Education and Training Amendment Bill

The House is in committee for further consideration of the Education and Training Amendment Bill. When we were last debating this bill, we were debating Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 4 to 62A, “Amendments to principal Act” and Schedules 1 to 3. The question again is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. New section 212ZH, inserted by clause 40, basically exempts sponsors—the people who will be running these charter schools—from the provisions of the Official Information Act. We spent some time at the select committee discussing this. The trouble is, it’s not at all clear why this provision is in here and what the bill’s authors hope to achieve by it.

There are two obvious concerns here. One is that a group of schools who are funded entirely by taxpayers’ money, funding students who are there to receive their education, some of whom may not have any real choice about being there, are no longer going to be covered by the Official Information Act. It is, I think, as the Chief Ombudsman said at select committee, almost a sort of constitutional principle in New Zealand that public entities that are spending public money are covered by the Official Information Act. There’s a real question about the lack of accountability for taxpayers’ money.

I’d be interested to hear from the Minister: what is the principle of public policy that this exemption is based on, that schools that will be spending $153 million of taxpayers’ money aren’t accountable under the Official Information Act? I would also like to invite National Party members this afternoon to express a view on this or ask a question about this in this debate. Is this a principle of public policy that they are comfortable with?

I also have my doubts about whether New Zealand First, when it comes down to it, are comfortable with the provision in this bill because based on things that various New Zealand First MPs have said in the past, I suspect they may not be happy with it.

The second issue that I would like the Minister to comment on is why create this inequality where the students at charter schools and their families will not be able to avail themselves of the Official Information Act? Their rights are restricted in this respect and it’s particularly relevant because we know, and any MP in this House who works in the community, including electorate MPs, will know, that it’s not uncommon for students and their families to fall out with a school. It doesn’t always have to be something as serious as exclusions and expulsions; there are all kinds of disputes.

Currently, public schools in New Zealand have to, under the Official Information Act, release the documentation that shows the basis of decisions that they may or may not have made. Now, in this respect, this provision is setting up an inequality that significantly disadvantages students and their families at charter schools, and that seems to me to be very difficult to justify. We didn’t hear in all of the discussions at select committee anything from the Minister or officials that shed light on this, and I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s explanation now.

I urge the Minister and this committee to support Jan Tinetti’s amendment that would create a new paragraph in new section 212ZH that would, in fact, apply the Official Information Act to a sponsor if they are performing their duties and functions and powers in relation to the charter school contract.

Well, I’ll very quickly address the issue in new section 212ZH. It is true: charter schools are exempt from the Official Information Act (OIA); so are most early childhood education centres. You know, the Opposition has been in Government for the last six years. If this was really so terrible, they should have exempted early childhood education centres or at least added early childhood education centres receiving taxpayer money with young children in their care to the OIA. But they didn’t, and the reason for that is that charter schools and other suppliers to Government can be accountable to supply the service they receive taxpayer money for through a contract, which charter schools will.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Before I pick up on what the Minister just mentioned before, in terms of the Official Information Act—this is clause 40; new section 212ZH—we are now coming to the crux of the process of charter schools. And this is an incredibly substantial section, to the point that we’re going to beyond “Z”. There is still a lot of material to cover, and I’ll be very explicit in terms of which areas to cover. It would be disingenuous, otherwise, to consider that we have explored all of Part 1 at this stage.

Now, going back to what was mentioned—a couple of things—and just to touch on some of my Amendment Papers, previously we heard Camilla Belich talking in terms of students enrolling and the transitional phase of students going from a converting school into a new school. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to my Amendment Paper 91. That is an amendment to new section 212K which says that, unless the secretary is happy with the arrangements being made for the student or for the family—if they have decided not to go to a converting school—the conversion date needs to be adjusted. The reason for that is we don’t want to have a situation where these students are being placed in limbo without a new school to go to and, at the same time, the school that they were from, which was a State or State-integrated school, has completed their conversion. With this amendment, we’ll also be making the relevant changes to the date in new section 212L(5)(o). That’s the first Amendment Paper I would like to speak to.

The next part is what the Hon Jan Tinetti mentioned, in terms of the direction by the Minister for schools to convert. Now, what is quite interesting here, in terms of new section 212G, is that the Minister only needs to take advice from the Authorisation Board, but then it’s also the Authorisation Board that approves it. The Authorisation Board directs the Minister to say, “This school should convert” and then they send the application and the Authorisation Board formalises or approves it, which then would create this Ouroboros of a circle, where they kind of do the same thing. My recommendation is Amendment Paper 87, where it shouldn’t actually be the Authorisation Board that the Minister takes direction from or consults with. It should actually be the school board, school community, school staff, and students, because they are the ones who are most affected by a transition or by a conversion. The fact that school boards, communities, school staff, and students do not get told at all, are not part of this consultation process, when there’s a direction seems weird. I would invite the Minister to consider that amendment as well.

Now, coming to the one area that I would like to discuss when it comes to curriculum, I appreciate what the Minister said—that we want to see flexibility in terms of the curriculum. But the first thing, when it comes to curriculum—and having been, again, someone who dealt a lot in terms of programme accreditation through New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA), which I’m sure the Minister has some experience of as well—it is absolutely crucial for our qualifications authority to be aware of the kinds of qualifications that a charter school needs to be undertaking. Now, if they are internationally recognised, like the International Baccalaureate or GCSE or NCEA, that’s fine; it’s already covered. But if it is a programme or curriculum that the school itself develops, it needs to go through the accreditation process. My Amendment Paper for new section 212I suggests that NZQA should be considered on the matter of curriculum, as set out in new section 212I(2)(c). That’s another thing for the Minister to consider.

Also, on the subject of curriculum, I’m noticing that, while the school is exempted from the national standard and curriculum in general, they’re also not mentioned at all in terms of the health curriculum. I would ask the Minister to consider incorporating the health curriculum—this is section 91 of the principal Act—and incorporating charter schools into that as well. We heard from one of the previous speakers, Shanan Halbert, that this is going to be really important—[Time expired]

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Members, this debate has gone on for some time. I’ll be looking for only new material from here on.

Thank you, Mr Chair. There is still a lot of new material, for sure. In fact, I have an amendment on pretty much every single subsection of clause 40, so if the Minister would like to provide some clarification or if other members would like to speak on my amendments, please do so. We have not heard from the Minister regarding his take on these amendments. So, to the Minister, if the Minister could provide some clarification or some of his thoughts around my amendments that I have mentioned, that’ll be appreciated.

The other thing, when we’re looking at this particular section and when we’re looking at the Authorisation Board component and who is able to apply—so we’re going to the beginning bit of clause 40. This is new section 212F(1)(b)(ii), inserted by clause 40. This is a new section that has not been covered previously. One of the requirements is that it only requires one or more members of the school community, with the support of the proposed sponsor, for a converting school to convert.

Now, this is really interesting, because one would argue that one additional person from the community is too low a threshold. Again, when we’re looking at the school boards, there are a minimum of three parent-elects on any given school board and up to a maximum of seven. My Amendment Paper—this is Amendment Paper 86—would adjust the number one to three, taking into consideration that I’m not even asking for the maximum number here of seven. I am asking, simply, for a minimum threshold of at least three people in the community who are happy to vouch for the sponsor, for there to be the process following the case of a converting school.

That is not a huge ask, so I would like to know from the Minister: why was one chosen? Why was one deemed a sufficient threshold from the school community? I would seriously ask the Minister to consider readjusting that to three. Now, moving on to the next Amendment Paper, Amendment Paper 88—

💬 Grant McCallum: Getting desperate.

They are all Amendment Papers and I am free to speak on my own Amendment Papers. The Amendment Papers, in terms of conversion, say that the Minister can direct a school in terms of poor performance. However, one of the issues with that is, as we have seen in overseas examples, the ministry, or in this case, for example, the UK equivalent of the Education Review Office, would then go in and deliberately give a bad review to a school, which will trigger a forced conversion. What I’m saying here is not that that is a situation that is going to present itself here, but what Amendment Paper 88—my amendment—is simply saying is that the Minister may not direct a State school to convert into a charter school on performance grounds without first giving the State school all reasonable opportunities to make improvement needed to remain as a State school.

I think this is really, really important, because, again, there are no provisions in here on any of those kind of things, I think particularly when it comes to the fact that the Associate Minister has not clarified whether he has been given dedicated authority by the Minister to also be directing charter schools or directing State or State integrated schools to convert. This sort of clarification is also really important. I will leave that for the time being, but there have been a number of Amendment Papers that I would like the Associate Minister’s advice on.

I have to admire the member for his persistence in small matters, and will try to address as many of them as I can now. The gist of it seems to be about people being consulted in the conversion process and who initiates it and who’s involved. Just about all of his points relate to that. For example, he talks about new section 212L(5)(o), inserted by clause 40, changing the date that a school converts in case a student does not wish to attend a charter school in its new form. They would still have time to enrol in another school with the current time frame, so I think that would be, frankly, a redundant change to make and something that we have considered and thought of.

There’s an amendment to include the board of trustees of a State school before converting, much as there was one about consulting more members of the community. I think what’s really important to recognise is I think it’s new section 212I(2)(f), inserted by clause 40, that actually requires the Authorisation Board to consider the amount of community support. This is really, really key, that you’re not going to see the Authorisation Board convert a school when there’s widespread opposition for it to do so, because it would be impractical for the school to operate in that circumstance, not to mention making the policy the Authorisation Board is committed to very unpopular. Once you consider how this practically works and how much community support you need, not just in practical terms but required by the legislation, most of those concerns melt away, as does the need for the Amendment Papers that Mr Xu-Nan has put up.

I think I’ve actually—oh, the other thing was about the health curriculum. Well, that’s part of the New Zealand Curriculum. Charter schools, of course, do not have to use the New Zealand Curriculum, just as some State schools and independent schools use a different curriculum as we speak right now. Again, it would seem a strange overreach to be overly prescriptive on that for charter schools.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Because the Minister has talked about new section 212I, inserted by clause 40, I just want to ask a further question around that.

Minister, you talked about the Authorisation Board, and it’s under new section 212I(4). It talks about “In the case of a converting school, the Authorisation Board must also take into account the following matters” and it talks about the level of the support from the school community. This has caused quite a bit of angst in the community, and it’s coupled with the one that I talked about just before lunch. I know, Minister, you didn’t get the opportunity to answer the question that I had just before lunch, and that was about the Minister’s direction and the ability to direct to become a charter school. The community is seeing together those two and they are concerned about the ability for the Authorisation Board to say, “Oh, yeah, what’s the percentage of the community that don’t want this charter school in place?”, and to be quite liberal with their views around that.

I wondered, Minister, whether first of all, going back to that question before lunch—that question was around that ability for you as Minister or the education Minister to direct that school—how much of an influence is that over the Authorisation Board? I’d really like to have an answer to that—the concerns that the community has that that’s actually taking away their choice of the fact they don’t want to become a charter school, and in what circumstances would that happen. Because that has never been made clear during this whole process.

The question that I also have now is around that community support. I have an Amendment Paper up that actually talks about inserting a new part that says, “The Authorisation Board must not approve the conversion of a school into a charter school without a clear indication of support from a majority of the school community.”, which makes it very clear. In the legislation, in this bill as it stands at the moment, or in the drafting of this bill, it is not clear. I wonder whether there would be some ability to be able to make that clearer at this point. I see the two coming hand in hand and those are the questions that I have for you at this stage, Minister.

The member asks really a continuation of the theme raised by the Green member, and it is: can the legislation somehow codify what support is?

I think an important thing to draw members’ attention to is that the Authorisation Board is actually responsible for the ongoing monitoring and assessment of the operation of charter schools. The thing that’s going to be in their mind is: can this work? This House could specify a level that is deemed to be sufficient and that could become the subject of judicial reviews in both directions, but it might be more practical to recognise that what this legislation really does is it devolves the decision making to a group of people who are accountable, who are putting themselves and their professional reputations—very senior professional reputations; you’ll have seen the appointments the other day—on the line with this, and I think trusting their judgment is better than the House trying to micromanage or specify.

I see another amendment that the Minister has put forward, tabled this morning, suggesting that mana whenua through local iwi authorities and hapū be consulted separately from the rest of the community. Again, I think that’s redundant because those groups are actually all part of the community and we should never say otherwise.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Kia orana, Mr Chair. Thank you. This is the first opportunity I’ve had to take a call on this bill in committee stage, and I want to cover an area that I don’t believe has been covered as of yet, and that’s the views of our Pacific community when it comes to Pacific education. When this bill, just prior to lunch, was being debated by the committee, my colleague Camilla Belich did touch on this issue of a State school that was seeking through a process of conversion—that’s a situation where, for example, a school that might be zoned; there is an opportunity for someone who lives in that particular community that might in some circumstances be the only school that they’re able to attend.

The Associate Minister of Education, in his response to that—basically, Minister, you indicated that “Well, that’s happened for a wee while, and, you know, there’s a whole process around charter schools that those in that community would form the view that the charter school was the best way to go, the approval process to one side.” But it does limit the ability for members in that community to have any other choice if they are zoned for that school, and it may be a situation where the particular nature or specific special characteristics of the new charter school are at direct odds with a particular community of interest. In this particular case, I’m referring to our Pasifika community, who may take issue with a particular charter school but, as the Minister has said, I think, it would be the only option that is available to them.

Now, when we look at new section 212T, that does provide an opportunity for a charter school to refuse a new student, but that is tied to the issue of the question of enrolment. My question is about, actually, not a new enrolment but, effectively, a conversion opportunity for someone who was a student at a school that was a State school that was now going to become a charter school. They have no other options because of where they live, and they are zoned for that school. If there is a family situation—and I speak about our Pacific community, who are diametrically opposed to the particular issues or philosophy of a particular charter school. What opportunities are there for that particular aiga to ensure that they continue getting an education that meets the needs of their particular family?

Now, I know that there is an opportunity for the ministry to provide a direction to enrol, but this is about a situation where it is a conversion opportunity, there are no other options—how is that family, under this legislation, going to be able to effectively have that element of choice?

First of all, I’d note that Pasifika origin - New Zealanders have really embraced charter schools in the past and continue to do so. I think of Sir Michael Jones, Pacific Advance Secondary School; I think of Sita Selupe at the Rise UP Academy. Yet I don’t believe it’s ever right to say that all Pacific people think or believe the same, so it’s not necessarily true that a school would be antithetical to Pacific people, because Pacific people actually have a wide range of views.

What’s more, I think it really speaks to some of the contributions that’ve been made earlier that I’ve responded to. People have said, “Well, perhaps if a majority of the community were in favour of a school, then it should be able to convert.”, but I would take the opposite view that it is up to the Authorisation Board, as I’ve stated—and I’m now being repetitive—to make a judgment of whether there is community support. Of course, if there really were a group of people who were, as the member suggested, diametrically opposed and unable to be accommodated by the new charter school better than they were accommodated by the existing State school, then I think that would be very strong grounds for them not to approve the application.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 106 and the tabled amendment be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 112 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments amending clauses 4 and 59 and deleting clauses 5 and 55 set out on Amendment Paper 113 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to clause 4 set out on Amendment Paper 114 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to clause 7 set out on Amendment Paper 115 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to clause 14 set out on Amendment Paper 117 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment inserting new clause 34A set out on Amendment Paper 116 be agreed to.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment deleting clause 46 set out on Amendment Paper 118 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s remaining amendments amending clauses 35 and deleting clauses 43A to 45 set out on Amendment Paper 118 be agreed to.

The Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment deleting clauses 35 and 46 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. The Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendments deleting clauses 44 and 45 are out of order as being the same as previous amendments. [Interruption] The voting is conducted in silence.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new section 212B in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 85 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to new section 212F in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 86 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendments to replace subsection (1) in new section 212F and delete new section 212G in clause 40 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to new section 212G in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 87 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to new section 212H in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 88 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new section 212I in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 89 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendments to amend new section 212(4) and (5) in clause 40 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new section 212J in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 90 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to insert new subsection (4)(a) in new section 212K in clause 40 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new sections 212K and 212L in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 91 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to new section 212L in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 92 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to replace paragraph (e) in the new section 212O in clause 40 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to new section 212O in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 93 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new section 212O in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 94 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to replace paragraph (l) in new section 212O in clause 40 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new section 212P and 212Q in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 95 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to new section 212Q in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 96 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new section 212T in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 97 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendments to new section 212R in clause 40 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new sections 212T, 212V, and 212W in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 119 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to insert subsection (8) in new section 212T in clause 40 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new section 212U in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 98 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new section 212V in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 99 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to new section 212W in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 100 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to new section 212Z in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 101 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to delete new section 212ZCA in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 102 be agreed to.

Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to delete new section 212ZCA in clause 40 is out of order as being the same as a previous amendment.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to replace new section 212ZCA in clause 40 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new section 212ZD inserting new section 212ZFA in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 103 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendments to new section 212ZD in clause 40 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to new section 212E in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 104 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to insert new section 212ZFA in clause 40 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to delete new section 212ZH in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 105 be agreed to.

Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to delete new section 212ZH in clause 40 is out of order as being the same as a previous amendment.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s amendment to new section 212ZH in clause 40 be agreed to.

Before I take the next vote, the Minister probably should be setting an example of making sure these votes are heard in silence—particularly when they’re going across the floor.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new section 237A in clause 42 set out on Amendment Paper 120 be agreed to. All those in favour say Aye, to the contrary, No.

💬 Simon Court: No.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Noes have it.

💬 Simon Court: Let’s have a party vote.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’m sorry, the member can’t call for a party vote, because he actually voted for it. Did someone else call for a party vote? Yes.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to new section 548A in clause 53 set out on Amendment Paper 121 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new section 601A in clause 53A set out on Amendment Paper 122 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to delete clause 53A be agreed to.