Education Amendment Bill (No 2)

Look, I specifically want to focus, in this call, on the discussion about communities of online learning. Firstly, to just give you a bit of a backdrop of what we’re dealing with, right across the world, globally, progressive—yes, progressive—Governments acknowledge the convergence that is occurring around what’s called face-to-face learning and digital technologies. National put in a large investment, $200 million, to ensure that every school was connected to ultrafast broadband with uncapped data. We also mandated the digital technologies curriculum, and the Minister isn’t here to actually answer hard questions about this investment and what is going on.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! We don’t refer to members’ presence [Interruption] in the Chamber.

Sorry, Madam Chairperson. But, actually, the $40 million that National put in to upskill teachers—which is very relevant to this bill, in terms of communities of online learning—was to ensure that all young people could actually direct technology in the future in the area of computational thinking. So what we recognised when we put in the regime of communities of online learning was not what the Minister has described. This, somehow, ability to have a whole lot of virtual schools—yes, that is part of the provision of communities of online learning, but to recognise that for the many children that grow up in communities that are rural, that don’t have access to specialist teachers—the ability in the world that we live in now to provide those opportunities of supplementary learning, which was included in the original communities of online learning regime. What has happened? The Minister has come along and he’s snuffed out the future of a whole lot of learning opportunities by just deleting the provisions from law. We think that’s wrong.

We understand the issues that have been raised about ensuring that there are quality learning opportunities. But the concept that the previous National Government somehow put forward only virtual schools is wrong. What we recognised was the need for contestability in education. The concept that, actually, for a group of kids in New Zealand, Te Kura may have failed them. I want to tell the members a story, because I represent Great Barrier Island, and on Great Barrier Island there aren’t a whole lot of spare mathematics teachers. There isn’t a whole lot of science teachers sitting in either Medlands or in Tryphena. The reality is they haven’t waited for the Government; they set up their own Aotea learning hub.

But what they need is, they do need additional support. They’ve fought very hard through Government to get it, and what they were expecting that was coming down the line was some contestability around distance learning, and I say shame on this Government—shame on this Government for killing a regime that would provide the children of Barrier, the children of Stewart Island, the children of other rural parts of New Zealand, some contestability in distance learning.

We know that people had some issues with it. Actually, it is possible, and it would have been possible for the Minister of Education to have provided an alternative regime that might’ve dealt with some of the issues. If he didn’t believe in the concept that there could be whole virtual providers around tertiary education—we could’ve had more trade apprenticeship modules offered in school—then put up something as an alternative. I do want to acknowledge the Minister’s comments that he said in his last call when he stood up. He did say, with regard to my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) which I want to talk about in detail, that, actually, he did recognise the need for more policies in this area. I have put up this SOP which says that the New Zealand Government must conduct a review of the current provision and funding of online learning. He knows, because he’s been copied in to the emails that people like Rachel Whalley from the Virtual Learning Network have sent to Tracey Martin, have sent to him, that it needs to happen, and I have argued in this amendment to the House that there is a report and there are policy recommendations that are provided. That is a reasonable thing to ask, and the Minister said, basically, he’s not supporting it.

Well, what I’d say to the Minister is, in terms of the future and progress of education—and access to opportunities—not only in New Zealand but globally, the best thing that he could’ve done to show some cross-party agreement in terms of access to opportunities for distance learning would’ve been to support this amendment. I plead with members opposite—I plead with them. I say, even if you’re not in rural communities, if you support greater access to Te Reo, then why wouldn’t you support an amendment like mine? Even if you can’t come up with the policy yourselves in terms of the legislation, support this review to be able to provide an opportunity and a pathway for those many that—whether it’s tertiary providers, whether it’s those families that are fighting in areas like Te Reo or subjects that they can’t get specialist teachers, to have these opportunities, or just have a pathway for these opportunities. Please, support my SOP that gives them hope that, actually, this Government might be progressive in an area like this.

Now, I want to talk about what we’re actually talking about in terms of the future of New Zealand. The reality is, on the figures alone—and Labour talked a massive game in Opposition about how they believed in the future of work; you know, they were going to do a whole lot of things in terms of the future of work. They talked about the statistics, of more than 50 percent of the jobs being automated in the future. They go off and tell the Productivity Commission, “Well, actually, you guys can go and do some work”, while the most significant things that could happen, in terms of the future of work, would be to acknowledge that we live in a world where we shouldn’t—

💬 Hon Clare Curran: Your party laughed at the concept—belittled the concept for years.

—be barred by the typical geographical distances. Look, I’m getting heckled by a former Minister of Communications, who, of all people in this House, should be supporting our amendment to the bill, and I would say to Clare Curran: cross the floor—cross the floor. If you’re really serious about digital technologies, and you want to walk the talk on some of the speeches that I’ve heard you give in the past, you’ll cross the floor and recognise that it’s so important for the future of New Zealand.

Now, getting back to what I said before: in terms of the future of work, Labour have talked a big game, but the reality is we live in a world where young people more and more—and if we get the pedagogy right in terms of the delivery of teaching online, we have an opportunity like no other to provide learning opportunities for some of our most disadvantaged New Zealanders. And I want to talk about that for a moment, because this Government—again, it gives lectures everywhere it goes about disadvantage. But the reality is, when it comes to the crunch, there are a group of children for which they don’t have access to the same quality learning as other children in New Zealand. We have seen extraordinary projects like Manaiakalani—can I pay tribute to Pat Snedden—that have delivered huge opportunity to children that have been disadvantaged in the past.

The reality is that there are many other community leaders that would love to provide contestability of distance learning in certain subjects—mathematics, science, Te Reo—where we have teacher shortages. But you know what, they’re not going to get the opportunity, and I really object to getting a lecture from the Minister that says, “Oh, well, the reality is we’re not snuffing anything out, because it didn’t happen”. Well, the reason it didn’t happen is because this Minister put legislation for the House to snuff it out. That’s the reality.

So when we are campaigning in 2020, members from across the House are going to have to front up to public meetings and explain why they snuffed out a whole lot of future opportunities for disadvantaged kids, for kids in rural areas that would have had opportunities and subject areas, to lift the quality of our education system. It’s absolutely aligned with the future of work, and the reality is this is a Government that talks a big game on the next generation of New Zealanders but, when it comes to the crunch, a lot of it is fluff. A lot of it, there isn’t substance. National has some very strong policies of depth in this area that actually will do some things around lifting kids out of disadvantage, and do some things for those kids in rural areas. In my view, if the members opposite cared one bit, they would support my SOP to the committee and stand up or cross the floor. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That was a very fantastic, passionate speech by the Hon Nikki Kaye, and I too stand in support of her Supplementary Order Paper. Communities of online learning (COOLs), which, here in Part 2 tonight, face the axe, are a topic and an industry, a sector, that deserve support, and, at the moment, they feel and experience none of that support whatsoever.

The National Party established communities of online learning to harness what is rapidly evolving digital technologies. We know we live in the digital era, and we want to provide more learning options for young people, emphasis on options. We want choices and options for young people, and so do, of course, these communities of online learning, and the different providers that have arisen from this need that we have amongst our students, our communities, and society. So, given that reality, at the very least—the very least—the Minister of Education could have provided some certainty for these COOLs, or, as we know them, communities of online learning, because COOLs are, simply, another option for parents. No one’s saying they are the option; they’re just another option for parents. We stand for, on this side of the House, choice and options for parents and for families, because they don’t come in a one-size-fits-all arrangement, and they never have, and they never will.

So what are we doing, and what are we facing here with the axe on COOLs as we know it? We’re waiting for an alternative arrangement; well, there aren’t any. A total lack of an alternative model is absolutely unbelievable when we’re going through so much of a seismic shift in education in this country. This just seems to be one area that’s just left off to the side, and they’re going to have to flail and find their own way, it appears, as the passage of this bill will likely take place tonight.

So what we know and understand from the repeal of the COOLs legislation is that it was done—well, this is the explanation from the Government—to allow time for proper consultation. The other reason that we’re told, it was done to develop policy in light of education reviews. Well, allowing time for proper consultation—where is it? Can someone answer for us? Where is the proper consultation and the certainty and the next step for COOLs? There’s nothing. If anyone on the other side of the Chamber would like to speak up now or forever hold their peace, let us know. What is the option for the online learning community as we know it tonight? Silence—right.

So then if you look at developing policy in light of education reviews, don’t hold your breath—don’t hold your breath. What do we know that’s going on in the education sector for reviews at the moment? Well, how about the Tomorrow’s Schools review, scrapping national standards, cancelling charter schools, rushing into the questioning of the entire NCEA system, failing to attempt banning music and dance teachers from calling themselves teachers. All of this stuff—a heavy-handed, ideology-driven, obsessive approach by this Government, and meanwhile you’ve got communities of online learning trying to find their way.

They had a pathway, it was under our Government, and this legislation here tonight is going to stop them short once again. They are existing for students who are, quite frankly, not engaging and have diverse learning needs. They have a reasonable request, and the request is that someone talk to them, because they didn’t for this legislation; that they just want a regulatory framework to be clarified for them. Does that not sound reasonable? It should. It should for them, and it should for New Zealanders, because it sure sounds reasonable to us on this side of the House. Unfortunately, we can’t hold our breath for that, because we can’t see—and even the Minister tonight admitted that work needs to be done in this space. Where is the work? We’d like to know.

I do hope that you’ll support the Hon Nikki Kaye’s amendment, which will give just a little bit of clarity that’s so sorely lacking.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 220 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Part 2 be agreed to.