Education and Training Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to the debate on clauses 1 to 3, and this is the debate on title, commencement, and the principal Act. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Madam Chair, thank you for this. I want to take perhaps a brief call and just ask a question around clause 2, around the commencement.

It says in the commencement clause: “This Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent.” The Minister has made it clear that they’re expecting many of these schools—the first round of them—to open in the beginning of 2025. Considering that we are heading very quickly to the end of 2024, and we’re all at the tail end of September and coming into October, and considering that a number of these schools are converting from State schools to charter and that it is a very busy time for schools, what thought was given to the fact that 2025 is coming on those schools very fast with a very, very busy time that they have to the end of the year? And is there consideration given around the fact that there’s that possibility that they can do that conversion later in the year? It seems to me that with everything that’s going on, particularly in our secondary schools at the moment with exams happening, that there’s an unrealistic expectation around the fact that they would have that conversion. It’s just putting another pressure on a very, very pressured system at the moment.

The reason I ask this is because I have had a number of teachers tell me about how they are very burnt out and very stressed within the system, that they’re not sure what is happening, that they have had little communication on whether this is even happening in their schools, that they have no idea what is happening within their own schools because of the pressure that’s being put on them in the system. It seems to be that this is being rushed through, just like it was rushed through in the select committee. Now we’re actually having to go into urgency as part of the urgency motion—which I know when the Minister was on this side of the House he was very anti using urgency motions—and here we are using this to get this bill through its final stages. I really want to know from you what consideration had been given to the pressures that are put on schools at this time of the year? Also the pressures put on a new school being open—what considerations have been given to that? And what considerations are given to those schools not starting at the beginning of the year?

First of all, I’ve always been very much a stickler for parliamentary process. Can the member honestly tell me that she hasn’t had a very good opportunity to engage in the details of this bill over the last four or five hours? She went on for hours; after she ran out of questions, she kept going.

💬 Hon Jan Tinetti: We’ve just come to this clause, Minister.

And now the member’s saying, “just come to this clause”. Well, that is ironic. But it is a very narrow debate. The commencement clause tells us when this legislation will come into force. It’s as soon as it receives the Royal assent—hopefully, in a few days when the Governor-General is able to give it the Royal assent. The sooner that happens, the more easily the concerns that she’s raised will be allayed.

However, the idea that a school is going to convert and people working in the school don’t know about that is implausible. If it was the case, I think they’d have a very big job persuading the authorisation board that they actually do have the support of the community.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I’d like to thank the Associate Minister of Education for bringing all of those very interesting debating points into this very narrow debate on the title and commencement of the bill. Thanks for that, Minister, because, actually, there hasn’t been a lot of time to discuss this bill. We know that there was a shortened time at the Education and Workforce Committee, so the points that the members raise are very relevant. We know that you brought in—sorry, we know that the Minister brought in changes where there were only two days allowed for additional submissions, and we are grateful for those two days.

💬 Carl Bates: You agreed to those two days.

We were grateful for those two days—Mr Bates, thank you very much—but is that really sufficient when you’re taking away rights from people, Minister? I don’t think so and I don’t think New Zealanders think so. Now, my colleague Jan Tinetti makes another good point: we are passing this bill in urgency. Those points that you raised and those snarky remarks that you made about my colleague, I have taken the liberty of responding to that within this debate.

I do actually have some very important questions for the Minister, in relation to the title of this bill, and I want him, if he would be so obliged, to answer them. This bill, as we are now debating, is called the Education and Training Amendment Bill. Now, I think I’ve heard that somewhere before. Do you know when I think I heard that? I think I heard that last year, in 2023. I think I heard that in 2022. I think I heard that same title in 2021 and in 2020. I think that the title, “Education and Training Amendment Bill”, is perhaps the most uninspired, unoriginal title. So many bills have come before this House with that exact title. It tells us absolutely nothing about the contents of this bill. I want to ask the Minister: has he considered some better titles?

I have some suggestions for him. Did he consider, because this bill is so precious to him, calling it the “Associate Minister of Education’s Education and Training Amendment Bill”? The reason I suggest that is because, when the Minister took advice from his officials and had them put together a particular paper for him, so he could take away teachers rights in this very bill, through his Amendment Paper, he—well, I don’t know—

💬 Carl Bates: What’s the next title? Move on—give us the next suggestions.

—whether it was him; it could have been the officials. If you listen, Mr Bates, I think you’ll find this extremely interesting—much more interesting than the sound of your voice going over and over the same point. My point is: in his paper—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just don’t overuse the word “you”, thank you.

—it was called—you know, that is a very good point, Madam Chair. I apologise for using the word “you”. I’m determined not to use that term again for the rest of my contribution, but thank you for raising that with me. I actually made a point previously—it was actually raised with me on another occasion, and so, Madam Chair, I appreciate the fact that that was raised.

Anyway, back to my contribution. Did the Minister think that he might call it the “Associate Minister of Education’s Education and Training Amendment Bill”? It does reflect the advice paper that he got, which outlined a few options for him to consider in terms of taking away teachers’ rights—a slight gradient scale of removing all of the rights, right down to removing some of the rights. The option that he went with was the one that was in his own name—the Associate Minister of Education’s name. He’s obviously attracted to that particular option in his advice paper, and I wondered if he might want to change the bill’s name to that as well.

I do have a few other suggestions—probably a slightly, somewhat less tongue-in-cheek suggestion. Why not call it the “Charter School Network Provision Repeal and Attendance Statistics Amendment Bill”? That would actually describe what it does. It would actually be useful. It’s a clear language interpretation of what the bill actually does.

My last point in relation to the title is it is called the Education and Training Amendment Bill, but, somewhat ironically, what this does is allows institutions to set up where they don’t teach the curriculum, so we don’t know for sure if they’re going to get an education, and they don’t require trained teachers—no trained teachers necessary in charter schools. Actually, I would go so far as to say the title is misleading.

I’ve seen some witty, creative, and really rollicking good filibusters in my 10 years in this House—sadly, that wasn’t one of them. In fact, someone told me about something that I hesitate to mention: DSDS, or David Seymour Derangement Syndrome. I think we just saw an example of that, actually. But, in answer to the member’s question, no. The reason that is called the Education and Training Amendment Bill is that it’s a bill that amends the Education and Training Act, and we just thought that was the appropriate name for it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think when we come to the title of this bill, as the previous speakers mentioned, the title itself does not actually accurately represent what the bill means. I understand where the Minister is coming from—and also, by the way, I have been very courteous to the Minister by referring to the Minister with his full title, and expect him to do the same.

In terms of this bill, what I’m more concerned about when it comes to the title is the fact that there are so many things that are currently happening within the education front that having this as the Education and Training Amendment Act 2024 may put other bills that this Government is also trying to put through in jeopardy in terms of naming but also in terms of creating confusion around that, because we know that there is currently work that’s being done by the Minister around other elements of early childhood education, and we also know there are other consultations that are happening around Te Tiriti o Waitangi as well.

So, to the Minister, I would be interested to hear from you whether you would consider a more specific title, which is the tabled amendment I have on the “Education and Training (Charter Schools Repeal of Network Management Attendance Data Collection) Amendment Act 2024”. Now, I understand that this is more of a long-winded mouthful, but we also need to consider the fact that, Minister, you have—sorry, my apologies, the Minister has—introduced three completely unrelated elements and smooshed it into one bill without consultation and without hearing the genuine concerns from the New Zealand public.

💬 James Meager: Select committee.

Yes, thank you. Thank you to the other side for saying that; yes, there is a select committee. May I remind the Government that there were 90 percent of the people who opposed this bill on charter schools—96.3 percent who opposed the repeal of network management. If you really, truly care about listening at select committee, this is what it means.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Interjections are great; that was a barrage, and I’d ask the member to stick to the title, because I’ve heard the other points before.

In terms of the title—thank you, Madam Chair—what, then, would I consider would be a more appropriate title to make in terms of this particular bill? I would consider other titles in terms of the amendment. As I’ve mentioned in my first reading, this is a chimera of a bill, because it comes up in three different faces. Drawing on my classical knowledge, I would also consider this bill as the “Education (the Battle of Chimera versus Bellerophon) Amendment Act 2024” as well, but I still do think that what I have put down as a tabled amendment is probably more reflective of the content.

Now, I’m not going to stand here and talk about the other elements of this bill that I think are concerning because I think, frankly, the Minister has heard the concerns that we have raised around this—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s good because we’re doing title and commencement.

In terms of the commencement date, when we are looking at the fact that it’s going to be after Royal ascent, although we have heard from a previous speaker around the fact that it does not give enough time for the school to adjust and to do all of those, I would really sort of implore the Minister to consider pushing this out, particularly for converting schools, or to consider having two separate commencement days—one set for converting schools and one set for new schools—because, yes, maybe new schools are able to start much faster, but we have heard already that there are other considerations, particularly when schools and boards said that they need more time to consider some of these.

I would ask if the Minister would consider two separate dates for the commencement date, and I will ask the Minister to consider my tabled amendments around the name for the bill.

Well, first of all, in respect to the member’s tabled amendment, that would take it from about a four-word bill to looks like about 15 words. I’m a big fan of George Orwell and particularly his rules for writing, especially “If you can cut a word out, cut it out.” That’s the first thing I’d say. And I’ve heard the member saying I just brought up George Orwell in the vain hope that the member will be able to relate George Orwell to a three-clause commencement, principal Act, and title clause.

In relation to changing the commencement date as the member has suggested, in order to take time pressure off schools converting, well, the schools can’t really convert till the law commences, so if we make the commencement later, then that would put more time pressure and, therefore, achieve the exact opposite of what the member’s proposing the change for. We certainly won’t be supporting that. I think, probably, when it’s all said and done, it’ll be easier just to leave the three clauses as they are.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s true that the title of this bill is suspiciously innocuous, and, in line with the general legislative principle that the title on the lid should reflect what’s in the tin, I want to propose, and it’s not too late, for an amendment to be considered. I want to propose that we call this bill “ACT’s Half-hearted and Short-lived Experiment Bill”. I say that because it is an experiment—it is an experiment because there isn’t a shred of evidence, in spite of this vast database of educational research and data that is available to all of the members on that side of the Chamber. If they were just to open their laptops and google “education data”, they would find that there isn’t a skerrick of evidence that underpins this bill. It is truly an ideological experiment. It is a policy in search of evidence to back it up.

The reason I say it’s half-hearted and short-lived is that this is a particular sort of pet project of the ACT Party’s that is locked in a kind of doomed cycle, to be introduced every time ACT finds itself as a member of a governing coalition. It’s destined to be introduced into the system, a whole lot of taxpayers’ money thrown at it, and then, in a few years, it’ll be thrown out again, because, on this side of the Chamber—and I say this with confidence, actually—on this side of the Parliament, we have no faith and no confidence in this policy, and we won’t allow it to stick around, because it’s actually a threat to so many of the things that we hold dear in a quality public education system.

There are so many things that we believe in that are important for this country, that are embodied in our education system, that this law is a threat to, that it simply won’t stand. It is locked in a doomed cycle. It will be introduced, it will have a few years of inconclusive performance, and then it will be thrown out again. That’s why I say that we should actually follow what the Swedish Government have recently explained, based on their 30-year experiment with charter schools—that, actually, they harmed the school system, they harmed the learning of their students, and they put the experiment to bed. That’s what I think we should do in this case.

Before I finish, just let me say that the National Party benches have been a great disappointment in this debate. We haven’t heard a thing from them. They occasionally squeak up, or they start barking like a pack of wild dogs, but have they actually contributed anything of value—anything of value? No, they haven’t. They’re a real disappointment.

I rise to make a couple of quick corrections. First of all, we don’t agree with the proposed change to the title. I was struck by the member Phil Twyford’s presumption that he’s going to be back in Government soon. Has he seen the results? Has he seen the polls? Has he seen what happened last time he was the Minister? I don’t think so. Even if we assume for a moment that somehow, through some electoral accident, he could be a Minister again, he should read his own party’s minority view on this legislation, because there’s an awful lot of hedging—“Well, we might put new restrictions on charters. We might change the requirements. We might do this or that.”—which all implies they’re going to keep them around.

If you think about it, that is exactly what they did last time: every single charter school that was opened last time—as he rightly points out, ACT was in Government—is still operating with children coming through the door at this time. That just tells me that, actually, there’s a very, very bright future for choice. What I’d say to the Labour Party is they can close down a school temporarily and then reopen it, but they can’t close down an idea.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 be agreed to.

Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Education and Training Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

The Education and Training Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Sitting suspended from 9.57 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)