Education and Training Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Associate Minister of Education: I present a legislative statement on the Education and Training Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I move, That the Education and Training Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to introduce charter schools. Charter schools can be new schools or State schools that convert to charter schools. The bill also eases the regulatory burden on early childhood centres and enables rules about daily attendance reporting. A key aspect of the charter school proposal is the establishment of an authorisation board that will be responsible for approving new charter school sponsors. There will be a board of experts from different backgrounds with knowledge of communities, education, law, finance, and business.

A charter school agency is already operating and will be responsible for the contracts with the sponsors who run the school. Those contracts will be quite different from the approach that has been taken to New Zealand education under successive Governments. Sponsors of charter schools will have more flexibility in how their schools are governed and run, in return for having to meet performance outcomes set out in contracts. Charter schools will have more flexibility than State schools. They will receive their funding as cash. Sponsors will be able to run a school their way as long as they are meeting their performance targets and their students are showing up and learning.

This legislation also allows State schools to convert to a charter school. It’s not just new applicants, brand new schools; it’s also about State schools converting to a charter school. The bill also proposes to remove the network approval requirement for new early childhood education (ECE) centres. The network planning requirements put up barriers to new ECE services by putting the Ministry of Education into the decision making around where you can open an ECE centre. This decision will now be left to the people that risk their own money to start them, and the parents who truly know what is best for their children. This means people spend less time on the bureaucracy of justifying their existence and more time on the empowerment about being able to do it their way.

Finally, this legislation will allow the Secretary for Education to make specific rules around attendance, addressing the crisis in attendance that is threatening not only New Zealand schools but our future as we currently conceive ourselves as a modern, developed country with a highly educated population who went to school.

As a country we have not got to grips with who was attending school each day, so we don’t know what the patterns are, and we don’t know why they are not attending school. We’ve got regulations that are old, so we’re going to require attendance data from schools on a daily basis under new regulations. The bill allows the secretary to make rules which will complement the proposed new attendance regulations.

The Education and Workforce Committee deserves credit for reporting this bill back to the House with some credible and sensible amendments. The committee did not recommend any changes to the attendance rules proposals. With regard to removing the network approval requirements for ECE, the committee recommended some transitional provisions be removed as they are no longer needed. All the other changes recommended by the committee are for charter schools. While some of the recommendations made by the committee are in response to concerns or comments from submitters on the charter school proposal, there are others that are purely technical and designed to improve the operation of the charter school model.

One example is the committee’s proposed amendments regarding the authorisation board that oversees the performance of charter schools and approves new charter school sponsors. These amendments are intended to improve the operation of the authorisation board.

The committee has also addressed some issues that submitters did not agree with. One example is the concern by some submitters around students being affected if their local State school converts and then takes on a new special character—for example, a secular school converts to become a religious school. The committee has proposed making it a condition of approval that an ordinary State school that converts and didn’t have a special character before conversion cannot then take on a special character after conversion. This is to ensure that students who were at the State school before conversion are not forced to go to a school that has a special character they are not fully aligned with. It also complements the bill’s existing provision that ensures a State school that already has a special character—e.g., a State integrated school or a kura kaupapa Māori must retain that special character if they convert to become a charter school. This is to ensure students are disrupted as little as possible while still allowing the converted school to have the necessary flexibility to try and improve the attendance and achievement of students when they move to the converted school.

I also want to note that some submitters thought charter schools would provide more choice for parents, whānau, and communities and that the improved funding flexibility would result in better outcomes for students. This is primarily because of the ability to provide more flexibility and care for more diverse needs than mainstream schools. These submitters thought charter schools would be able to tailor their governance, curriculum, and operational procedures to best meet the needs of learners and address the failing student achievement and attendance levels, particularly in low socio-economic and disadvantaged communities.

There was a misunderstanding by some submitters on how the bill allows a charter school to refuse enrolment if a parent will not accept the special character of the school. The committee has proposed making this clearer by referring to any special character approved by the authorisation board. This is no different from what happens in State integrated schools, designated character schools, and kura kaupapa Māori, which can deny enrolment if the parent does not accept the special character.

I understand some submitters wanted more detail on how charter schools could offer distance learning. I agree with this. The committee has recommended a couple of changes to do this. This includes requiring the charter school contract to specify how student engagement and attendance will be measured and how they will provide for pastoral care, including the online safety of students and adequate supervision arrangements for students aged under 16 years. I think this is important as there are different settings and circumstances for students learning by distance. It also requires the Minister of Education to include in the Gazette notice about the new charter school, whether it will offer distance learning, and, if so, whether the school’s main mode of curriculum delivery will be distance learning.

Some submitters were concerned about the ability of a charter school to charge property maintenance fees if they own property or used to be a State integrated school. The committee has proposed a change to limit this to converted schools that were previously a State integrated school.

This means only those schools that used to charge attendance dues before they converted, or once converted, will be able to charge similar fees, but called “property maintenance fees”.

I also understand that some submitters thought charter schools should not be able to operate for a profit. The bill as introduced did not refer to this. The charter school model is about providing educators with greater autonomy and flexibility, creating diversity and choice in New Zealand’s education system. Although sponsors could be entities that are profit making, the charter school contracts will require sponsors to be accountable to meeting performance outcomes as set out in the contracts. For example, if they make a profit but fail to make their performance outcomes, then there will be a problem the authorisation board will need to intervene on.

The committee have recommended an amendment to the Local Government Rating Act 2002 so that the charter schools that are not operating for a profit are treated the same as State schools and private schools not operating for profit. These schools do not have to pay rates on land. I think this is only fair. The committee have also recommended sponsors specify in the charter school contracts if they are intending to operate for a profit or not for a profit. This will add some clarity and transparency for everyone involved.

Moving on to the important role of teachers, I understand that some submitters thought charter schools will undermine the teaching profession by allowing teachers without qualifications to teach and put students at risk. This is not the case. Sponsors will be able to employ either registered teachers or Limited Authority to Teach (LAT) - holders who have been approved by the Teaching Council to teach. The contracts will specify what percentage of teaching positions can be filled by a LAT holder.

The intention is to allow more flexibility and acknowledge that there are some very good and experienced people who can teach students but don’t have teaching qualifications. The success of this flexibility in teaching positions will be measured under the performance framework as specified in the contracts. The committee has recommended some technical-type changes to LAT holders in the bill, following recommendations by the Teaching Council.

There are many, many more areas of which I could speak, but given time, I just suggest that there are a range of other suggestions that the committee has proposed, which I think will improve the functioning of the bill overall. These include minor changes to provisions, such as on definitions and allowing charter schools to have secondary tertiary programmes.

I want to thank the committee for its work and thank the members of the public who made submissions. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too would like to start by thanking submitters on this bill. It wasn’t an easy process, because it was an incredibly rushed process that we went through. The first reading of this bill was on 25 June, so it’s under three months since we had that first reading.

Even worse, though, was that a major Amendment Paper—Amendment Paper 49—was released to the Education and Workforce Committee by the Associate Minister of Education on 23 July, and that made significant changes that will have implications beyond the education sector. At that stage, it was actually only a day or two days before the then closing of submissions, and so we, as a committee, extended that by a couple of days so that people could have some time, but it wasn’t enough time.

I find that very surprising when the Associate Minister, in shepherding through another piece of legislation recently, has said that the six-month select committee process was making sure it would “treat the legislation with the respect and dignity it deserves”. “Making sure that people get a real say … through a proper length select committee, that’s really important to me.”, he said. Is he saying that the education legislation isn’t important? That’s certainly how it felt in this particular case.

I’m going to talk on the education amendment parts that came through the select committee. My colleagues will talk more on the industrial implications of what came through from that Amendment Paper 49, because they are huge implications, and they will, as I said, have implications beyond the education sector.

I want to just start by talking not about charter schools, but I want to just very briefly talk about the early childhood network management repeal. We’ve heard from the Minister who presented the Associate Minister’s statement here this afternoon that there were submitters that were in favour. I just wanted to point out that of 161 submissions on this part of the bill, 155 opposed it. When we’re talking about those that were in favour, that is an incredibly small percentage.

It very much came through that this was a step in the wrong direction. It will only intensify the increasing market consolidation and dominance of a small number of large, private providers, and that will be at the expense of the small, local, community-based early learning centres.

In fact, I just want to talk about the concern that came through very clearly on the oversupply of early childhood education (ECE) services, and I just want to read this very short part out from one of the submitters, Catriona Ferguson, who stated that she could see the impact that not having network approval in the past had caused. She’s seen centres that have opened next to each other or across the road from each other, creating clusters and competition, all vying for the small pool of children.

On that competition, Mana Mokopuna have said that “children suffering trauma and harmful environments if quality of provision is reduced in response to excessive competition and consequent cost reduction” will be very detrimental to our young people, and I’m really, really concerned that we’re once again putting profits over the heart and the essence of quality early learning provision. Most submitters, as I said, were really, really concerned about that oversupply, and they saw network management as a way of reducing that supply but also a way of ensuring quality education.

I now want to move to the charter schools part of this particular bill, which I see as an insidious attack on quality public education. Labour, as a party, is completely opposed to this. We have said in our differing view in the report back that we will reserve the right to actually not have any more charter schools when we are back in Government. The future of charter schools is only for a short time. We do not see that they add to the landscape of quality public education whatsoever, and we were given the essence of that through the submissions that came through.

Of the 431 submissions on this part of the bill, 389 were opposed to it, so 90.3 percent—

Grant McCallum: Unions.

Hon JAN TINETTI: —that were opposed to this, and, no, they weren’t only unions. There were schools, and you should know that because you were sitting on that—not you, Madam Speaker, sorry.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s not “you”.

Hon JAN TINETTI: The member over there was sitting on that select committee and he should know better. We even had the likes of the New Zealand School Boards Association, who said that the work that had been done so far on having the Charter School Authorisation Board receive applications before this process was even through was completely wrong, and I totally agree with them.

We heard from submitters about the fact that we have a completely devolved education system,. That is where some of the critical and crucial elements and issues that are occurring in education happen, because of that devolvement, and all this is doing is creating a new part of the system that will not make a difference. It will not make a difference to the education system at all, it will not make a difference to the individual child, and many of our submitters presented a lot of evidence and research that showed that it will not make that difference.

We’ve heard the Associate Minister himself present evidence and research along the way that was proven during this process to be incredible—as in not credible, I should say. I’ve got that one wrong—it was not credible.

Hon Scott Simpson: This member used to be a principal.

Hon JAN TINETTI: Mr Simpson, perhaps you would like to get up and show the information that would show that this would make a difference. You will not be able to, because, Mr Simpson, the research and evidence is sitting there that shows that this will have the exact opposite response—absolutely.

Money withdrawn from the public education system in the form of profits—as this is doing—means that that money cannot go to any other part of the education system, and we heard throughout this that the education system has many issues that are sitting within it. There are young people sitting there—neurodiverse students—who are not getting the support that they need, because the resourcing is not going in at the level that it is needed. Now, if we put charter schools in place, that would only serve to help some of those students, and a very tiny percentage of them. That means that we’re going to have greater inequities within the system than we have ever seen before. That is what the research shows overseas and the research that we have seen from New Zealand the last time this failed experiment was put in place—and it was a failed experiment.

One of the greatest issues that we saw during the select committee process was that once again—once again—we are not having the public scrutiny that is needed on these particular schools. The Ombudsman discussed his concern around the fact that the charter schools were not going to be subject to the Official Information Act. That happened last time, as well. Those issues were prevalent last time, and we saw that in the failed experiment. But, once again, this Government sees that it is only right to bring back what failed last time and put it into the bill this time, and I can only think that young people will suffer because of it.

One of the areas that our teachers said, time and time again, that they were really concerned about was the lack of emphasis on quality teaching in this particular bill. Really, really upset with what some members were saying around this—and upset with the emphasis from the Minister, during this time, thinking that anyone can teach our young people. I can tell him that not just anyone can teach our young people. It is absolutely upsetting to think that we can staff a school with people with limited authority to teach, which means that they don’t have to have any qualifications whatsoever, they don’t have to know about the pedagogy, and they don’t have to know about what goes on inside a young person’s head. He believes that they can staff a school completely on that.

We know that there have been a number of young people whom the system has not served well. This is not the answer to that. As I have said, this will create greater inequities within the system.

Flexibility already exists. We heard from the Hon Marian Hobbs that she was able to set up a school within the State system—Four Avenues High School—that was already able to answer a lot of what this bill is trying to fix.

This is a terrible piece of legislation, and we will hear more about this throughout the process as it comes before the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. What a time to be a parliamentarian, to witness firsthand the parallel universe that the Minister is living in, in terms of some of the stats that were referred to. I am disappointed. I am disappointed at the way that this particular bill was approached, and the way this particular bill was approached during the select committee stage.

Let’s start with some of the common themes of the submissions, and let’s start with charter schools. We have heard from multiple submitters that our existing education system in Aotearoa is already flexible enough and does not require yet another tier, yet another educational system. We have State schools, State integrated schools, specialist schools, special character schools, kura kaupapa, and private schools. We do not need another one. In fact, some have argued that our system is almost too flexible as it stands. That’s the first thing.

Second thing: a lack of evidence. We have consistently seen a lack of evidence both in Aotearoa and internationally that charter schools as a system work. We have heard submitters from overseas, particularly from the UK, of the danger when you introduce charter schools in their form of academies and also in terms of the orphan schools and the orphan students that are created as a part of that system.

Other things that we have seen: the number of overseas interests in setting up charter schools in Aotearoa. We have heard from submitters who blatantly tell us that the only reason they’re interested in setting up a charter school is because they can get public money for it. That is shocking. That is shocking, that this is the tone that educators take on how they are going to approach education in Aotearoa and how they are going to educate our future generations.

Let’s talk about the next thing, in terms of the process of this bill. Now, the Hon Jan Tinetti has already talked about the truncated select committee process that we have seen, which meant that we rushed things through—and I thank the Education and Workforce Committee; I thank the chair, Katie Nimon; and I also thank the staff who helped us through that. However, that shouldn’t have been the normal process, and, particularly, when we had this bill going through select committee, the application for charter schools should not have been opened. People should not have already had to apply for it, not knowing whether there’s going to be any amendment. That is a presumption that we’ve had that this bill is going to go through as it stands.

The other thing is, as we saw, the original deadline for the select committee, which we decided, was 25 July. Then, on 23 July, the Associate Minister of Education released a new Amendment Paper, Amendment Paper 49, with some major, major adjustments, which I’m sure other speakers will speak on later. That meant that we then had to go back to those submitters, saying, “Sorry—you already submitted, but we just released an amendment. Would you like to make an amendment to your submission?” We have to adjust our time line and deadline to accommodate the release of that Amendment Paper. That is not OK. That is not the process that people of Aotearoa expect from their Parliament and from their Government.

What we see with the charter school as well, in terms of the flexibility, over and over again, is the fact that this is, essentially, a carve-out. This is a carve-out for the Associate Minister. This is the only way that the Government was able to form a Government, by pandering to what their coalition partner demands, and I have mentioned in this House before of the discrepancy and inconsistency between what the Minister of Education and what the Associate Minister of Education has stated, and their vision and direction of education in Aotearoa.

Lastly, when it comes to charter schools, let’s talk about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications. Now, I don’t know how often this happens, but the Chief Ombudsman himself made a submission and made an oral submission expressing his concern under freedom of expression, under freedom of access to information, on the basis that charter schools, as a publicly funded institute, will not be subjected to the Official Information Act. No other publicly funded institute does that, to my knowledge. When we asked the Chief Ombudsman, he couldn’t give a clear answer on whether anyone else has such privilege. That is a serious concern to the fundamental right that we have here in Aotearoa.

When we heard the submission from the Children and Young People’s Commission, they mentioned our obligation under international conventions around the right to education and rights for children. We then asked, “Why was there no child impact statement produced as a part of this?”, and there was no answer for that. This whole process has been incredibly disheartening but also just incredibly negative in terms of how this Government has chosen to progress their bills.

Now, let’s move on to the second part of this, which is around early childhood education (ECE). We’ve heard from the Children and Young People’s Commission around the ECE, we have heard from people, we have mentioned that there was no child impact statement. First of all, the network management approval process was introduced in 2023. For any other party, in a number of other bills we have seen in this House, they said, “Oh, you know what, there is not enough time for us to see how well it’s going to work.” Apparently, one year is sufficient for this particular bill and for this particular process, for it to be repealed after one year.

On top of that, they said that this is going to be a barrier for the creating of new ECE centres. Well, let me tell this House: the number of ECE centres that have been approved under the network management has increased in 2023—not decreased; increased. So what is the barrier that is being referred to here, other than the fact that this is giving a carte blanche to for-profit ECE companies to privatise further at the cost of our future? Our young children should be able to live their lives, should be able to be educated, and that should be the priority of our focus here in Aotearoa. If someone’s like, “My priority is going to be making money.”, it is not going to be about the children. It is not going to be about our ākonga. That is a serious concern.

Overall, in terms of what we have seen with the submissions and during the select committee process, 90.3 percent of the submitters, 90.3—not most, not some; 90.3. For those of you, that is an A+ when you are in the schooling system. It is an A+ if you are looking at the GPA system at university. That is the percentage of people who said no to this bill: 90.3 percent of people said no to the repeal of the ECE network management. That is not some; that is almost all of them, and that has not been acknowledged by the Minister and that has not been acknowledged by the way that we have progressed this.

I do thank the submitters who have submitted on this bill. I thank all of you who have experience, both lived experience as well as decades of work experience, who took the time out of your busy lives to make a submission. I am also angry. I am angry for all of you who made those submissions, to think that your voice will be heard by this Government, and it has not been heard by this Government. That is shameful. What a joke of a process.

So, with everything that we have seen from the submitters, no, the Green Party will not support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Education and Training Amendment Bill, a bill that we wholeheartedly support. I’d like to begin by thanking the people in our select committee, chaired by the wonderful Katie Nimon, deputy chair, Carl Bates, my colleague Mike Butterick, Parmjeet Parmar, the Hon Jan Tinetti, Camilla Belich, Lawrence Xu-Nan, and the Hon Phil Twyford.

The bill came in three parts, right? There was the first part to deal with the charter schools, the second part was around the network approval for early childhood education, and the final part, which has hardly been spoken of, was to do with the Secretary for Education being able to make rules for State schools about collecting, recording, and providing attendance data.

Well, I’ve been in this House now, listening to the Opposition, and listening to them, I’m thinking “Well, they really have missed the point, haven’t they?” This is about choice, about giving parents and students choice in their education. That’s what it’s all about, right? This is where they forget that when parents go to look at where they’d like their children to go to school, they look around and at the moment, clearly with some parents, they’re struggling. Some parents are struggling to find the right school. Right?

I’d like to point out actually, yes, we received a number of submissions. Well, I notice they’ve ignored the ones that were in support of. I’ll give you a quote from a submission from the Maxim Institute—

Hon Jan Tinetti: Five!

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Five—less than 10 percent.

GRANT McCALLUM: —about a long study. Oh, they’re excited, aren’t they; boy, they’re very excitable now. A long-running study of charter schools in the United States reached this clear verdict last year: “Against a backdrop of flat performance for the nation as a whole”—sound familiar?—“the trend of learning gains for students enrolled in charter schools is both large and positive.” The most encouraging take-away from this work by Stanford University, no less, Centre of Research, is that disadvantaged students are the ones that are most likely to do better. Now, isn’t that interesting? In fact, I’ve got some other great quotes, actually, I’ve got some great—

Camilla Belich: What about the New Zealand evidence? What does that show, Grant?

GRANT McCALLUM: I’m going to talk to you about the New Zealand context. In fact, I’m going to give you a quote: “The charter school model presented an opportunity for us to work with whānau and switch them onto learning. We provided a wraparound solution to re-engage Māori parents and their children into learning.” Who said that—who said that? Oh, the Hon Willie Jackson. What a great quote. What a great man that Willie Jackson is to actually recognise the benefits of charter schools.

Actually, I’ll give you another quote—I’ll give you another quote, another great quote. The other quote said—when Labour were campaigning in 2017, talking about getting rid of them, then this quote came, and it said, “The bottom line is, why would you stop something that is working?” Why would you do that? Why? And do you know who said that? The Hon Peeni Henare. See, this is the thing. This is the thing, you see. They hate the fact that, actually, many of their own love the opportunity in charter schools, particularly Māori. They love the choice. They love the opportunity to be able to set their own rules. That is what it’s about. I’d like to say to you all, thank you all very much, and I commend this bill to the House.

Look, I’m going to take a short call on this one. The bill, as we’ve heard, is in three parts. I’m not going to talk about the early childhood education part, but I am going to talk about the other two parts.

First of all is the one about the Secretary of Education being able to get that daily attendance data from schools. That’s really, really important now because we know what’s happened to attendance and we know that our children cannot learn from schools if they’re not actually at the schools. Knowing they’re doing everything that we can to get them to school is the first and most important thing. Actually, we’ve seen a turn-around from the frankly disastrous numbers—and I will come back to those numbers, the frankly disastrous numbers—that we’ve seen over the last few years. We’re starting to see that turn around because we’re taking it seriously. That is really, really important.

The second thing we’ve got to do is make sure we’re teaching the right things in our schools. Again, the Government is doing some great work on that, and I credit Minister for Education, Erica Stanford, for that fantastic leadership that she’s showing there.

The other thing that I want to talk about, though—the third one—is the most prominent one, which we’ve been discussing now: the establishment of charter schools. This has been long signalled. It’s not like it’s a surprise. It’s an election promise that’s been made through the ACT Party, as part of a coalition agreement, and this is a Government—it’s been really great to be able to stand up here time and time again and say this is a Government which is delivering on the promises that we made to the people of New Zealand and which the people of New Zealand voted for. We are delivering on what we said we would do.

To charter schools—they are a recognition that one size doesn’t fit all. As my good colleague Grant McCallum said, it’s about choice—it’s about choice. I don’t think there’s a compulsion to attend a charter school, is there?

Camilla Belich: Yes, there is—if it’s the only school in your area.

ANDY FOSTER: You have to! You have to! OK, well, that’s interesting—yeah, for a few people, maybe. But it’s about choice. It’s about choice. I hear the angst from Labour and some of its supporters around there, because this challenges—

Hon Jan Tinetti: 90 percent of submitters.

ANDY FOSTER: —the existing model which benefits some of those supporters. We’ll hear the unions at the Education and Workforce Committee.

I’ve heard a lot of catastrophising about the charter schools and also, reading the minority report from the select committee, the clear threat from the Labour Party to kneecap charter schools. The question is: what about the parents and the teachers who’ve chosen to go to those charter schools? Don’t they matter? What about those people who’ve chosen to go? They don’t matter, clearly! What happens if they are a raging success?

Actually, Jan Tinetti said that she thinks that they will increase the inequalities. Now, that tends to suggest to me that she thinks they’re going to work—

Hon Jan Tinetti: That’s what it’s done overseas.

ANDY FOSTER: —better than the State system. Give them a chance, I think, is the key message. Give them a chance, and if they’re working—so if they’re working, the Labour Party is saying, “Don’t care if they’re working”—

Simon Court: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d just ask you to reflect on whether it’s appropriate for members to heckle from a seat that’s not their own. I’ve observed a member—Jan Tinetti—heckling from what I believe is a seat that’s not her own. I’d just like to ask you to reflect on that; I’m not an expert on the Standing Orders.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I’m sure—I’ll take advice—but we all swap seats after question time, so I’m not sure that it’s a problem. If it’s a problem, I’ll let you know, but, at this stage, I don’t think it is. Carry on, Andy Foster.

ANDY FOSTER: Thank you for that disruption from my good colleague Simon Court. It was more disruptive than anything that was coming from the other side of the House. Anyway, what we heard is that the Labour Party believes that these things could work—the charter schools could work—they could increase inequalities because they work, and yet they want to kneecap them. That is ideological and nonsensical. It makes no sense whatsoever.

The one thing I do agree with them on is the need to be more transparent. Transparency is really, really important because then you can tell whether something is working and working well.

The final thing I want to say is, look, the Opposition would say that the jury is out on charter schools, but I just want to ask the Opposition to think about where our State school system is at. Our State school system has some real challenges, and, obviously, we’re working to try and fix those.

I just want to finish off with some numbers. In the last five years, under the last administration, the number of staff at the Ministry of Education increased by 36 percent; 1,900 new staff members. You’d think that would generate a fantastic result, but the percentage of students at school in 2022 was 46 percent in term 3. In 2017, that number was 67 percent. It’s dropped by 50 percent. The achievement levels in maths, reading, and writing in 2021—an Education Review Office report found that 40 percent of 15-year-olds were not meeting literacy and numeracy standards for NCEA level 1.

Finally, teacher capabilities in maths—because that obviously is related to that. In 2023, a quarter of New Zealand students were in schools where principals said that they had inadequate or poorly trained teaching staff, up from 16 percent in the previous round of testing in 2018, and that nearly half were in schools that struggled to hire teachers.

My point is that the Labour Party want to kneecap charter schools, and yet the real focus has got to be: give them a chance. If they work better than the State system—and we need to fix the State system as well, after six years of their mismanagement. I commend the bill to the House.

I will say to the member Simon Court, under Speakers’ ruling 65/1, “(1) A member may interject from any seat the member may be occupying at the time, but not while walking about.” Thank you.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te tuku i ngā kōrero me ngā whakaaro o Te Pāti Māori ki tēnei o ngā pire e kīia nei o te Education and Training Amendment Bill.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. Greetings to all of us of the House. I stand to offer the statements and opinions of the Māori Party regarding this bill known as the Education and Training Amendment Bill.] 

 I was fortunate enough in the last couple of days to be at Waiwhetū Marae where the 40-year celebration of the Te Māori exhibition took place. The reason I mention it is because the Te Māori exhibition was a seminal watershed moment in the development and reclamation of Māori of their rightful place in our own country. What the Te Māori exhibition forced forward—drove forward—was Māori determination to speak for ourselves in our own country. Subsequent to that came things like kura kaupapa Māori, wharekura, kura-ā-iwi, whare wānanga, and a whole raft of development activities within te iwi Māori, which has largely led to what you would consider to be the space that Māori hold today, which was not there 40 years ago.

I stand here, listening in the main, and having spent 20 years in Māori education, in whare wānanga, in institutes of technology and polytechnics, and most recently in universities. None of this is new—none of this is revolutionary or anything like that—but the thing that really strikes me about the charter schools, the amendments to the Education and Training Amendment Bill, is that you have a Government who are hellbent on standardising education, standard delivery, standardised testing, and these are all ideas that were sort of shuffled out with the last ice age, but they’re determined to make that the pathway forward for education in Aotearoa. In the same breath, from the same Government, you’ve got a small pocket that want bespoke, specialised education delivery for 35 schools out of how many thousands.

Those two positions are juxtaposed—it’s not really hard to see. They’re juxtaposed and it’s not really hard to see. They’re juxtaposed, and it just begs the question, “Why?” Why is it even entertained? Why is the Minister of Education giving away $153 million that she could put in anywhere to improving the central system? Why is she giving away $153 million that she could invest in bespoke schools that already exist, like kura kaupapa Māori, wharekura, or kura-ā-iwi? Why are they not $153 million concerned about the underachievement of young Māori in the mainstream system? Why can they not see that Māori-medium education and kura kaupapa Māori, wharekura, and kura-ā-iwi have been outperforming mainstream delivery of education to Māori for more than 30 years?

I can tell you why they don’t know, because they don’t bother to look. The evidence is lying around everywhere. It’s been championed by Te Rūnanga nui o ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori, by the tribunal for years and years and years, and just consistently ignored. If they were concerned about the whānau who need better education, better access, better everything, then $153 million to Te Rūnanga nui o ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori would be a great start.

Simon Court: I think they can apply.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Thank you to that guy over there.

Simon Court: I think a charter school, they can apply.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: I mean, it defies rational response in any sort of ideal thinking. This guy over here, well, he can keep running his mouth, if he likes. There’s absolutely no recognition of Te Tiriti o Waitangi or the place of education and the determination Māori have demonstrated over decades, paying for it ourselves—none of that’s considered.

There you have it. I mean, I look forward to the next iteration of the select committees and we’ll see if we can get the old percentage up to 99 percent of people not supporting it, but I doubt that that will matter either when it comes to talking in this place, because that seems to be how it works. But whatever—

Grant McCallum: Democracy.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, yeah, democracy. Good on you, mate—you can count. Ka waihohia ēnei kōrero i konei hei tā-ihutanga mō te motu katoa. Tēnā koe e te Pīka, tēnā tātou. Kāre mātou e paku whakaae ki tēnei pire. [These statements will be left here for the enjoyment of the whole nation. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Greetings to us all. We do not commend this bill at all.]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to stand for this call to represent the Green Party’s strong opposition to this bill. I guess that puts us in the A+ category—as well as the majority of submitters who oppose this bill, the vast, vast majority—because we want to see a well-funded public education system where all students can thrive. What we can see here with the charter schools model, where they’re going to do it their way, is this path leads us to a place where the quality and consistency of education is put at risk, threatening student safety and educational outcomes by permitting unregistered and unqualified people to teach.

This bill will allow charter schools to be reintroduced into Aotearoa with all of those negatives. This is something that we know because we’ve seen it happen. The Government, as we’ve heard, has allocated $153 million for the set-up of an authorisation board and agency. That’s an increased risk to part of our education system being operated for profit rather than for public good and for positive outcomes.

Another part of the bill is the repeal of the network management approval process that was just introduced in 2023. Network approval exists to ensure there is consistency and sufficient checks around the suitability before an early childhood education (ECE) centre is approved, and this would mean the removal of those checks. What about the financial security of any potential ECE operators? It’ll make it so much easier, as we’ve heard, for big global businesses to monopolise and privatise the sector to the detriment not only of teachers but of our students.

Simon Court: You have the State monopolise it, so what’s worse?

SCOTT WILLIS: The State looks after and aims to care for everyone. That’s the big difference here. That’s why the Green Party opposes the Education and Training Amendment Bill and would like to comment here on three aspects: charter schools, ECE network approval, and the overall legislative process.

We’ve got no specific concerns, issues, with the attendance data other than general concerns about how that data would be used. We want to see a well-funded public education system where all students are able to thrive, particularly those with diverse backgrounds. I’ve got to say that my eldest son has dyslexia. We didn’t lack for choice for good schools to send him to. We want all schools to be able to provide for those with diverse backgrounds or various needs, and we strongly oppose the reintroduction of charter schools on the grounds that there is no evidence, either domestically or internationally, that charter schools are a successful model for schooling.

We’ve heard the cherry-picking of evidence, but we know, from the evidence, that there’s no support for this model. Submitters have also raised concerns about the violations of our rights, and we’ve heard about the Chief Ombudsman’s concern that charter schools would be cloaked in secrecy. It was reassuring to hear from Andy Foster that there could be transparency and they want to see transparency, but that is not what this is doing. This is not where charter schools are heading.

We’ve heard about the omissions of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We strongly oppose the repeal of the ECE network process, because considering it was only introduced in 2023, there is not sufficient time to judge whether it has been successful or not.

We’re concerned that while this bill is still progressing through the select committee stage, the Government is already calling for applications for charter schools. They’re putting everything in front. They are not respecting the process. With 90.3 percent of submitters opposing charter schools and 96 percent of submitters opposing the repeal of the ECE network approval, the Government has clearly not listened.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Isn’t it great that on this side of the House, we’re intent on making sure we lift outcomes for our young students? Much hard work has already been done by the extremely dedicated, focused, and passionate Minister of Education, Erica Stanford, and the feedback from parents has been overwhelming. I’m delighted that the spotlight has been put on wanting improved educational outcomes for our young people, for the future hopes and dreams of this country rest on their young shoulders as much as ours.

This bill, in the name of the Hon David Seymour, allows for the introduction of charter schools. It has the potential to further lift the bar on those aspirations, and the appetite for participation, as evidenced by the number of schools interested, 78 so far and counting, shows that we’re on the right track to getting educational performance back on track.

This bill also enables rules for State schools about collecting, recording, and providing attendance data. Simply, we want our kids at school. Regarding the early childhood education component of the bill, we’re removing the red tape to make it easier to deliver effective, affordable, and accessible early learning services to families. That is a complete contrast to the other side of the House who would rather spend all of their time working out how to relieve those same people of their income with more taxes. I commend this bill to the House.

I just want to mention too, for anyone that was—I was just thinking about what that rumbling was, and it’s actually just the vibrations coming from the building. So it’s not an earthquake or anything like that.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, here we are on the second reading of a bill that would take money out of our public school system, set up an alternative school system, and for what reason? After sitting through the select committee process and hearing 90 percent of the submissions in opposition to this move, I am still not sure.

Now, I want to focus on a couple of things in my contribution today that have arisen since the first reading of this bill. The first is really around some of the allegations that the Associate Minister has made about the relative positions of teachers and students in New Zealand, and the second is around the additional Amendment Paper that the Associate Minister put in just before submissions closed on this bill which took away the rights of teachers at charter schools to be in multi-employer collective agreements (MECA), removing one of their fundamental rights as workers in this country.

First of all, I wanted to address the Associate Minister, and I am noting with disappointment that I’m not able to address this to the Minister in person today. I know it’s a convention that we don’t refer to the absence of members in the House, but I do note also Speaker’s ruling 29/1 that suggests that when the matter is of sufficient importance, it overrides the convention of mentioning that one person’s absence, so I’m relying on that today to say that the Associate Minister in this particular case needed to be here in the House to hear what submitters on this bill said. It is with great disappointment that he is not here to listen to it, because 90 percent of the submissions were opposed to this bill, and some of the things that the Associate Minister is doing in this bill honestly defy logic.

I am very surprised if, in their heart of hearts, the members of the National Party sitting opposite actually believe that this is a good thing. They have their primary Minister of Education not wanting to speak to this. Why? Because they don’t agree with it. Because it’s a bad idea. Because we’ve got one Minister, on one hand, as other members have commented on, saying, “Structured literacy. Structured maths. No phones in schools.”, and on the other hand, “No teachers. No structured literacy. No maths. Whatever phones you like. We don’t know—totally unstructured.” It is illogical. The entire premise of this bill defies logic and will be damaging to New Zealand’s education system.

We heard in the Education and Workforce Committee that it will be damaging for a generation of children that are caught up in these charter schools. We heard evidence from other countries who had these charter schools to say that it takes literally an entire generation to get over the detriment that some of these schools pass.

The point I wanted to make around the Associate Minister and some of the things he has said around teachers and students—he has said that we care only about teachers; we don’t care about students. Now, I don’t know whether he thinks New Zealanders are stupid, but we all know that parents want to have teachers who are satisfied in their work. We want teachers to be happy, well remunerated, and we want them to be in a good place to be able to teach our children. There is no “us” and “them” when it comes to teachers and students; their interests are one and the same. His constant remarks around the fact that unions want certain things and they’re only for teachers are offensive and blatantly wrong, and I think New Zealanders know better than to listen to that type of division once again from this Minister within this country.

Now, very importantly, in this bill, the Minister has taken away a right that applies to every other employee in this country, and that is the right to, if they want to, join a union, and if all of those other union members at that particular organisation also want to, and the employer wants to, enter into a multi-employer collective agreement. This is something which is in our Employment Relations Act. It applies to everyone. It is also consistent with a lot of our international obligations which are recorded in our domestic legislation.

This Minister has decided unilaterally, as far as I can see, and in the advice he received, there were a number of options on what he could do in relation to this. The one he went with is called “The Associate Minister of Education’s proposed option”, so he has thought about this himself. He has put this into this bill, and the reason he has done it is because he wants to attack teachers and he wants to attack the unions. Now, he has told us the reason that he is doing it.

Simon Court: We don’t care about them; we care about the children and their learning.

CAMILLA BELICH: Well, that’s exactly my point, Mr Court—that is exactly my point. The interests of children and teachers are the same. These children and teachers are the same. There is not a teacher in this country that gets into teaching because they want to be in opposition to students; they get into teaching to help students—for the children. It doesn’t even deserve a response. It’s so obvious that teachers are in there to look after students. Honestly, I think some of these other members should listen to those comments and just have a bit of a reflection on whether that’s really who you want to be associated with.

Anyway, the MECA opt-out that the Associate Minister has proposed takes away fundamental rights, and we were concerned about this. I questioned the Associate Minister at select committee about this particular issue. Before I had read any advice, I asked him, “Have you received advice on this?” He said that, yes, he had. He said that he wasn’t concerned about breaching not only our international obligations to the International Labour Organization (ILO) but our international trade agreements—and I hope people are listening to this—from the UK and the EU which protect and maintain workers’ rights and require us to promote them.

I was concerned about this. I asked him. He said he didn’t mind. He didn’t care. He was not concerned about that. He thought people could take in a complaint, but he wasn’t too overly bothered about it. The next day, helpfully, we got a document which said exactly what I was concerned about. It said, and I’ll quote from our report, “There is a strong misalignment with the ILO obligations and it creates a significant restrictions on parties’ ability to bargain freely. If a complaint were brought to the ILO, it’s likely the ILO would confirm the misalignment.” This is his advice.

It also said in relation to trade agreements, “The European Union and UK trade agreements require parties to respect, promote and realise the fundamental rights at work and in the ILO fundamental conventions. In light of the above assessment, it follows the option is also likely to breach some of our binding FTA obligations.” There we have it. It breaches our commitments internationally. It takes rights away from our teachers. So why are we doing it? Why are we deciding to take rights away when it can jeopardise our trade agreements, which we know are so important to our producers, to our farmers, to our manufacturers in New Zealand? Why would we put this at risk for something that has obviously come from ideological opposition to the rights of unions?

Now, even his arguments in response to my questioning around the reason he didn’t want MECA provisions in schools do not make sense. If there is a multi-employer collective agreement, you can opt out of that by not being a member of the union and you can have a separate agreement with your employer, so this logic that somehow charter schools won’t be able to employ the best person because there’s a multi-employer collective agreement simply does not make sense. None of it makes sense at all. It is an attack on our fundamental rights, it is a risk to our international reputation, and it is something which I am disappointed the Associate Minister is not here in the House to answer to.

We will continue to oppose this bill, and I would ask members opposite, those in coalition with the ACT Party—that wants to see these schools in place by 2025 after having a three-month consultation period at select committee—whether this is really what you want to see for the future of our country and our children: institutions that you have no control over, no teachers, no scrutiny of what they’re taught, they don’t have to teach the curriculum, no control, and a situation where, if there is only one school in your area and David Seymour decides that that school should be a charter school and invites you to apply to become a charter school, then your child has no option, if they’re zoned for it, but to attend a charter school. That might not be what you want; you might actually want your child to be taught by teachers, which I think is reasonable, and the New Zealand Curriculum. This takes away choice. It is a bad bill, and I do not commend it to the House.

I rise to support the second reading of the Education and Training Amendment Bill, because unlike the Opposition, they said it’s not making sense, but it’s making a whole lot of sense to me. I read the bill, I’ve read a lot of the news, I’ve read feedback, I’ve read comments, and it makes a whole lot of sense for me, because you know what? I am also a mother of young children. I’ve been thinking hard and long about the education of my children. And guess what? I stood for office. I ran in the election because I wanted the better future for my two children.

This bill is about giving more choices and options for parents, for teachers, for schools, and for children to find the best for what they have. As a young mother of two children who are going through early childhood education (ECE) at the moment, I have to say I am so pleased to hear, particularly from the first speaker on this bill, the decisions to be made by the people who invest, who take risks, decisions for parents who send their children to ECE. It is not for bureaucracies to make those decisions. That is exactly the principle behind setting up charter schools. It is for parents to choose what suits them the best. For that, I commend this bill to the House.

Kia orana, Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition to this bill. I was not a member of the Education and Workforce Committee; however, I have read the committee’s report and I take up the comments that have been made by colleagues about this being a rushed process in terms of the time that was allotted to consider this bill. There are three components, and I want to focus my contribution this afternoon on the area of education, largely, because we all know that, actually, charter schools have been around for some time, but we also know that they are a failed experiment. They are an absolute failed experiment. We’ve heard, already, members opposite talk about the views of the Hon Willie Jackson, the views of the Hon Peeni Henare. Well, I can confirm that they are opposed to this particular bill. Members opposite can say whatever they like, but the reality remains that those two members will vote in opposition to this particular bill. This is a failed experiment and it did not work.

This is being advanced by the Government, and specifically by the Associate Minister of Education, who is responsible—a Minister who has a one-track mind when it comes to this piece of legislation. If we step back and have a look at the horrors, the disappointment that will be inflicted upon communities all around this country as a result of this bill, there are many things that we can talk about. I’m going to touch on a few. This issue of charter schools being reintroduced, legitimised as an option, into communities means that teachers can, basically, teach whatever they want. They can teach whatever they want. Where there have been specific moves to ensure that, actually, our tamariki, our ākonga that are coming through the various learning establishments in this country, have a real strong foundation about New Zealand history, about the New Zealand context, about what is appropriate, about what it means to live in Aotearoa New Zealand—that is something that this particular Minister simply wants to undo.

It’s also a particular opportunity that doesn’t mean that any registered teachers necessarily need to be involved in this. Now—

Hon Jan Tinetti: Shocking.

TANGI UTIKERE: It is shocking. As someone who was a registered teacher for quite some time, I know that being a teacher brings obligations. Certainly, it brings opportunities. The reason why all teachers in this country get involved is because of a love of learning, a passion for young people, ensuring that, actually, you can get the best out of them as they go about their schooling life. Making sure that there is a minimum standard around what is a code of conduct—what is a minimum standard that families, when they send someone off to a learning centre, whatever that might be, can expect from the adults and the practitioners that are there spending time with them during the day—is actually not too much to ask. It’s something that exists in our public education sector and something that we should all value.

This is a Minister, this is a Government, that simply wants to wipe that aside and say it’s all right, actually, as long as someone is going to be in a learning environment who wants to teach anything. It doesn’t matter if they’re not registered, it doesn’t matter if they sign up to a particular code of professional responsibility, because this is something that is going to benefit the deep, big pockets of corporates. That is going to be the winner, at the end of the day, in terms of charter schools. It’s going to be the corporates, it’s going to be those that are going to make profit rather than actually get anything out of the learning opportunities that are so important for the tamariki of this future. That is absolutely appalling—an appalling position. This is a Government that is signalling to not just New Zealand but to the rest of the world that that’s OK, that we’re all right with that. Well, members on this side of the House are not all right with that, and we will continue to be opposed to that.

The important thing is that the public education system is there for everyone. In order for it to do its job, it needs to be resourced. This move to allowing charter schools will, basically, strip out more than $150 million that could otherwise be utilised for the State sector. It could be utilised for a continuation of the healthy lunches in schools programme—many members all around the House will see the significant success that that has created and supported in their communities. It would continue, at the expense of charter schools. Or building projects could be continued. This is a Government and a Minister that simply has its priorities in all the wrong places. Now, I know my colleague has referred to the fact that the Minister was not here today—he’s in Palmerston North. I hope that he gets the same experience as when he went to talk about attendance in other schools, and that is one that is not supportive of this bill—

Hon Casey Costello: Point of order. This was raised as—you know, members have previously talked about a member, commenting on their absence. There was a strong case put forward previously as why that was important, to comment. I think we’ve gone way past that, and I think the member should reconsider that.

TANGI UTIKERE: Speaking to the point of order, my colleague Camilla Belich identified and relied on Speakers’ ruling 29/1, which simply indicated that the significance of this issue being progressed by the House at the moment—the convention would be that that particular issue is set aside, given the gravity of what is being passed. Now, that was not challenged at the time—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I accepted that, at the time, and I accept that the member has spoken to the fact that the Minister’s not here and where he is. And you’re expecting, in relation to this bill, the feedback that he’s getting?

TANGI UTIKERE: Correct.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Right, so if we could just finish that line, and then we’ll move back to the bill.

TANGI UTIKERE: Thank you.

Simon Court: Madam Speaker, further point of order. I think the line that the member was going down when describing another member—the reception that they received the last time they were in Palmerston North, hoping it would happen again—I do think, when we reflect on the circumstances, where a member of Parliament was put in a situation where they might have been at physical risk, and this member in the House is suggesting it would be good if that could happen again—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I—

Simon Court: Madam Speaker, I’d just like to finish. I’d just like to reflect that making statements like that might bring disorder to the House and—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t think that that was the intention of the member who was speaking. The member was just hoping that the Minister was going to get some messages that were portraying his message that he’s speaking about now, which he’s going to carry on with.

TANGI UTIKERE: And, Madam Speaker, I hope that the Minister does receive a reception that indicates a very strong message that this is not the direction that this Government should be hitting on.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. This is a great piece of legislation. It’s a great day for New Zealand. And, particularly, one of the things that I really looked at when I saw how many people had applied to have charter schools in New Zealand—and they had exceeded the demand on offer, and there were 78 applications already to open new charter schools or to convert existing State schools to charter schools. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. After sitting through the submissions, the advice from officials, and the debate about this charter schools bill, my conclusion is that this is a very expensive, taxpayer-funded lab experiment in the privatisation, the de-unionisation, and the dumbing down of our education system. I say for the folks at home who are watching that $153 million of your taxes is being spent on this weird ideological experiment of the ACT party. That is $153 million that could be spent on the things that our schools desperately need.

There is not a school in this country that is not crying out for more teacher hours, teacher-aides, and learning support coordinators to help them deal with the large number of kids showing up to school these days with learning challenges and neurodiverse learning needs. The money could be spent on something really worthwhile like that, but it is actually being blown on this strange ideological experiment.

This bill sits alongside the divisive and nasty and undemocratic Treaty principles bill that the ACT Party has brought to this Parliament, alongside making military-style semi-automatic weapons more accessible in our communities. These projects are the price of ACT’s 8 percent of the vote in the last election being delivered to the National Party coalition, but it is the people of New Zealand that are paying the price because of this nutty fringe stuff that the ACT Party are bringing to the House with the connivance of the National Party. In spite of the juvenile hooting and hollering that we’ve seen from the National Party benches during this debate, I actually don’t think that they care very much for this legislation. It’s all superficial political stuff. They don’t really care for it.

The reason I say that is the National Party’s education Minister has a completely different approach to the portfolio than David Seymour. All of the policies and all of Erica Stanford’s public statements have been about the need to impose more a uniform structure and discipline on the public schooling system. It’s all there in black and white. All of the initiatives that have been announced have been about the Minister demanding compliance from our school system with the dictates of this Government, whether it’s structured literacy, structured maths, or no cell phones in schools. But somehow it’s OK that this bill carves out a privatised part of our public education system and says to those schools, “Don’t worry; you don’t have to employ teachers that have had any training, any certification. You don’t have to actually teach the curriculum. Do whatever you like.” And, by the way, there’s $153 million of taxpayers’ money and no public scrutiny or accountability through the Official Information Act. How can that possibly be justified?

I ask the members on that side of the House: where are your principles? Where is your commitment to good governance? Was 8 percent of the vote enough to make you sell them down the river? That’s what you’ve done—$153 million, no public accountability, and these schools can be run for private profit, extracting a surplus from our communities, from the teachers of our students, that won’t actually be reinvested back into our education system but will go into the pockets of the people running these private schools. Now, I can see from the members opposite that they don’t really believe in this bill, they don’t believe in this policy, but they are simply going along with it for political expediency.

I’m very glad that my colleagues Jan Tinetti and Camilla Belich have spoken so eloquently this afternoon, critiquing this bill—not only the education aspect but also the shameful taking away of the human rights of our teachers in contravention of the commitments that this country made internationally at the International Labour Organization and in our trade agreements with the EU and the UK. This Government, for political expediency, is prepared to ride roughshod over those commitments and deny teachers fundamental human rights to bargain collectively, in this case through multi-employer collective agreements. It’s absolutely shameful.

The thing that should really depress the members opposite is that fact that there is not a skerrick of evidence to support the political claims that are at the basis of this bill. It is not so much evidence-based policy making; it is policy-based evidence making. There is no evidence to support the suggestion in this bill that the charter school model will give more flexibility to schools and somehow improve educational achievement. It won’t, and we heard at the select committee that one of New Zealand’s most celebrated educational researchers, John Hattie, wrote that it’s ironic that a popular solution to claims about failing schools is to invent new forms of schools. Given that the variance in student achievement between schools is small relative to the variance within schools, it is folly to believe that a solution lies in different forms of schools.

The evidence that we heard at the select committee went on to say that there is little evidence that policies aimed at increasing school choice make any meaningful difference to aggregate student achievement. It’s all there—most of it in peer-reviewed OECD data. There is no evidential basis for the claims that the Government and the Associate Minister have been making.

We also heard at the select committee that Sweden had a 30-year experiment with charter schools and it has been declared a system failure by the Swedish Minister for Education, because it’s contributed to growing inequality within the Swedish schooling system and considerable dissatisfaction of parents. What is more, the Ministry of Education’s own analysis of the last time charter schools were imposed on New Zealand students and their families, between 2014 and 2018, and the ministry’s own report say that there was no quantifiable increase in student achievement attributable to charter schools during that time.

It’s a very, very strange inconsistency that this Government is willing, in every other piece of its education policy, to impose structure and dictate to schools what they should do but in this instance, this weird ideological experiment, they are prepared to throw all the evidence out the window and allow the ACT party to have this $153 million indulgence at the expense of our students and their learning opportunities.

The main innovation that the charter school experiment offers is governance. There is no suggestion that there’s any evidence that will actually offer any innovation or change that will make a difference to learning outcomes. How is the governance of a school, or its employment relations policies, going to improve the learning outcomes of our students? It is very, very weird.

Instead of going ahead with this bill, it’s our view that they should throw this bill out now, or in the committee stage, and, instead, address the core issues that our public education system is dealing with. No one is suggesting that New Zealand’s public education system is perfect. We all know it has challenges. Most of those challenges are actually due to a lack of funding. There is clearly a problem of underachievement among many of our students, and particularly Māori and Pasifika students are struggling. We need as a country to find ways to address that underachievement and help those young people do well in our education system, but this bill offers nothing to do that. Instead, it is a weird and expensive ideological experiment. It should not proceed

I’m really pleased to be able to wrap this second reading up on behalf of the Government. As the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, I’d really like to firstly acknowledge the work of the committee. Contrary to how it might sound, actually this committee heard people, they listened carefully, they made some smart amendments, they asked insightful questions of officials, and they worked through realistic changes. I want to thank the committee for their work on this, and I want to thank members, particularly on the Government side, for their views this afternoon.

Firstly, I just want to address the misrepresentation of members of this party from the other side. To say that we don’t truly believe in this is nothing other than rubbish. Actually, charter schools—and no solution in education is a silver bullet—are centres of innovation, and they give people chance, they give people choice where the current system does not work for them. And you know what? I hear from people around the country and especially around my electorate in Napier who want a different option. And if we gave charter schools a chance when we brought them in last time, we wouldn’t be sitting here calling them an experiment, again; we would have seen the results, and we would have seen what they have done.

I just want to acknowledge my good friend Greg Fleming and a colleague of his who has done his PhD in the outcomes of charter schools. He has studied at the Australian National University in Canberra, and he has brought that knowledge back to New Zealand, and there is proof that they are brilliant institutions of innovation that do things differently. Of course, it’s not going to be the same as the State school system, because that’s the point. They are different. Otherwise, why would we be bringing this choice in? So, with that, I am pleased to say that at the second reading, I commend this bill to the House.

The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Education and Workforce Committee by majority be agreed to.