you. So “consulting widely” in the bill means that—if the member would read the bill, he would see that the bill actually says “consulting widely, including” and then the bill lists about 11 stakeholders in that process. “Including” doesn’t mean it’s an exhaustive list, and, in fact, parents are already consulted with now, so I think there has been some misunderstanding, unfortunately, by that member about this bill.

One of the other bodies that presented on this particular bill was the IHC, and they made it very clear in their submission that they believed that this bill needed to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability. They particularly requested of us that any statement is developed in consultation with and actively involves persons with disability, including children with disabilities, through their respective organisations. So as a result of that feedback in particular, this line was inserted into new section 1A(4A) in clause 4(5): to consult with “(g) national bodies representing the interests of the disability community”. That is just one example of why it is so important that we add stakeholders in the process of this consultation. As I said, again, it was important to the majority of the submitters to this bill—we had 17 out of 20 supporters and, in particular, as has been mentioned already, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and Judge Andrew Becroft. He outlined very clearly to us that it’s so important to get the voices of the children and the young people heard to ensure that in the process of the NELPs, they get all of the opportunities to reach their full potential.

Also, the National Council of Women, Te Kaunihera Wāhine o Aotearoa, told us that members have often expressed their support for better consultation. They had expressed their disappointment at the lack of authentic consultation. That is in line with what other members have touched on already: the fact that when these NELPs were first brought into law, comments of inadequate consultation were disregarded by the previous Government, and the then Education and Science Committee had been told that the direction of the New Zealand curriculum was being undermined and people weren’t being consulted on it. I’ll come back to that a bit later.

Now, coming back to that PPTA, both Simeon Brown and Nikki Kaye mentioned that they had asked us to defer this legislation. Well, it wasn’t as dramatic as that at all. The PPTA, in fact, completely supported this legislation. What they actually said is that they had a view—and this is verbatim—that the bill could be delayed. So nothing so dramatic, because they were talking, of course, about the significant review and the national conversations that are currently taking place.

In fact, the Children’s Commissioner—and this is what the members on the other side on our select committee obviously have missed in that process—responded to that particular question that was put to them by the Opposition, and the Children’s Commissioner said that he would proceed with the bill because the wording is wide enough to accommodate any changes. Also, looking at what the officials recommended—they said we shouldn’t delay the commencement, because they believe the first NELPs can be developed to inform new planning and reporting processes, taking into account the additional consultation requirements in the bill. So, on all accounts, everybody was agreeing that we should continue with this bill.

Now, we have several times heard the Opposition say that this bill has been slashed, that it does nothing, there’s nothing left, it’s just tinkering around the edges, and one has to really question the fact that they are opposing a bill that they believe isn’t really making much change. It really, to me, shows that they’re very confused, and Jan Tinetti already spoke about that before—that when they first introduced the NELPs they left a whole heap of gaps in that consultation process that we are tidying up in this bill. This bill is in fact fixing the errors from the Opposition.

So what I would like to put to you is that this Opposition, by their stance and by voting down this bill, is not supporting the children’s voices. They’re letting children down, because it is the children, of course, that would benefit from this particular legislation. And it seems really strange to me that in a process where you’re making decisions around education, where it is all about children, the National Party doesn’t want these children to have a voice in the decisions. It mystifies me absolutely.

So I’d like to add that what we’re doing with this bill in giving the children a voice in the process is absolutely in line with this Government’s commitment to improving the well-being of New Zealanders and their families. It is also consistent with the words of our brilliant leader, Jacinda Ardern, to make New Zealand the best place in the world to be a child. Obviously, the Opposition is not agreeing with that. The bill is also in line with the overdue investment into education—completely consistent with the Government’s positive plan. Lastly, I have to admit I did also use my highlighter for a message to the Opposition, and that is “Cheer up”.

At the end of it I would like to say I commend this bill to the House. It is wonderful legislation. Thank you, Jan Tinetti, thank you to the select committee, the Minister, and everybody involved with this legislation. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.