Education Amendment Bill (No 2)

I just want to speak briefly to two Supplementary Order Papers in my name that have been put forward for this bill. Supplementary Order Papers, of course, add additional amendments to those considered by the select committee. The first Supplementary Order Paper, Supplementary Order Paper 220, changes the planning and reporting requirements introduced by the education update legislation passed by the previous Government, and it moves the implementation date for those new provisions out by a further year. The new Government, or, certainly, the Labour Party component of the new Government, is quite supportive of the new planning and reporting requirements introduced by the previous Government. The reason for pushing out the implementation by a further year is that schools are currently quite engaged in the review of Tomorrow’s Schools and want to see how that’s all going to play out before they have to engage in further work around the new planning and reporting requirements, and that’s quite a reasonable thing. So, as I’ve indicated already, we support the new planning and reporting requirements. We’re just giving schools more time in the context of the Tomorrow’s Schools review and the other things that they’re dealing with at the moment. So that’s what one of the Supplementary Order Papers does.

The other Supplementary Order Paper, Supplementary Order Paper 224, which I expect there’ll be a little bit more discussion outside of the House on, is one that clarifies the rules around a university changing its name. I want to open by acknowledging the decision made by the Victoria University Council this week to move on from their debate around a name change, and I welcome that, but it has highlighted an area of the law where there is some ambiguity. The reason for the ambiguity is that the Education Act of 1989 does give a Minister the power to approve the name change of a university, but some of the legal scholars who were contesting that were arguing that because some of the universities were established by Acts of Parliament, in fact it would certainly be inconsistent for a Minister to make a decision to make that name change without reference back to Parliament, particularly as, ultimately, the Act that established the university would subsequently need to eventually be changed to reflect the new name of the university. It therefore is more consistent with other legislation and other parts of the Education Act to have the name change decided after an endorsement by the Parliament. That brings it into line with the process for disestablishing a university, for example, where a Minister cannot make the decision to disestablish a university without the endorsement of the Parliament. A similar provision will now apply to a university seeking a name change. So it creates more consistency, and it removes what was clearly going to be, had that debate continued, a point that was going to be contested by some of those involved in the debate.

I’m happy to answer questions on the remainder of the bill as drafted and as reported back from select committee as the debate progresses.

Oh, look, I’m pleased to take a call in this committee stage of the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). Firstly, can I just acknowledge that there are going to be a range of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in this debate, and I think it’s really fitting that that occurs. At the outset, though, can I acknowledge that there is one Supplementary Order Paper which, particularly, my colleague Nicola Willis will address and that National is supporting. Can I at this point recognise that there have been literally hundreds and thousands of people across New Zealand who opposed the name change for Victoria University and that the Minister’s worked very hard with my colleague Nicola Willis and Dr Shane Reti to, I think, get to a reasonable place on that. You know, it does have a huge impact to people in terms of their academic history but also this question of the impact economically, socially, and culturally as to what a name change can do for an institution. So I’ll let my colleague Nicola Willis particularly address that.

In terms of the committee stage of this bill, though, National has made it very clear we are deeply concerned about the ideological nature of a number of these changes. I’m going to address some of them and, in particular, a couple of amendments that I have up. One of them cuts to the heart of cohort entry, and let’s just remember and reflect on the history of this. What we know is that there is some research that shows the benefit of children starting with a cohort of other children in terms of their ability to form social relationships, but also the disruption that can occur for new-entrant teachers. That was sort of part of the theory about the original cohort entry policy that was progressed by the last National Government; I acknowledge the Hon Hekia Parata. National fought very strongly for that. We obviously had designed it in a way that we thought was reasonable. Again, it sort of played out quite throughout the select committee but also in the public that the maximum amount of time that a child could—and it would be a small group of kids, on the numbers—would be eight weeks, but, potentially, this is a few weeks or a couple of days.

We think—and, again, my colleagues have, I think, put this in a very eloquent way—it’s a fundamental right of parents to be able to not only ensure that their child starts school, potentially, on their fifth birthday if they want to, which is what the history of New Zealand has been, but also that we’re talking about their choice and we’re also talking about what may be days, in many situations, of difference. Instead, what happened was the Minister came out there with some pretty strong statements, I think. He hadn’t got Cabinet agreement at the time. It obviously had a cost to it, this policy, because, effectively, to go out there and say, well, we’re going to make these changes in terms of cohort entry does bring additional costs to the Crown because you’ve got a group of kids that are more likely to be in early learning. So the process was pretty shabby.

Then what we’ve ended up with, in my view, is intensely ideological. Now, I do argue that maybe, if you are going to get to the point where you say OK, you can’t be under five years old, it does make sense to have more cohort entries, but, regardless, National stands firm on the principle that it’s not going to work for every child but, actually, it is the fundamental right of parents to enable their child, if they want to, to start a little bit earlier, and that might make sense for that particular child.

This bill removes that ability for a group of parents who have always known that in New Zealand they’re able to have their child start at the age of five—that will be taken away from them. Again, I don’t have time to go through all of the other areas, but we’ve got a lot of time in this committee of the whole House stage of the debate because I know that the member in the chair is very generous in terms of calls, particularly when we’ve got so many Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) and so much ground to cover.

You know, I’ll just briefly touch on communities of online learning. I’ve got an amendment in the mix here. Again, this is a Government that talks about the next generation, but a core area that would provide distance learning for a group of young people in isolated communities, who are disadvantaged, are having something ripped away from them on the grounds of pure ideology, and National thinks that’s wrong.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to address some remarks to clause 13 in Part 1 of the Education Amendment Bill (No 2), which go to where the bill ensures—and to clarify and to, I suppose, try and move away from the highly emotive and inflammatory language that is being used by the Opposition; to try and inject some sensibleness into the debate—that the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand’s decisions on matters relating to the teaching profession are made within the context of Government policy. As the bill went to the Education and Workforce Committee, the phraseology was where the Minister was able to issue a Government policy direction to the Education Council, as it was then known, regarding one or more of its functions as set out in section 382(1) of the Education Act 1989. So, essentially, that means that the Minister may develop and publish a statement at any time, including when responding to a particular—now known as the—Teaching Council decision.

I note that in the second reading speeches last night, the Hon Nikki Kaye referred to—I think she used the phrase “State control” with regard to this part of the bill, and I just wanted to clarify this and talk about the actual discussion in select committee on this and what the officials said to us about this. What we were told was that in relation to concern that Government policy direction would undermine the then Education—now Teaching—Council’s independence, officials considered that the council’s independence is safeguarded by the requirement that it, quote, “ ‘must have regard to’ a Government policy direction, as opposed to being required to give effect to it.”

This is one of those times in the House and for the people listening at home when words really do matter, and they are technical phrases but they really do matter in the way that legislation is written. We’ve got expert advice from the ministry, but also from the Parliamentary Counsel Office, who are independent, who pay particular regard to the phraseology. What this means is that this allows the Teaching Council to continue to make its own considered, independent decisions. Now, I’ve said those words slowly for the benefit of the Opposition, who used the phrase “State control” last night, which I thought, you know—it’s important to have considered debate, to call things out when they need to be called out, but if you’re just making it up then let’s have a debate about it. That’s what the committee of the whole House stage is about. So the officials went on to say to us that the distinction between—

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. I just want to seek a bit of clarity. I heard the words referred to me that I was making something up. Well, I don’t believe that a member should be able to say that, and I would have thought the appropriate thing to do is withdraw and apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member—I didn’t actually hear that.

Speaking to the point of order, Madam Chair, I think I used the phrase “if” the member was making it up, and that this is the time to have a debate about it.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Let’s carry on, shall we? The Hon Clare Curran.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So the distinction—I think it’s important. For members that are new in the House, it’s important to pay attention to this, and for those that aren’t, then I’m sure they’ve had these debates many, many times in the House, but there is a real distinction between the phrases “having regard to” and “giving effect to”, which is a well-established set of phrases in law. The statutory requirement “to give effect to” means that the decision maker must give consideration to the requirement but determine the weight that it will give to their requirement, whereas “having regard to” requires the decision maker to give genuine consideration to the matter, but the decision maker is also free to come to the conclusion that other factors outweigh the thing that he or she must have regard to. I think this is a very important distinction, and while this particular measure, the statement of Government policy, is a way for the Government to influence the work of the Teaching Council in order to protect the public interest in the council’s work—and the Minister said this in the second reading speech yesterday—by ensuring that Teaching Council decisions are made within the context of Government policy. Which is what the public would expect us to do, for goodness’ sake—that is, without requiring that the council’s decisions support or give effect to Government policy—a really important distinction. I hope that’s cleared that up for the Opposition on the other side of the House, and let’s hope we hear no more phraseology such as “State control” tonight.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to use my call today to speak to an amendment in the name of Nikki Kaye which we are about to table—just to let you know that it’s not on there now but we are about to table it, if that’s OK? It’s on its way down—or, if not, I can just talk generally. I’m going to carry on.

The amendment that I’m tabling is in the name of Nikki Kaye, and it prevents the amendment to section 5 to 5B of the Education Act 1989, which would change the requirements of cohort entry so that children can only start after they’ve turned five. The upshot of this change is that, potentially, thousands of children would start school after their fifth birthday, and we on this side of the House are of the opinion that this is changing—well, it is—the starting age of New Zealand children by stealth, from five to, potentially, older than five.

As we spoke of yesterday, it is our opinion that this limits the choice that parents have. The choice that they make to send their child to school in a cohort entry when they are younger than five could be for many reasons. That could be because the early childhood education (ECE) fees are crippling on them, that they need to return to work. The mother or father might need to return to work; perhaps they have other children in school or perhaps this child is just ready to start school, as they are in so many cases, and as, in fact, my child was when he was four. It could be a combination of many issues.

But when we made the changes to introducing cohort entry, we actually backed parents and families to make the choice for their children as to when they were ready to start school. Could I just make the point, and this is the point that I want to make to the Minister, that we already trust parents and families to make a decision around the starting age of their child up to the age of six. So we put that decision in the hands of parents because we trust them and we back them to make the right decision.

The changes that the Government are making would restrict, obviously, any child starting a few weeks earlier than their fifth birthday. So, effectively, what we’re saying to parents is “Hey, as soon as your child hits five, we trust you. We back you to make that decision, but a few weeks prior to five, well, actually, we know best. We don’t trust you. All of those reasons you might have, whether it be financial or that you believe your child is ready—we don’t trust you.” We’re talking about a number of weeks. We’re talking here about a number of weeks, and we’re not trusting parents to make that choice in this current bill in its current form. Yet as soon as they turn 5, no problem at all. There seems to be a real disconnect there. Suddenly, at five, we’re trusting parents where prior to that we’re not. I would like the Minister to speak to that.

I went back to the Minister’s contribution last night to find out what his reasons were for this. I looked at his speech, and he talked about the 2015 Advisory Group on Early Learning; where they said that anything younger than five is too early to start. That was the main reasoning that he gave in his speech last night—it wasn’t anything else. So I went and I read the report—the whole report—and I found the part that the Minister was referring to when he talks about the advisory group not wanting that. They do say in here that they’re adamant that any downward push on the school starting age is undesirable. However, that is actually in quite a broader context, because, if you read the report, it says that they are wholly in favour of cohort entry. Then they make the interesting point that, actually, schools already have the choice, should they want to, to use Te Whāriki as a tool, rather than the New Zealand Curriculum. So what they’re basically saying here is, actually, there’s room to mitigate any risk that a school thinks they might have of kids starting younger than five by using a different curriculum—a curriculum that we use in ECE.

So there is that ability to mitigate any issues that the Minister might have by allowing schools to go “Hey look, we’ve got this reception class of new entrant kids. We’re going to use Te Whāriki rather than the New Zealand Curriculum.” And I want to put that to the Minister. I want to say to the Minister that we’re trusting parents from the age of five to make their own decision, and yet slightly younger than five, we’re saying to them “Actually, the Government knows best.” But I would argue with the Minister—and I’d like him to respond to this—that actually there is the room in the curriculum to use a different curriculum for schools to mitigate any potential issues that the Minister or even the school might have. I just want to say to the Minister: why can’t we have a compromise here where we allow parents to make that choice? We let schools use that different curriculum to mitigate any potential risks that they feel they might have, and put the decision back with parents.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for a chance to speak in this committee of the whole House stage on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). I’m going to be referring to the enabling part of the bill, where the Minister can issue a direction relating to the Teaching Council and requiring the council to consult the Minister prior to making changes to teacher qualification requirements or registration criteria, otherwise known as, on one hand or the other, the ironic part of the bill; we debated a bill prior to this which enabled so-called greater independence and on this hand, we’re taking it away.

What happened in the impact statement for this bill was a defining of the Teaching Council role. It said that the council has significant influence over the quality of teaching and the safety of children and young people in schools and early childhood centres, and the supply and diversity of the teaching workforce. So that’s quite a gamut of responsibility—very strong territory, indeed, for a body to have oversight in the education system. But the impact statement went on to state that there is no evidence about the extent of any issues that this bill seeks to fix—namely, giving some of that ministerial direction and power.

If you think that that’s something that we here on this side of the House are using for our own purposes, let’s have a look at what two prominent unions said about this part of the bill. NZEI, in their submission, said “In our view, the new powers given to the Minister in new section 382A undermine the independence of the Council.”—can’t get any more clear than that. How about the Post Primary Teachers’ Association? The bill “actually undermines the Teaching Council’s independent status.” So under that auspice, we went on to debate the bill in committee and look at the context for which the Minister was doing what he clearly wanted to do.

Here’s where we’ve landed: the bill doesn’t protect the Teaching Council; it patronises it. That’s how we feel on this side of the House. So, Mr Minister, where’s the trust in the Teaching Council to do what they need to do, especially given that so many of your colleagues spoke vigorously in the prior education bill around needing to protect that independence of the Teaching Council? Mr Minister, why didn’t you include this flagrant use of your powers in the original Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill? I think that’s a very valid question to ask. Why did you have to throw it in a hodgepodge bill such as this, covering so many different topics in a very dismantled and disjointed way?

I want to speak to an amendment in my name, which inserts a new clause 13A, amending section 385 of the principal Act, and, after section 385(2), inserts the words “(3) In the event the Minister has issued a statement of Government policy”—and this is what I was referring to earlier—“relating to 1 or more of the Teaching Council’s functions, the annual report, as outlined in the above subsection (2), must include”—and here’s where the rubber hits the road—“a summary of how this statement has impacted on the independence of the Teaching Council, its operations, and its ability to fulfil its core functions.”

Now, the reason why I think that this is a very valid amendment, and something that—if you look at the core of what both sides of the House have been arguing in terms of protecting the Teaching Council and independence and the like—ensures that the Teaching Council will have the ability to report on any Government policy statement (GPS) issued by the Minister and how it’s impacted on the organisation’s independence and ability to fulfil its core functions. Why? Because it’s important that the council be transparent about how these GPS statements impact on them as the Teaching Council, especially given that the proposal conflicts with the previous Government legislation that sought to strengthen the organisation’s independence. As I said before, giving independence on the one hand and, in this bill, taking it away—a real dichotomy.

So if the House is able to accept this amendment, what it will essentially be doing is improving the Teaching Council’s ability—and this is backed up by two prominent unions—to demonstrate their ongoing independence. That’s what they want; that’s what’s been argued for in this House. So give them the capacity to produce a report where they can prove that despite the capacity for a ministerial statement, they still have that independence. Whenever a Minister issues a GPS, this would be triggered. This amendment would trigger a report, and that independence can be plain and clear and simple for all to see.

When we look at who would be most interested in the Teaching Council’s work and body of issues, you’re looking at MPs, at the Government as a whole, teachers, and families. They need to understand what the impact of a GPS is on the Teaching Council. This is what this particular amendment would trigger. In regard to MPs and their interest in the Teaching Council through the annual review process, we could examine this report on the independence of the Teaching Council.

I’m just going to finish on one note, which I have alluded to before but I want to put it just a different way. It is really interesting for us as legislators to look at one bill and then this—one which increases independence on one hand and one which takes it away on the other.

It is ironic and a dichotomy, and I’d like to argue that this particular amendment would go a small way towards demonstrating and proving that the Teaching Council can have and demonstrate and report its ongoing independence.

So, with that, I commend to the House the amendment in my name, inserting a new clause 13A, and I do hope that that will be met with support. It’s the least we can do after having to handle an ironic situation. Thank you.

I’ll just respond to three groups of issues that have been raised so far. The first is around cohort entry and some concerns that have been raised around, first of all, the removal of the right for a child to start school on their fifth birthday. In fact, that right was removed with the introduction of cohort entry, because any school that adopted a cohort entry would, effectively, force a parent to enrol their child either before their fifth birthday or after their fifth birthday. It would remove the right of that child under the existing law, for schools that have adopted the cohort—that right to enrol on or the day after their fifth birthday has already been removed. That was a decision made by the previous Government.

I’d point out that cohort entry is voluntary for schools; so far, fewer than 100 schools have taken up the opportunity to do that. Most countries, of course, have got a school-starting age of six. Actually, for New Zealand schools, the starting age of five—of course, our compulsory starting age is six, but our optional starting age, which is the starting age that most kids in New Zealand start school, is actually among the lower of the countries that we would compare ourselves to. If there was huge resistance to this, I think it would have been evident in the submissions; in fact, the analysis that I have seen from the select committee’s deliberations is that there were four submitters on this particular clause, and three of them submitted the changes that were being put forward by the Government. So we are actually going back and implementing the advice that was presented to the last Government. There’s nothing particularly ideological about that. The advice and the evidence were presented to the last Government and we are implementing it as it was presented to the last Government.

Personally, I’m relatively ambivalent about the issue around cohorts; I think that is a decision that schools can make. I think that most of the arguments put forward by the then Government and now Opposition have been around the convenience to parents and concerns around parents, rather than what is best for the child, and so my simple request to schools when they’re considering whether to introduce a cohort entry policy is to consider what is best for the children in their area.

The repeal of communities of online learning: the Hon Nikki Kaye said that the Government is ripping something away from students in rural areas and from home-schooled students. We can’t rip something away if it was never introduced. Communities of online learning (COOLs) have never been introduced. They were not coming into effect until the end of this year, so you cannot actually take something away that hasn’t ever actually arrived. What we are doing is preventing something from being introduced that has not been introduced already.

In terms of the substance of the charge, though—that we’re taking something away from kids who are going to small schools in rural areas—there is nothing in removing COOLs provisions that stops them from accessing online learning. What this does do is stop them from enrolling directly with an online learning provider instead of going to their small local school. Their small local school can access a range of online learning opportunities, and nothing in this bill that we are introducing limits that in any way. The same thing applies to those who are home schooled. Those who are home schooled cannot access online learning at the moment. Nothing in this bill limits that.

What it does do, though, is stop a group of online schools from being established that could be used to off-ramp the most vulnerable kids in our school communities, and that is the overwhelming feedback that the last Government got when they introduced these clauses, and they completely ignored it. We have listened to that feedback, and, frankly, I am not going to put up with a system where kids with additional learning needs or who are a little bit difficult to educate are simply offloaded by schools and told to go and enrol with an online learning provider. That is the risk of allowing these provisions to go forward, and we’re not going to allow that to happen.

The final group of issues that have been raised, around the independence of the Teaching Council—now, there’s a huge irony in the Opposition now being staunch defenders of the independence of the Teaching Council, given that, under the law they passed, every member—every member—of that council was appointed by the Minister. Every single one of them was appointed by the Minister. So we have a choice here between saying that the council should actually be reflective of the profession and elected by the profession but have to have regard to Government policy when it makes significant decisions about the statutory functions it’s exercising, and leaving with them the ultimate judgment about that. So they have to have regard to it; they don’t have to follow the directions of Government but they have to have regard to Government policy—or the previous Government’s regime, which said that the Government would control the council completely by appointing every single member of it. I think our position significantly enhances the independence of the council.

With regard to the Supplementary Order Papers being proposed by the Opposition, supposedly to enhance the independence of the council by, for example, allowing them to criticise Government policy—the law is very clear now; they can do that now. In fact, that was one of the amendments that the then Labour - New Zealand First - Green Opposition argued for when this law change was first introduced by the Hon Hekia Parata. It was not in the law originally; it was something we argued for and, with full credit to Hekia Parata, she inserted that into the law and that was a good development. It gives them the guarantee now that they can speak out and criticise Government policy, and that’s a very good thing. Why was this not in the original Teaching Council legislation that the Government passed? That was simply because the Teaching Council legislation that we passed was already introduced prior to the election. It was introduced as a member’s bill and adopted by the Government when the Government changed. So we’ve now had the opportunity to do further work on that. This is a relatively sensible provision and one that, actually, I think a future National Government, if we ever have one—it’s not looking very likely at the moment, but if we ever did, I’m sure that they would want to make use of those provisions as well.

Just with regard to the Supplementary Order Papers being put forward on cohort entry, the Government will not support those Supplementary Order Papers put forward by the Opposition because they largely contradict the intention of the bill, and it’s clear that we wouldn’t support that, because it undoes what the purpose of the bill actually is.

Firstly, can I just start, for those New Zealanders who are watching question time, with the quite extraordinary statement that we just had by the Minister: “if we ever have one”—in terms of a National Government. In terms of a Government that has been in power for 18 months—a year and a half—we already have a Minister saying there may never be another National Government. That is extraordinary arrogance, and it represents, in my view, how far existing Ministers have got in terms of their egos, and I would encourage all New Zealanders to replay that clip to understand the extraordinary arrogance.

Now, just in terms of the substance of what the Minister was actually talking about, let’s go to the issue of independence of the teaching profession. I’m not going to quote myself or my colleagues on this issue; I’m going to quote back to the Minister people who have hardly necessarily been seen as bastions of the centre-right. I’m going to quote for you the submissions by the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) and NZEI. Here we go: “There’s a dangerous lack of specificity.”, “We’ve got low trust by this Government.”, “We’ve got the Government putting training wheels on the profession.” So for the Minister to stand there and somehow assume that there’s nothing going on here in terms of independence, but have the PPTA and NZEI expressing extreme concern about the fact that he’s put this other bill through that indicates there’s going to be some high trust and independence, and then to throw in something like this whereby there is excessive State control—and while I’m there, can I just deal with the previous speech by Clare Curran, where she indicated that I was somehow making stuff up when it comes to this bill.

Well, I’ll tell you what I’m not making up. Here’s what I’m not making up: I’m getting emails and texts from people at paid union meetings, and the Minister’s getting the same messages that I’m getting, whereby they’re saying, “We’re really disappointed with the many promises that Labour gave us, not the least of which was around pay and workload but a whole lot of other broken promises.” Then, also, the nerve of the party that said they were going to stand up for the profession and give independence, and then they put through a bill that says, “By the way, we want to completely control you.” So I’ll tell you what: we’re quite happy to stand in this House and repeat back to members the submissions by the PPTA, of which they represent thousands and thousands of teachers, whereby the PPTA said, “Furthermore, we believe that changing the Act undermines the Teaching Council’s independent status.” So those are the words of the PPTA, not the National Party, and so we won’t take any lectures on this side of the House about what this bill is actually doing for the profession.

The other issue that I do want to cover is this issue of cohort entry. I want to make it absolutely and very clear, the reality is that it has been the case in New Zealand that many parents have wanted their children to start on their fifth birthday. The whole reason that we previously designed the cohort entry in the way that we did was to preserve that ability for those schools—and, of course, it is those schools that adopt cohort entry—to enable those parents to have the ability for their child to sit on that side of the ledger. We stand by that, and we think that it is intense ideology in terms of what we’ve seen in this bill. I’ve acknowledged previously that there are some aspects that make sense, but we do think that what this cuts to the heart of—and we see it in many other areas of Government policy at the moment—is backing working parents and enabling those parents to be able to do what’s right for their families and trusting parents to make that decision.

Just to make a brief comment in the last 37 seconds of my contribution, although I think I might stand again, we do certainly and we are putting up provisions around the independence of the council, and I want to give you a bit of broader public policy on this. It is correct that National previously stood for a competency-based body for the Teaching Council. The Government, obviously, put through legislation that moved towards a model that was more about elected representatives. Again, our major concern with this is that there are situations where the profession does want to stand up and have a different view from the Government. So the question that I have for the Minister is: what does it actually mean when we talk about “must have regard to”? We know that the bill has been improved in terms of having a statement to the House which gives greater transparency about that Government policy and exactly what this council must now do as a result of it, but we do think it is reasonable—and that’s why we’ve got a Supplementary Order Paper tabled here in the House today—to actually be very specific about where there may be a disagreement.

That’s important, actually, because the reality is, whether it’s in our Education Committee, whether we’re out in public meetings, that we are having some pretty significant debates, actually, at the moment about the employment of teachers and principals, and National’s concern is not just about this bill; we’re concerned about this bill combined with, potentially, some of the proposals that are up in terms of Tomorrow’s Schools around the employment of the profession, where you may have officials who, in the future, are able to tell teachers where to go, where they’re able to put principals on five-year contracts. What exactly does this legislation mean in the context of what could be very significant changes in the employment relationships of principals and teachers? I would love the Minister to give us a view on that, because I think it does matter. It does matter in the broader picture if I’m a person who’s about to turn up for teacher training and I want to know who my employer will be in the future, and I’ll also want to know whether I am going to be subject to a National or Labour Minister in the future, around policy, because that matters in terms of my autonomy. It matters in terms of, potentially, my integrity if I completely disagree with the policy of a future Government. So I think the Minister does need to explain how he would see, potentially, proposals that are on the table—you know, it is an independent task force—around something like Tomorrow’s Schools. What does this mean in the context of that?

The other thing that I do want to acknowledge as well in committee is that there is a fear—and I think it was expressed pretty eloquently by NZEI and the PPTA. I think it was Paul Goulter who said “Look, the concern is that this really does undermine the independence of the profession.” So I guess this question is actually what does this mean, if a Government comes out with policy—they have regard to it, they disagree; you know, they say “Actually, look, we don’t agree with you that we now need to have all teachers having a postgraduate qualification.” What actually will occur as a result of that? What we know as a result of this bill is there’s going to be a report in Parliament.

I think that there is real concern about this soft hand of the Government coming down on the profession. Look, people are raising the irony of this, Minister. Surely the Minister can understand this. I mean, this was a Minister that spent many, many speeches in Parliament rallying against my colleague the Hon Hekia Parata on issues of the independence of the profession. So I do have a legitimate question for the Minister: where did this come from—where did this come from? It wasn’t in the Labour Party manifesto. He says “Look, it wasn’t in Jan Tinetti’s bill because her bill came through prior to the election.” Was this something that the Minister dreamed up or are there some reports that we’re going to find at a later stage that indicate there was some big driver within the Public Service, in the Ministry of Education—they’re very, very concerned about, you know, the Education Council, now the Teaching Council, going off and doing things that are contrary to Government policy. I think we do deserve to know that, because this is a bill that is affecting tens of thousands of people.

You know, the final thing that I just want to end with is this stuff is real. At the moment you’ve got a situation, and I know the Minister just stands up and tries to blame the previous National Government, but what I can say to you is the emails that are coming into my in-box—we’ve got strikes coming down the line, we’ve got people saying to me that they expected a lot more on pay and workload, and now we have things like excessive control, potentially, of the profession. People are saying that they don’t believe this is what they voted for with the phrase “Let’s do this.” They believe that actually it’s time to potentially “Let’s change this.”

I just restate, for the member, that the bill does nothing around teacher pay, so that’s an irrelevant part of the debate.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: But it is relevant because these conversations are going on at paid union meetings.

Well, I don’t think anyone’s talking about the Teaching Council at the paid union meetings; I think they’re largely talking about their pay. But they are talking about workload, and the activities of the Teaching Council do have an impact on teacher workload. So if the Government wanted to issue a policy statement, for example, that said that we want to reduce unnecessary compliance burden on teachers, including around things like teacher appraisal, for example, then I would expect that that is the sort of thing that the Teaching Council should have regard to. Now, they don’t have to follow the direction of the Government, but they do actually have to consider it. That’s all this does. It requires them to consider it. They don’t have to follow it but they have to consider it.

It’s really quite common sense. Why would they not consider it, in fact? You know, a future National Government comes in and says “This is our overall policy with regard to the teaching profession.”, why would they not want the Teaching Council to be considering that? It doesn’t give them any more power than us to direct the council. There is no power there to direct the council. It simply says that the council has to give regard to that when making its decision. So it’s not a hugely controversial thing, and particularly it gives the Government an ability—given that many of the issues around workload, for example, that are being raised through the current negotiating round, they’re actually outside of the Government’s control. They relate to decisions made by the Teaching Council or decisions made by school senior management. So the ability of the Government to say “Yeah, we hear you, and actually the Government’s policy is that schools and so on should be doing these things.”, that’s a perfectly sensible, normal thing for the Government to be able to say, and, like I said, it doesn’t bind the hands of the council in any way.

I rise to speak on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 224, and in doing so I think I’m going to change the tone of the debate in this House for a few minutes, because this is an SOP that National agrees with the Government on. This is an SOP that represents a step forward for New Zealand, and it reflects some recent events in our history, particularly here in Wellington, that I want to reflect on, because this SOP seeks to change the process by which a university can change its name. It ensures that in future if any university is to change its name, it will require a resolution in support from this Parliament. What’s in a name? Why do names matter? Why does this SOP matter? Well, we’ve come to reflect on that here in Wellington in recent months as Victoria University of Wellington has sought to change its name.

The identity and brand of Victoria University of Wellington has been 120 years in the making. It is contained in the name printed on tens of thousands of degree certificates and on CVs of graduates around the world and around this city. People have a relationship with their former university and that relationship is held in its name, and in the case of Victoria University of Wellington, the idea of changing that name to something else entirely represented for many, many people a step backwards, and a dangerous step. However, the university council proposed to change the name regardless of the views of its community.

It became clear that community members did not support that change. Students, graduates, staff took the opportunity to have their voices heard. More than 10,000 people signed a petition opposing it, 92 percent of student submitters opposed it, 81 percent of alumni submitters opposed it, staff members were divided on it, and online polls showed opposition running nine to one. And we in this House, many of us asked how could the council possibly proceed with a name change that so clearly lacked the backing of its community? Yet that proposal came forward to the Minister. I have previously commended the Minister for his decision to reject that name change and I commend him again in this House this afternoon.

But what it showed us was that the process is potentially flawed if a university can potentially threaten to take a Minister to court in these circumstances, can potentially threaten to judicially review a decision because of a lack of clarity in the law. What this SOP does, then, is make it abundantly clear that the process requires the support of Parliament. The history here, I think, will remember the petition of Hugh Rennie QC, who detailed the challenges in the current law, and we as a select committee heard that petition. We will remember the submissions of Sir Kenneth Keith, of Sir Geoffrey Palmer, and I also want to pay tribute to Gwynn Compton, who put together the petition on this matter.

So what this SOP does, I think, is it says that actually names do matter, because we as representatives in this House—in future, if a university wishes to change its name—will have to satisfy ourselves that we think that’s the right thing to happen. And I would venture that members of this House will feel similarly to how I did when my university sought to change its name, that that was something I felt should not proceed unless it had the support of the community, unless it could be demonstrated that it would bring significant benefit to that community. And I believe that members of this House are well placed to make those judgments in the future and therefore I think that the Supplementary Order Paper is a good step forward for this Parliament.

We have had, over the course of the debate about the name of Victoria University of Wellington, debate about all sorts of things, but I want to finally, in closing this contribution, say that, yes, names matter, but what also matters is the community of a university. Victoria University of Wellington is a great institution and I commend all of those who’ve been involved in this debate to come together in support of that institution so we can move forward. I call all of us to come together so that we can support that university and its future and that we can be clear that in future no other university will be able to change its name in this way. We have all learnt from this debate and good things have come of it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to return back to my previous contribution about cohort entry, because I do feel that I raised some questions that the Minister didn’t address and I want to hear further from him. But I want to pick up one thing in particular that the Minister said in his contribution directly after mine, when he attempted to respond to some of the points that I brought up. One of the things that he mentioned that struck a chord with me was that he said that the cohort entry changes—our argument—are best for parents but not best for children.

We heard this argued last night in the House by Tracey Martin, where she argued that parents, basically, aren’t making the choices that are good for their children; they’re essentially making choices that are good for them and potentially their finances but not in the interests of the child. And I think that the Minister in the chair made a very similar point. He said that arguments are all based around what parents want and not what is best for the child. We put up a really strong argument last night and I’m doing that again today. We back parents to make the best decision for their child. And that might be a financial decision, but this Government making that argument like they did last night and again today in the chair is putting a horrific amount of guilt back on parents, who make decisions. They might be financial decisions, but we back parents to make those decisions, and they might be financial, because they are making those decisions in the best interests of their family and their child. It might be that they need to go back to work. It might be that they need to avoid those early childhood education school fees, but it actually might be that they know that their child is also ready to start school, and we back them to make that choice.

What the Minister in the chair said is very similar to what the Hon Tracey Martin said last night, that basically for that period before a child is five and, in their opinion, not ready to go to school, they don’t back parents to make that choice. Yet they’re quite happy for the parents to make a choice any time from five to six based on anything, because they’re quite happy for that; those two things don’t marry up. I want the Minister to get up and actually answer the question: why doesn’t he back parents to make the choice for a few weeks prior to a child turning five to start school? Why does he back parents to make the decision from five to six but not for just a mere few weeks before they turn six?

Also, furthermore, I want the Minister to specifically answer the question: why doesn’t he look at the wider report that’s in recommendation 14 that he’s based his argument on and back schools to use not the New Zealand Curriculum but Te Whāriki to mitigate any potential problem that he might have? Schools have that ability. We want to hear from the Minister why he doesn’t back parents and why he said earlier that, you know, he believes that they might be making financial decisions and decisions that aren’t in the interests of their child. Why is it necessary for this Government to step in and tell parents what’s best for their children? Furthermore, why doesn’t he, as outlined in this report, back schools in that case to make that decision to use a different curriculum in a class—it might be a reception class for those new entrants? We’ve always said, on this side of the House, that we fully back parents to make that decision as to when to start their kid at school.

One of the other points that the Minister raised was that, you know, for schools that have picked up the cohort entry option, he basically said that now parents have got the choice either to start before five or after five but not on their fifth birthday. What I would argue is that now the only option that parents have got is after five. So they are furthermore limiting the choice. We’ve said over and over again that we back parents to make the right decision and we’ve always backed choice. We trust parents to know when their child should start school and we back schools to make the decision as to how to deal with those children who are starting before five, because they have the tools to do so. Thank you.

I just want to respond a wee bit around the work on cohort entry in a very, very short contribution. I spoke in my second reading speech about the work of the Advisory Group on Early Learning that was informing the previous Government, led by esteemed people such as Dr Joce Nuttall, Dame Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi—the most amazing people that I had the pleasure of being on that group with. In that group it was so evident from the peer-reviewed research evidence that came forward that starting school before five can be damaging to children. That is why we have made this decision.

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

Just before the adjournment, I was talking about the Advisory Group on Early Learning (AGEL) and the evidence that they presented to the then Government in 2015 where they suggested—or not just suggested but firmly suggested—from the evidence that they had brought forward that having children start school before the age of five could be quite detrimental to those children’s learning. They were quite in support of having a cohort entry and, as I’ve said, I know this because I was part of that group and was totally impressed with those wonderful women—and they were all women—who were a mixture of incredible academics but were also professionals from the sector. They very strongly asserted that it was not a good idea to have children starting before the age of five.

Now, I also happen to know that when the then Government introduced cohort entry and suggested that children could start in those few weeks before they turned five, the AGEL group actually sent a letter to the then Government strongly opposing such a move, and actually included their research, etc.—their evidence-based research. So to say that it is an ideological approach that this Government is taking is quite wrong, because this is based on evidence—the evidence and the research that was there.

We’ve heard here this evening our New Zealand First colleague, the Hon Tracey Martin, being quoted, so I thought that I too would quote her from her speech last night, where she said that we’re not trying to undo everything from the previous Government. In fact, cohort entry is something that we continue to agree with, like many of our schools. She said that we’re not trying to undo everything; just the stupid things, and that’s exactly what we’re trying to do here. This policy is not based on evidence, and therefore we’re actually trying to put the evidence into place.

We’ve also heard here this evening that we’re getting lots of emails and texts from different teachers, but I get lots of principals—lots of principals—who contact me and they’re—

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: You’ve got great principles.

That’s right. I happen to know quite a few, and I happen to know one—who does happen to be a National voter, but never mind—who texted me very recently, saying, “When is this cohort entry policy changing? Because my community have said to me they want cohort entry, but they don’t want children starting before the age of five.”

So it is something that is not being asked for widely from the sector. It is something that the sector understands that the evidence around that is that it is detrimental to children’s learning and children’s development. Therefore, I’m delighted that this bill and what we’re discussing here tonight is about putting that wrong right again. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Look, thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2), the second of the Minister of Education’s ideological bills being pushed through the Parliament in regards to making changes and really just repealing progress which was made under the previous National Government. I think the size of this bill really speaks to the size of the ideas which seem to have come out of this Government, because, really, there isn’t much progress happening. There’s lots of conversations, there’s lots of debates, and we’ve got the Tomorrow’s Schools debate taking place, but in terms of progress, there isn’t much.

So, anyway, I’d like to touch in my contribution in regards to the area around clause 9, which inserts after section 35C(g), a new paragraph (h), which provides that a private school, as part of the criteria for registration, must be “a physically and emotionally safe place for students.” Now, as we would all agree in this committee, that is something which we wish all schools to be—safe places for students—and it is something which is to be desired in our education system. However, there’s no definition in the Act as to what “a physically and emotionally safe place for students.” actually constitutes. There’s no guidance given to private schools as to what that might mean. What does physically safe and what does emotionally safe actually mean? I’d ask the Minister if he could take a call and actually explain what that means through a policy perspective from the Ministry of Education, so that private schools are able to actually understand what that will mean.

We all know that private schools have to comply with the health and safety legislation and they have to comply with a whole range of other policies and procedures prior to being able to be registered and to be able to maintain their registration. Safety is an important part of that.

I know that private schools have very extensive health and safety policies. I’m very close to Saint Kentigern College, which is just next door to my electorate office in the fantastic electorate of Pakuranga, and I know that they take the health and safety and the well-being of their students very, very seriously, not only because it’s the right thing to do but because as a private school, they know that if they don’t do that, the parents who send their children there can choose to send their children somewhere else. So if they were not to take it seriously, the parents who send their children there would very quickly be able to choose to send their children somewhere else. There’s King’s College and there’s other private schools across Auckland, and many of these parents actually drive miles to bring their children to Saint Kentigern College, or the children go on bus rides which go for miles to get there.

So we know that those students and those families are very mobile as to the choices that they could make, and so will make those decisions. So, yes, they already have a huge amount of compliance that they have to meet, but, secondly, the parents will make a choice and vote with their feet.

So I’ve got an amendment which proposes that after this new insertion is placed into the Education Amendment Bill (No 2), we include another section which says that the Ministry of Education must publish detailed definitions of physical and emotional safety by which the school will be deemed physically and emotionally safe. I think that amendment is a very sensible one. It actually adds something of quite solid value to what the Government is proposing here, and it gives some certainty and actual policy and procedure which can then be worked with from the schools’ perspective. So they’ll understand what is required, because I think the significant point here is that if a school does not comply, their registration is put at risk. That’s a pretty significant power, which is being taken under this legislation—that if they don’t put in place this policy to ensure that there’s the physical and emotional safety of the students, their registration can be put at risk.

Under the provisions here, they would be put on a one-year provisional registration, and they will have that one year in which they must update their policies. Now, we understand that one year is an opportunity for them to be able to do that, but what I’m asking the Minister to do is actually give these schools the ability to know and understand what the ministry and what this legislation is actually expecting of them—[Bell rung] Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Simeon Brown.

Thank you, Madam Chair, because I’ve got a second amendment that I’d like to speak to as well on this same topic. This—

💬 Dan Bidois: You’ve thought about it.

I have thought through seriously about this issue, and thank you, Mr Bidois. It’s a very—

💬 Marja Lubeck: Well, it would be helpful if you’d read the departmental report, as well.

Sorry, what was that?

💬 Marja Lubeck: Well, it would be helpful if you’d read the departmental report, as well—it saves a lot of questions.

Well, Marja Lubeck, you’re more than welcome to take a call and rebut the points that I’m making, but what I’m trying to do here is to actually provide, I think, quite a helpful suggestion. You know, people would like a bit of bipartisanship sometimes—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Can I—

—and you’re more than welcome—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order!

Marja Lubeck’s more than welcome—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Can I just check with the member, the amendment you’re now referring to is for Part 1 or Part 2?

Part 1.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): And it is the one—

Clause 9.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): OK, thank you.

That’s correct. And so that’s about making the Ministry of Education actually have to publish what is “physically and emotionally safe”—and I think that’s a very important part of it.

The other part is in regards to what we see around the transitional provisions which come under clause 14 which, again, is in Part 1, and these are in relation to the transitional provisions. My second tabled amendment, that I’d like to speak briefly to here, is about ensuring that a school is not placed on a provisional registration. I’d ask the Minister why he feels the need to put all of the private schools in New Zealand on to provisional registration for a year. Why does—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! It’s actually clause 24.

It’s under clause 14, new clause 24 of Schedule 1, Provisions relating to Education Amendment Act (No 2) 2018, transitional provisions.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No, you’re fine. Yeah, thank you.

Am I correct?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yeah, you are.

Thank you, thank you. So, as I was saying, these provisions relate to the transitional provisions. My question to the Minister is around why he feels the need to place every single private school, up and down the country, on to provisional status for six months in order for them to be able to put these policies in place; why does the Minister feel that that is the appropriate way to ensure that they update their policies? I have struggled to find the evidence that seems to have been the reason for this, to say that our private schools are unsafe. Yes, there’s been a couple of complaints; there’s been, I think, two which were referred to in the departmental report—two complaints. We’ve seen a couple of complaints and we know that there are many, many, many more complaints in our State schools. So I’d like to ask the question, why he feels the need to put all our private schools, which do an excellent job educating tens of thousands of students up and down our country every single day—and the Minister raises his eyebrows; do they not do an excellent job? Maybe he can answer that question. Maybe he doesn’t like private schools, maybe that’s part of the reason—I’m more than happy for the Minister to answer that question as well.

Why should Saint Kentigern College in my electorate, which does a fantastic job educating thousands of students, be placed on a provisional registration to ensure that they have policies around the physical and emotional safety of the students? Why does the Minister feel that that is required to ensure that the schools actually implement this new policy? In my view, that is, basically, using a very harsh mechanism for something which—yes, it’s important, but a very, very harsh mechanism to get the schools to update their policies. Is there, surely, not another way in which the Minister would be able to encourage the schools to update and actually just comply with the legislation? They comply with all manner of other legislation without needing their registration put at risk. Why doesn’t he trust the private schools to simply update their policies in line with the changes that are being made here?

So I’m very keen for the Minister to take a call and explain this, because our private schools in New Zealand do do a fantastic job educating many thousands of young people. They are an important part of our education system. On this side of the House, we stand up on behalf of the private schools and we thank them for the work that they do in New Zealand as an important sector in our society. I ask the Minister to get up and explain his position on this very important matter. Thank you.

Well, just before I call the Hon Minister, for clarity’s sake within the House, the tabled amendment in the name of Simeon Brown that says “clause 24” should read “clause 14”.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to make a few quick comments at this point. I’ll run through the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) and the Government’s position on those, just for the avoidance of doubt.

With regard to the comments that have just been raised, I think it’s important to note that these provisions around private schools simply bring them into line with State and the State integrated schools, and it goes no further than doing that. With regard to the definition of safety, for example, it is not defined for State and State integrated schools, but it has operated very successfully over a long period of time. Actually, the definition of students’ physical and emotional safety and so on needs to be considered in the context of which an issue may arise. This simply brings private schools into line with every other school in the country—State and State integrated schools, and the private schools support it. So I don’t think that there is a particularly big issue here.

I do want to correct a claim that’s just been made, suggesting that the bill puts existing private schools on to a provisional registration: it does not—and I think even an elementary reading of the bill makes that fundamentally quite clear.

With regard to the Supplementary Order Papers that have been tabled by the Opposition, in my earlier contributions I outlined the SOPs tabled by the Government and explained the rationale for those and what they do. Although, I should be clear that, actually, in speaking to them, I gave the impression that the extension of time for planning and reporting was only one year; that was inadvertent on my part. The extension of time is actually three years, and that’s clear for those who look at the Supplementary Order Paper.

But just to run through the Opposition Supplementary Order Papers: Supplementary Order Paper 231, in the name of Nicola Willis, to delete clause 13—the Government will not support that, because it, clearly, undermines the intent of the bill.

Supplementary Order Paper 232, put forward by Nicola Willis, suggesting that if the Teaching Council disagree with a Government policy statement that it should have to be tabled in the House. The threshold for those types of provisions—there are some provisions in law around tabling things in the House—it’s a very, very high one, and that would put this part of law well out of kilter with others. So the Government does not support that.

Denise Lee’s tabled amendment, which deals with stating: “In the event [that] the Minister has issued a statement of Government policy”, the report “must include a summary of how this statement has impacted on the independence of the Teaching Council, its operations, and its ability to fulfil its core functions”—that’s unnecessary because it can’t, by definition. It’s only a statement that the council has to have regard to, so therefore it does not infringe on its independence because it doesn’t, ultimately, have to follow it; it’s not a direction.

Nikki Kaye’s tabled amendment regarding the review by the Minister of Education around online learning—this is actually a legitimate point. I think Nikki Kaye is saying that we do need to do a lot more work around online learning; no question about that, I don’t think we need to put that in law in order to do that but I’m certainly happy to give the former Minister and the National Party spokesperson my undertaking that we will do that work. I know that she’s passionate about this, and if she wants to be involved in that I would certainly welcome her involvement in that. There is a lot more work to be done around online learning. Even if the communities of online learning provisions were not deleted, it’s clear that the work still needs to be done because it was not done in the way that last law was imposed. The last law, basically, set up a framework with a whole lot of blank space, so that work still needs to be done.

With regard to Simeon Brown’s provisions around clause 14—I think is the correct number of the clause—it’s unnecessary because, as I’ve indicated, I think he was working on the misunderstanding that the bill puts private schools on to provisional registration, when it does not do so.

With regard to his other tabled amendment, around clause 9 requiring the ministry to publish a detailed definition of physical and emotional safety, as I indicated, the ministry have been required to consider those issues with regard to State and State integrated schools for a very long time without the need for a very rigid definition of that. There’s no good reason why we would need to define that for private schools when we don’t define it in a prescriptive way for State and State integrated schools.

The final contribution: I do want to welcome the Opposition’s support and thank Nicola Willis for her contribution with regard to the proposed change of rules around the way a university name change will be considered in the future. As I indicated before, there is some ambiguity in the law around this and, therefore, while there is now no longer any current case because no university is asking for this at the moment—which is a very welcome development I have to say—it is important, I think, that for the future we clarify that law so that any applications in the future can be dealt with, and I’m pleased we’re able to do that on a bipartisan basis across the House.

I rise to speak on two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in my name—No. 231 and No. 232—that relate to the functions of the Teaching Council. It’s a shame that the Minister has already dismissed these SOPs having not yet heard my arguments for them. I am an optimistic person by nature and it’s my hope that, on listening to my arguments, the Minister of Education may reconsider his view.

Let’s first consider new section 382A, inserted by clause 13, in this amendment bill, and what it proposes to do for the Teaching Council, in order to understand why these SOPs might be necessary. We need to go back to remember how the Teaching Council came to be created in its current form, and that relates to a piece of legislation that the Minister brought into this House just a few months ago. It was a classic case of giving with one hand and taking with the other, because in introducing new rules for the way that the Teaching Council would be formed, the Minister said that this would be a great thing for autonomy, for the ability of the profession to have professional autonomy, and so, therefore, he said that those changes were necessary.

Now, what new section 382A does is directly take away that autonomy by, very clearly, stating that the Minister gets to issue a statement of Government policy as to how the Teaching Council performs its functions. The relevance of this was laid bare by the original wording in this bill, which was that it was a directive. Now, the semantics may have changed but the intent of this section is very clear: that this is—

💬 Hon Clare Curran: She clearly wasn’t listening to my earlier speech.

—the Minister’s lever for asserting control over the Teaching Council. Now, members opposite are interjecting and are questioning whether this is the case. I want to direct them to the departmental report, which is very clear. It says that of the “… two levers, the Minister’s ability to appoint [the] members of the board” was the stronger. It allowed “…the Minister to assess the collective skills [and] mix … to ensure that the Board [was] a cohesive body…”. Essentially, the departmental report there, Clare Curran, is saying that the old way the Teaching Council was formed was superior, but what it says also is that in making changes to the process for appointing the board, they had reduced the Government’s ability to—and I’m quoting—“protect the public interest in the work of the Council” through membership of the board.

So what you had here was officials saying to the Minister, “Look, your election-year policy in which you said to the teachers ‘I’m going to give you control by taking away all Government appointments. I’m going to allow these all to be directly elected positions.’ actually undermines the public interest, Minister, because what it does is it reduces your ability to protect the public interest by ensuring that this council actually operates in accordance with Government policy and in accordance with the wider functions of the education system.” So the poor officials clearly found themselves in a corner, saying “How are we going to save this body from actually getting in the way of what we’re trying to achieve elsewhere in the education system?”, and so they came up with this little halfway house called the Government policy statement. So what these SOPs that I’ve introduced do is challenge the Minister to put his actions where his mouth was before the election. He said he believed in teachers’ ability to control their own professional body and to be autonomous. Well, if that’s the case, he doesn’t need new section 382A to allow him to issue a statement of what the Government policy expects.

Then what I’ve done with SOP 232 is I’ve given the Minister a little “get out of jail free” clause. I accept that this bill has been through a select committee process and that it’s unlikely that at this stage the Minister will want to remove all of new section 382A, so what I’ve said instead is: if you’re really keen on the autonomy of teachers in these elected roles in this Teaching Council, then what you should be prepared to do is table in this House when they disagree with what’s in your Government policy directive. So this is a very simple amendment that would simply allow the Teaching Council to table in the House that it disagrees with the statement of Government policy. It is necessary because this is not a Government that has had, so far, a track record of openness or transparency, and this would ensure that where the Teaching Council feels it is being directed by the Minister in a way that does undermine his pre-election, high-handed statements, that would be made clear to all members of this House and, indeed, would be made clear to the public.

So I think that these two SOPs should be recommended. They’re consistent with what the Government says is its intention, and should be passed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I couldn’t resist that challenge from Simeon Brown—it was just too good to resist. All through this debate, we’ve had a lot of very passionate wording, and there’s nothing wrong with that, because that is great. We have to have a passionate debate at this stage of this bill, but it does also have to make sense, and what we heard from the Hon Nikki Kaye is that this side of the House is accused of acting in some kind of ideology. She uses the word “ideology”, and it has been used by other members of the Opposition, but at the same time, in the next sentence, she makes the statement that “National stands firm on these principles.” Now, if that doesn’t sound like some kind of ideology, then I don’t know how you describe ideology—“We stand firm on these principles.”

Another comment that struck me as rather inconsistent was the mention by a couple of the Opposition members now of “these two prominent unions”. Now, of course, they are absolutely correct, but it’s very rare that you hear them talking about unions in such a positive way. I hope it will continue, perhaps into the next piece of employment legislation we’re getting through. But I have to point out the inconsistency, because last night the chair of our Education and Workforce Committee, Parmjeet Parmar, stated that the communities of online learning were brought in—and I quote—“to reduce the numbers of teachers in an attempt to bring down the number of union members.” So which one is it: are they too prominent, the unions, and you admire them and you want to listen to their wording, or are you out to actually try and just get rid of them?

Most disappointing, however, is the fact that, very clearly, at least four or maybe five members of our Education and Workforce Committee, permanent and also floating, have not read the departmental report—either that, or they are completely disregarding the very eloquent advice that we’ve been given. Nicola Willis was the last person to mention it, so I would like to restate some of the very eloquent explanations already given by both my colleague the Hon Clare Curran and the Minister in the chair, Chris Hipkins. This was with regard to the requirement for the Teaching Council having to have regard to Government policy. Yes, both the Post Primary Teachers’ Association and NZEI—“these two prominent unions”—did point out that they had some views that this could perhaps undermine the Teaching Council’s status. So, as we should do, we sought advice on this. Clearly, the committee needed to consider that, and it was very eloquently explained to us that these two phrases, “giving effect to” and “having regard to”, have different meanings in law.

So what the bill states is it’s “having regard to”. To quote the departmental report, “Having regard to is different from giving effect to, and therefore the council remains an independent entity, free to make decisions based on its assessment of the issues.” Now, this is the third time, I believe, that we’ve read this sentence, but with their heads down they can pretend they didn’t read it, they didn’t hear it now, so they can start this debate all over again. Quite frankly, it’s like a washing machine; we seem to be going around and around. We’re hearing the same arguments; we’re giving the same explanations. Words matter. So if words matter, as per your own expressions, these words matter.

Lastly, a very quick mention on the cohort entry. We received 18 submissions in total on this bill. Five were on the specific point of the cohort entry, but none—none—of them were from parents stating to us that their choices were ripped away from them, that they wanted at all costs for their child to start on their fifth birthday. We didn’t hear any of them. In fact, I think that those parents were a lot smarter than the Opposition members have proven to be. They worked out for themselves that, actually, mostly the children might be missing out by a week after their fifth birthday to start school—at the most, it would be five or maybe six weeks—and, actually, that it was not such a big deal. I am very sure that the teachers listening to this debate are glad that this side of the House does not agree with the Opposition’s view that teachers and schools should be providing baby-sitting services. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Amendment inserting new clause 11A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 224 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nikki Kaye to clause 5 be agreed to:

delete clause 5.