Education Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeEducation Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 June 2013. Volume:690;Page:10672. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Education Amendment BillThird ReadingHon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I moveThat the Education Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The Education Amendment Bill amends the Education Act 1989. It will play a key role in supporting the Government’s objective of how we get five out of five students achieving educational success. This Government is absolutely focused on that. We do not want educational success for a few—for some—but for all so we have focused on a full range of measures that will deliver that possibility to all New Zealand school students and learners. This bill helps deal with a number of things in fact. It creates the legal framework by which we will establish partnership schools or kura hourua. It also looks at the provision for how school staff may exercise search and surrender provisions in order to ensure that schools are safe and secure places while protecting the rights of students. It also makes provision for a number of other areas that will allow greater flexibility in the delivery of education in New Zealand.Starting with the two significant or substantial provisions in terms of creating the legal framework for partnership schools or kura hourua we know that it will help us deliver a third option for educational provision in New Zealand. It will enable us to have a legal framework that allows for partnership between the community sectors business and education because this Government recognises that there is not a monopoly on how quality education can be delivered. In fact it can be delivered through a number of ways and we are interested in exploring all of those ways because we will leave no option unconsidered in how we ensure that we raise educational achievement for five out of five kids.We know that our education system in New Zealand is world class but not world leading. We know that it is top performing as an education jurisdiction. It performs for the vast majority but not for all. We know that those who have been traditionally underserved by our education system are the same groups of people year in and year out. So there is a system response that we need to make. We want those parts of our education system that are performing well for the majority of our students to continue to perform well and indeed to perform better but we also want to address those parts of the system that are not performing as well. That means working with all of the schoolsthat we have—and we have over 2500. Those 2500 schools already canvass a range of options. We have single-sex and coed; we have total immersion in English and total immersion in Māori and bilingual units; we have faith-based and secular-based schools; we have small medium and large schools; and of course they are spread the length and breadth of our country.What partnership schools do is offer us another option—another option that is focused on results on transparency on ensuring that the sponsors who propose and go through a very thorough approval process are focused on how they will deliver educational results for the students whose parents choose that they should go there. There will be no compulsion in this. Partnership schools provide another option but it will be transparent in terms of what is expected. It will be transparent in terms of the conduct of its business. It will be transparent in that the disciplinary provisions of the Ombudsmen Act will apply. It will be transparent in that all of the requirements will be specified in a contract between the Ministry of Education on behalf of the Crown and the successful sponsor and all the reporting that will be expected in respect of that whether financial operational or educational will be reported to the Ministry of Education which of course will ensure that it is captured by the Official Information Act.The bill provides that the sponsors may recommend that a proportion of their staff may not be registered as teachers but that is not to be confused with not having qualifications and not having skills. Indeed kura kaupapa had the same kind of difficult birth that the Opposition would try to attend partnerships schools with. There was a belief that kura were so different from the rest of the mainstream system that they could not possibly be good when the facts which have been incontrovertible since they started are that children and young people who go to kura by and large on average do better—Māori kids—than they do in the mainstream system. The kura will tell us that much of that success is due to experts in te reo me ōna tikanga who may not be registered teachers but nevertheless deliver learning in ways that ensure educational success. We envisage the same sort of track record occurring here with partnership schools. So what this legislation does is put around it a legal framework that makes this option clear stable transparent and focused on getting five out of five kids being educationally successful.As I have said there will be no compulsion for a parent to send their child here as there is no compulsion for a parent to send their child to any particular type of school. And as I have said many times before too it is not the type of school; it is the quality of performance. We will be holding these schools to the highest standards. We will be expecting that they will be able to deliver successfully to these kids and if not the ultimate sanction will apply and that is that they can and will be closed.A second part of this legislation focuses on ensuring that we are very clear about what the rights are of not only teachers and principals but also other authorised staff to ensure a safe and secure environment wherein learning can break out potential can be realised and educational success can be within reach of every one of our students. But we are realistic. We know that schools are also microcosms of society and that there can be dangers and unsafe instruments or behaviours that are brought into schools. We want to ensure that our teachers and other authorised staff have the ability to exercise search and surrender responsibilities that ensure that where staff suspect that a student may indeed be harbouring inappropriate equipment or anything that might present a danger to other students staff have the ability to require these young people to disclose those.The Education and Science Committee members have worked really hard together and with the sector to strike a very good balance between ensuring the safety of all students and protecting the rights of the dignity and privacy of other students. This hasbeen a very challenging balance to strike and I think that this legislation does that. It will be reinforced by the establishment of guidelines which will be formulated under the Secretary for Education’s auspices but also through involving a working group from the sector. After all principals and teachers are the ones who every day face these challenges and want to know that they are going to have sensible and practicable provisions by which they can exercise these cautions.The final part of this legislation deals with a range of other provisions all of which are dedicated to this Government’s commitment to raising educational achievement for all kids. One of the things it starts off with is a recognition that boards of trustees are Crown entities but unlike every other Crown entity they have no purpose articulated at law. This legislation remedies that omission by making it very clear that the role and purpose of boards in everything they do is to focus on ensuring that every student has the opportunity to do well educationally. So whether it is the management of property financial responsibilities to be discharged the kind of curriculum programme that is to be taught or the kinds of skills that are to be employed at the school the board is doing all of that with one clear focus and that is to raise the achievement of all.Allied to that is a provision for making timetabling flexible. We learnt from Christchurch that by enabling schools to have flexibility in their timetables they could cater for a whole range of students but in particular for that very permeable interface which this Government has made more permeable in the secondary-tertiary transition where young people go off to trades academies for 2 or 3 days a week or take up other options such as internships practicums and so forth. We do not want a hidebound structure within schools that precludes that possibility. We want educational success to not only be in reach but also be achieved by five out of five students and this legislation puts that within their grasp.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): Before I begin the substantive comments that I want to make on the Education Amendment Bill I have a quick question for the Minister of Education. I would like her to name one school board of trustees that is not focused on student achievement. Which one?Hon Hekia Parata: We’re providing a legal basis for all of them.CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh right there we go—the Minister of Education cannot name one school board of trustees that is not focused on student achievement because the reality is that when parents put their names forward to be on school boards of trustees they do so specifically because they care about their kids’ educational achievement and because they care about the educational achievement of other kids within their community. I think it is absolutely disgraceful that this Government does not acknowledge that and that it seems to think it has to legislate for something that is blatantly obvious. It is blatantly obvious because parents teachers and everyone who works in the education system go into it with the view of improving the lives of young people in New Zealand. They already want to do that. They do not need to have the Government come in here and accuse them of not doing that which is what Hekia Parata is constantly doing all of the time.This is a sad day for the public education system in New Zealand. It is a very sad day because it is a day when the National Government put politics before education. So when did this all start? We know how this bill came to be in the House. It was all to do with the cup of tea between Mr Banks over there and John Key—the one that was inadvertently recorded and the one that they went to court to try to cover up. The cup of tea between John Banks and John Key is why we are debating this legislation in the House today. It is not about education. It is not about what is going to be good for education. It is riding roughshod over public opinion which is something that we are well used to this National Government doing. Eighty-two percent of New Zealandersare opposed to the idea that charter schools should be allowed to employ unregistered teachers yet this Government is bringing this bill to the House to deregulate the teaching profession effectively and it is ignoring the public’s concern about that matter. It voted down Supplementary Order Paper 221 which I put forward which would have ensured that there were qualified registered teachers in schools.Seventy-one percent of the New Zealand public are opposed to the idea that a charter school operator should be able to make a profit because New Zealanders know that money taken out of charter schools in profits is not money—Hon Hekia Parata: Specious numbers.CHRIS HIPKINS: “Specious numbers.” Hekia Parata says. I think it was aOne News poll.Hon Hekia Parata: We don’t make up stuff like the Opposition does.CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh she says they do not make up stuff. They do not make up stuff like the Opposition does. I am sure this is going to get better. Seventy-one percent of New Zealanders are opposed to charter schools making a profit because they know that the money that is sucked out of the education system in the form of profits is not money that is going into educating kids. And why should the taxpayer be lining the back pockets of the National Party’s and ACT Party’s mates who want to set up their charter schools rather than putting that money into education? This Government is putting $19 million into these charter schools and in the very same Budget it cut the funding for a programme like Te Kotahitanga.Hon Hekia Parata: Rubbish!CHRIS HIPKINS: A programme that has a proven track record of lifting student achievement has been cut by this Government. Hekia Parata says that is rubbish. How much money is going into Te Kotahitanga next year?Hon Hekia Parata: It is called building on success and actually—CHRIS HIPKINS: No. That is right. That would be no money going into Te Kotahitanga next year—no money at all going into Te Kotahitanga next year not one cent. The Government has cut the funding for it because it has decided that charter schools are more important—charter schools which the international evidence proves do not actually work.Let us look at the United States. The Government seems to be so in love with the charter school system in the US. Stanford University did research into charter schools and found that for 37 percent of learners they produced significantly worse outcomes—for 37 percent. For 46 percent they made no difference at all and only 17 percent did better in charter schools. These are the sorts of numbers that the Government thinks justify its experiment in charter schools in New Zealand. This is not an experiment that is designed to improve the outcomes in education. This is an ideological experiment that is designed to privatise aspects of the education system when what we should be focused on is ensuring that every school in New Zealand is a great school and that every New Zealander has the opportunity to fulfil their full potential—their full potential—through access to lifelong learning opportunities and a quality public education system.Hon Hekia Parata: No every New Zealander hasn’t—not under that Government. They’ve just wrung their hands and said: “Isn’t it terrible that every year more kids are not passing—more Māori more Pasifika.”CHRIS HIPKINS: Hekia Parata has got the audacity to talk about Māori educational achievement when that Minister cut the funding for the best Māori education programme in the country—cut the funding completely. It is gone. It is completely gone from next year and Hekia Parata is talking about Māori educational achievement when actually she has been the Minister who has cut the one programmethat had outstanding results. Why? Because it was too expensive. And what was her excuse? “Oh well we have got to come up with something that is a lot cheaper.” She has decided that it is going to be cheaper to cut corners and to cut the programme that works. That is how much Hekia Parata cares about Māori students’ educational achievement. She wants to cut the one programme that actually works.And Hekia Parata wants to put unregistered and unqualified teachers in front of these Māori students. They are not going to have to learn the New Zealand Curriculum. They are not going to have to learn the New Zealand Curriculum in these schools. If Hekia Parata is so confident that they are going to be such good-quality schools why are they not going to be subject to the Official Information Act? We hear nothing from the Minister. Deathly silence—nothing. Because the Government does not want the public to know what goes on within these charter schools. If the Government is so confident that these charter schools are going to act in a manner that is totally appropriate why is it that the Ombudsman’s powers do not apply to the entirety of the charter schools’ operations? Another deathly silence from the Government. No answer to that question. We know that the Ombudsman’s powers in regard to the State school system have been used judiciously and have highlighted major systemic problems—Dr Rajen Prasad: Bullying.CHRIS HIPKINS: —including systemic bullying in one particular school which the education agencies did not pick up. This is the sort of stuff that the Government wants to hide in charter schools by making them not subject to the Official Information Act and not allowing the Ombudsman the power to investigate. In short the Government wants to shortcut the democratic process. It wants to hide what is going on in these schools.The Government talks about the priority learners. Here is another question for the Minister: name one learner who is not a priority learner.Hon Hekia Parata: All of them are priorities but that Opposition—CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh all of them are priorities. So when the Government talks about its priority learners what on earth is the point? They should all be priority learners. So it is absolute weasel words when the Government talks about priority learners. What is it that Hekia Parata has against parent-led boards of trustees? What is that Hekia Parata has got against parent-led boards of trustees? She wants to allow private charter schools to be set up as profit-making businesses with no parental involvement whatsoever in how they are run. That is what this legislation allows plain and simple. This is a failed ideological experiment that is being imported from overseas. It is not about improving educational outcomes for New Zealand students. It is not about making sure we pick up the best examples of what is working in this country and what is good for New Zealand students. It is not about that at all. It is about importing failed ideology. It is about the failed ideology that says that if we increase competition we will get better outcomes. Well actually we have had several decades of increased competition in our education system and the very priority learners whom Hekia Parata talks about are some of those who have been most disadvantaged by that competition that we have within our education system.Hon Hekia Parata: Under that Government. Didn’t care enough just published reports and cried about it.CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh no. No actually it was a Labour Government that set up the Te Kotahitanga programme which that Minister has now cut the funding to. It was a Labour Government that established schools of special character to recognise that there is a gap within the existing public education system. Schools of special character already allow that gap to be filled yet this Government is turning its back on that saying that it does not think that schools of special character are of any use at all. It isturning its back on that and it is saying that it wants to privatise education and deregulate the teaching profession instead. And deregulate the teaching profession it will because we saw from the Novopay inquiry today the veiled references to further deregulation to renegotiating the collective agreement to make it simpler. Oh yes that is the agenda. We know that Treasury has been working on it. The Government is going to use any excuse it can to deregulate the teaching profession in New Zealand because the National Party never learns the lessons of history. When we look at the countless examples of where deregulation of professions has gone wrong we see that we do not need another one. The future of New Zealand’s education system and the future of the young people in it are far too important to experiment on which is what this bill does.Dr CAM CALDER (National): The Education Amendment Bill amends the Education Act in the two principal ways that we have heard. The Minister of Education gave a very lucid explanation of how it sets out a legal framework for a new type of school the partnership school. It alters another very important area by establishing powers around surrender to schools of harmful items and retention by schools of harmful items. These harmful items may be defined as items that pose an immediate threat to the physical or emotional safety of a person or that detrimentally affect the learning environment. These might include such things as knives drugs grenades guns and items stored in electronic form.This is a bill that as introduced included a number of new sections intended to clarify the powers of schools in searching and retaining students’ property. We made some key recommendations towards that. The Education and Science Committee looked at this in a huge amount of detail and some of these key recommendations are worth delineating because these were not clear in the original bill. I have to once again acknowledge the hard work of most members of the committee for achieving this end.Some of the key recommendations on the bill are as follows. We recommended allowing authorised staff members to exercise surrender and retention powers. I want to acknowledge Mike Sabin and his work in this area for a number of years. He made an outstanding contribution. We recommended allowing teachers to require the removal of outer clothing or the surrender of bags with safeguards. The Minister alluded to the safeguards in this legislation. We recommended allowing teachers to require the removal of any head covering gloves footwear or socks; clarifying that students may be encouraged to participate in voluntary drug programmes; clarifying that drug dogs can be used to search school property; and making it mandatory to have rules and guidelines about the implementation of this. I hear some barracking from the Opposition. This is crucially important. This is legislation that this committee can take great pride in because it has made the life of students throughout New Zealand a lot safer. It has made the life of staff principals and members of boards of trustees a lot clearer. So I want to acknowledge this work by members of the committee. There were some who stood to one side but in fact those opposite and Tracey Martin from New Zealand First did work hard on this.We have mentioned the key recommendations. I would like to now come on to why we have this extra strand in our cable of lifting student achievement that is called partnership schools. One of the simple reasons for it is that the only area in which New Zealand is leading the world is inequality. The gap between our best students and our lowest-performing students is the biggest in the world—the biggest in the world. As one submitter asked—I will repeat it—are we living in two different countries? Can we afford to be complacent? The committee heard that the Partnership Schools Working Group had received from sponsors 34 indications of interest in setting up a partnership school. Groups were saying that they want to do something about this.Contrast that with the unions which were ineluctably locked into opposing anything that showed the least bit of innovation. Most of those 2300 submissions were form submissions and there was not a lot of original thought but the people who are actually wanting to get involved with these partnership schools were saying that they want a chance to do something about this. They want to use innovation to enable their kids to engage in learning and get a decent start in life and they are willing to be held accountable for doing that.The significant point is that it is a matter of choice. Nobody has to go into a partnership school. As outlined earlier the most fundamental difference in the relationship between the Minister and the partnership school is that the relationship with the Minister will be contractual rather than regulatory. It is a contract to deliver engagement and achievement outcomes—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I want to start my final contribution to this debate on this Education Amendment Bill by paying tribute to the parents and the teachers throughout our country who have the best interests of their children and their education at the front of their minds and that is what leads their actions. Unfortunately this is a group that has come under attack during the course of this bill’s passage through the House. We have seen attack after attack from members of the National Party on the fact that we had members of teacher unions come to the Education and Science Committee and offer their opinion. Well these are the trained teaching professionals in our country the people who have the expertise in education and yes they did have an opinion. They had a unanimous opinion that this legislation is going to do nothing to further educational outcomes in New Zealand.This is a dark day for education in New Zealand. Before the dinner break my colleague Chris Hipkins mentioned in his contribution that this is a fundamental change to what we understand about education in New Zealand that we are passing through this House tonight. I do not see this as anything to celebrate. I also want to pay tribute to the number of parents who are putting themselves forward for boards of trustees as we debate this legislation going through the House and who have stood to be part of the community governance of their schools because this is something that charter schools will not have. This is something that the kinds of schools we are creating tonight in this House are doing away with—the very thing that has led New Zealand to have one of the most innovative one of the most creative and one of the most community-involved education systems in the world. We are doing away with that system with the passage of this legislation tonight. It is absolutely nothing for us to celebrate.I want to make it very clear about the future of charter schools under a Labour-led Government in 2014. The ongoing funding and support for charter schools will not be guaranteed under a future Labour Government. We will not guarantee any charter school established during this term of the present Government the right to integrate into the State school system. We do reserve the right to impose additional contractual obligations on any charter school established such as a requirement to employ registered teachers and the removal of exemption from the Official Information Act 1982. No further charter school will be established under a New Zealand Labour Party Government and legislation allowing for their establishment will be repealed. Let us not make any mistake about what Labour’s position on these charter schools is. We do not agree with them and we do not agree with them because they are not in the best interests of the children of our country.Throughout the various stages of this legislation colleagues have outlined exactly what our problems are with this type of school being set up in New Zealand. It has been well rehearsed. Our objection to unregistered and unqualified teachers is on the record. We would not let unqualified doctors treat any of us but members opposite think that it is OK to put unqualified teachers in front of classrooms. We do not.Andrew Little: They don’t respect them.Dr MEGAN WOODS: We respect the teaching profession and the expertise that they bring to their job. This is not something that we are willing to undermine.We also object to the lack of scrutiny that these schools will be subjected to—the fact that they will not be subjected to the Official Information Act that parents will not get that level of scrutiny and that they will not have that recourse. We have talked throughout the various stages of this legislation and shown examples of when this has come into play and where it has been very useful and indeed needed. I have talked already in my speech about the lack of community engagement by doing away with something that has become a New Zealand institution: the rights of communities to be involved in decision making about their schools through the role of boards of trustees.But most disturbing we know these schools will not work. The international evidence points us in that direction. The very examples that have been thrown across the House by members opposite are actually the very failed experiments. They have touted Sweden as the great example. Well educational achievement in Sweden went down when they introduced their freedom schools. And actually if they had read their Maxim Institute documents they would know this because the Maxim Institute has told them this. Right-wing thinktanks are telling them that charter schools do not work so why do we not actually look at an evidence base for what we are doing with the education of our children? It just does not stack up. What we want is to celebrate the innovation that exists in our education system and to pay credit to the people who have been doing that and the wonderful things they do. Throughout the select committee process we had submitter after submitter come to us and tell us about the wonderful things they were doing and that nothing they were doing now—or indeed wanted to do—they could not do under the present legislation.But for me as a Christchurch member of Parliament one of the most disturbing aspects of this is the guinea pig nature of Christchurch children in the Government’s thinking—that we are having the closure of schools in the Christchurch network to make way for charter schools. In fact in question time today the Minister of Education refused to rule out establishing charter schools—or “partnership schools” as she preferred to call them because she could not quite stomach those words “charter school”—on the site of Christchurch schools that she closed down last week. She is not ruling this down.Before our select committee we had Karran Harper Royal come and tell us of the experience in New Orleans and the way in which natural disaster is used as an excuse for experimentation. Today in this House we had the Minister confirm that is exactly what she is thinking. She will not give that commitment to the people of Christchurch and the communities of Christchurch. For the schools in my electorate—for Branston Intermediate School and Manning Intermediate School—that are being closed down I want the Minister to give a commitment that a charter school will not be established on those sites. This is something these people deserve. They need to know that their school closure is not about building capacity in the network so this Government can implement its charter schools which are the price of coalition with John Banks. That is right. Christchurch children are being used as the pawn in this coalition game. It is the price of a vote. It is the price of getting through all the pieces of legislation that this Government has been able to do by that one vote. This is not something that we on this side of theHouse feel is anything to celebrate—in fact it is something that we should all be very sad about and something that we should all see as a shameful day for education in our country.This evening I received an email from a constituent. The Minister also received this email from this constituent of mine. She was very very upset after hearing what happened in question time today and the fact that the Minister was not going to rule out establishing charter schools at the very schools that she was closing. She wrote to the Minister and she copied me in: “The schools you have closed and you decide to replace them by using the land for charter schools to me is another kick in the teeth.” This is how people are feeling. This is how people in Christchurch are feeling on the schools that have been closed. The people of Phillipstown are feeling like this. They know they have been let down by their local member. They know they have been let down by this Government. They do not have a school in that community any longer.This is something that is straight from the playbook of New Orleans. That is one of the most distressing parts of this. We could have sat back and predicted this given this Government’s commitment to playing from that playbook. This is what happened in New Orleans. And it is nothing about educational achievement. The educational achievement there has not gone up. Indeed the educational achievement has not gone up anywhere where charter schools have been introduced. Members opposite have not been able to show us this through all the stages of this legislation be it in debates in this House or at the select committee and have not been able to point to the fact that these are going to lead to better educational outcomes. For Labour that is the bottom line: what will deliver the best educational outcomes for our children. We know it is not these partnership schools. This is not the way to do right by our children and Labour cannot support this legislation. Thank you.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Charter schools have no future in our country Aotearoa New Zealand and I am pleased that the Labour Party has also made it very clear in the last address that it too believes that charter schools have no future in this country. We want to make it very clear to any of those who are considering establishing one that should there be a change of Government in the near future your schools will no longer exist as charter schools. I have said that we may apply the integration criteria to those schools just to give those kids at least a bit of a chance because changing schools is always very difficult. But if those integration criteria are not met or there are other reasons why those schools should be closed including the fact that the legislation will be repealed then charter schools will no longer exist in this country. It is important for those who are considering setting them up to know well in advance the risk they are taking in establishing charter schools in New Zealand. Why do we say that? Because we believe that the public money for education should be spent on a strong free and quality public education system not on lining the pockets of a few wealthy cowboys who will drain the public purse for their private profit.It has been very disappointing that the Minister of Education herself has shown no real awareness of her portfolio and the impact that the policy decisions she makes has on schools teachers children and their families. We have had the Novopay debacle report today showing that she did not even know who was responsible for managing this multimillion-dollar disaster. In this charter schools legislation and the policy behind it we see exactly that same neglect and frankly incompetence from this Minister in managing this policy.One of the key issues that was raised today in question time was the fact that this Minister will not guarantee that the schools that she has just closed in Christchurch will not then be rented out or used by charter schools for making a profit. Those schools were closed apparently because of population decline in those areas. Those schoolswere closed apparently because of earthquake damage that was too expensive to fix in those areas. But she still retains the power and obviously the intention to rent those schools out to the charter school cowboys who have no educational experience who will be able to make a quick buck off the public purse and who will in doing so exploit vulnerable New Zealand children because that is who will be running these schools—cowboys. There is no requirement for these cowboys to have experience in education management or its delivery. There are fewer checks on these cowboys than are currently applied to principals and to teachers. Not only that but they will be able to employ untrained people—these are not teachers; these are just ordinary people but without any training or expertise in education—to teach children who all of the research in New Zealand and before the Minister says need the best-trained most professional teachers in front of them. If you want to teach vulnerable kids they need the best possible teachers—those who are skilled and trained in this profession. But these cowboys will be able to get anybody they want including their mother and father and sister and brother and uncles and aunties and cousins—anybody they like—to come in front of these kids and get public money for that. It is significant amounts of public money for that.Not only that but they will be able to get money for for example dealing with children with disabilities. I do not know whether people realise that. But they do not have to spend it on those kids. There is no requirement for them to spend it on those kids and they can simply put it in their back pocket as a big fat profit from the public purse. At the end of the day it will be New Zealand children who are left to find a decent education somewhere in their area after being exploited and experimented on by John Banks and his mad ACT policies.Sometimes I think that Hekia Parata really does not believe in this policy. Sometimes I think more and more that she is being bullied into promoting this policy because of a $19 million cup of tea that John Key had with John Banks 18 months ago. I do think that Hekia Parata does know what works for Māori. She has certainly been told by her own people by her advisers. She has been told. She knows that kura kaupapa Māori are excellent and enormously successful for Māori kids because they are a kaupapa Māori solution that is developed by the very families that this policy is supposed to be directed at—Māori and Pacific learners. She knows that Te Kotahitanga works and she has been told that Ka Hikitia—Managing for Success needs more resources to be even more effective than it is but she has had to cut the funding to Te Kotahitanga in order to feed public funds into John Banks’ ridiculous ACT policy and his experiment on our kids. So the successful programmes are being cut and experiments that have a history of failure are being promoted.I think that she too is nervous about the financial side. During the Committee stage of this debate last week I asked the Minister very specifically to guarantee that if there is an Official Information Act request to her and her ministry about financial matters to do with charter schools she would never use the commercial sensitivity clause. She sat here and said that it was OK that the Official Information Act did not apply to charter schools because all of their financial information would be made public. But she would not guarantee that she herself would not hide that information from the public. It does beg the question of why that is the case. I think that the whole reason why the Official Information Act does not apply to charter schools and why the Minister will not guarantee that she will not hide financial information herself using the commercial sensitivity rule is that John Banks knows all about the importance of hiding financial information. John Banks actually is right in the middle of a serious debate a serious issue where he has been accused of hiding financial information from the public.You know this is the man who cannot remember how much money he was given by Kim Dotcom for his mayoral campaign. This is a man who took a cheque from Skycity—who took a cheque from Skycity—I understand with his very hand and still does not remember how much it was for. So this is a man who has deliberately hidden information about his public financial affairs from the public. He is now facing serious action elsewhere about this issue and because John Banks thinks that he is such a master at keeping financial information secret and clearly is unhappy to have it revealed here in the House he is making sure that all those charter school cowboys that he is promoting through his party membership—all those charter school cowboys—also get the chance to hide their financial information from the public. They will be funnelled funds and funds and funds—millions of dollars; at least $19 million in this first tranche—of public money and John Banks will make sure that they do not have to reveal the information. John Banks the master at keeping financial information secret will make sure that so can charter schools.So not only do we have all of the evidence about how charter schools fail these kids the most fail the most vulnerable children—overseas only 17 percent of them do better than in the public system; it is less than one in five—but the information about how public education money taken from our State schools will be used is being kept secret because John Banks wants to protect those cowboys so they can continue to make a public profit. There can be no other excuse for keeping those charter schools out of the Official Information Act. There can be no other excuse for the Minister of Education failing to guarantee that she will reveal all the financial information that is useful that is critical for the public to see. She would do that only if she is being bullied by this $19 million cup of tea that forces an exploitative experiment on our most vulnerable learners. We oppose the Education Amendment Bill. Thank you.Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT): What a weak contribution by the “co-loser” of the Green Party. How weak and pathetic being attacked at this hour of the night by—Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence at that insult that was levelled at me—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I think that after the conduct of the member during her speech and the way in which she lifted the tone of the debate outside the realm of the debate what the member has said—she might not like it but it is a response that is to be expected.Denise Roche: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order?Denise Roche: No it is on the same issue—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No I have ruled on it.Hon JOHN BANKS: Thank you Mr Speaker. They get dressed up on television with the lipstick and the make-up and butter would not melt in their mouths—Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet.Metiria Turei: I take personal offence at that comment about my appearance and ask that he be required to withdraw and apologise.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think it is perfectly on the same plane as the remarks that the member made previously and—[Interruption] Order! Look I understand whether or not a member takes offence but when the member gives offence and then jumps to her feet I believe that the point of order is out of order. John Banks.Hon Members: Point of order.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have ruled on this matter. [Interruption] I have ruled on this matter. [Interruption] Order! Please sit I am on my feet. But the member will desist from any further comments in relation to personal matters.Denise Roche: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have ruled on the matter.Denise Roche: A different issue.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A new point of order?Denise Roche: I am offended by the sexism and you have not addressed that.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled on the matter.Hon JOHN BANKS: The chairman of the Iwi Education Authority came to this Parliament. He is one of the most distinguished Māori educators in New Zealand. His name is Dr Toby Curtis and he says that Māori undereducation in this country is institutionalised and expected. Well we say it is institutionalised but it is not expected and we do not like it. We do not like kids going through 11 years of education and at the end of 11 years of education not being able to read and write. The Labour Party Opposition the apologist for the teacher unions might think that that is OK but we say that it is not OK because we want five out of five kids to have a world-class education. The leader of the Māori Iwi Education Authority came to the Education and Science Committee and he said to it solemnly that this bill is well overdue. He wants it to pass in its total content.Tonight is a celebration. It is a loss for the Labour Party it is a loss for the Green Party and it is a loss for the losers of New Zealand First but it is a big win for kids struggling out there in an education system that has doomed them to failure and that is the 20 percent of our kids who leave school with no educational qualification whatsoever.Almost 25 years ago Parliament passed the Education Act 1989 and put the Picot report into effect giving us Tomorrow’s Schools. Parliament wanted to empower educators and school committees. Parliament wanted to educate educators and school communities as well. It wanted to decentralise and liberate the compulsory education sector. The then Labour Government said that reforms would address inequality of achievement but the teacher unions cried foul. The teacher unions said that only education experts like teacher unions not parents would be able to govern schools. We on this side of the House say that on this the teachers unions have got it wrong. The schoolkids who are underprivileged schoolkids who come from deprived homes and Māori and Pacific schoolkids we are putting on a pedestal tonight because this bill promoted by the ACT Party and supported by the National Party and the Māori Party no less—the Māori Party no less—says that this is well overdue. In fact the teacher unions said that Tomorrow’s Schools was a first step in privatisation. I was in Parliament 25 years ago when the teacher unions came here and the apologists from the teacher unions on that side of the House said that it was the first step in the privatisation of education and no such thing is happening.All these arguments tired and worn out are ringing in our ears. The truth is that the union opposition to partnership schools has been straight out of the old playbook. They are the same tired old lines they trot out at any attempt at reform of the education sector.Twenty percent of the education sector is an institutional failure to the kids in that sector tonight and that is what the Iwi Education Authority came to the Parliament and told us. We have a long tail of underachievement in New Zealand. I say that it is not good enough the ACT Party says that it is not good enough the National Party says that it is not good enough and the Māori Party says that it is not good enough. Tonight kids are the winners. The Labour Party members are losers the New Zealand Firstmembers are losers and the Green Party members are losers on this philosophical debate because Parliament on balance has said that we are going to change it.It is shocking that any system could take a child through their formative years and after 13 years in the system turn out a student who is functionally illiterate and in no way prepared for the modern world. Partnership schools will make a real difference to New Zealand’s most disadvantaged students and for the life of me I cannot understand why the teacher unions and their apologists on the other side of the House are opposed to lifting the tide that floats all boats.The policy is not an attack on our teachers who by and large do a fantastic job. The policy acknowledges the contribution of the 35000 support staff in our schools who are so frequently belittled by the Opposition because they are not registered. They are belittled—35000 people who help out in schools every day of the week are belittled. We acknowledge them.No one is saying that this is a quick fix. No one here is saying that there are not a number of ways of addressing institutionalised failure. We are not going to spend this money on education and find that 20 percent of the kids leave after 13 years of education as failures. Every second Māori has not passed National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 1. Every second Pacific student has not passed NCEA level 1. The decision will be based on the needs of students as it should be not on the needs of teacher unions and not on the needs of the Labour Party - Green coalition of losers.Both the Ombudsman and the Human Rights Commission have been invited to work with the Ministry of Education on these contracts. Thankfully Parliament was not swayed by the Opposition’s attempt to limit the types of organisations that can run partnership schools. Achieving educational improvements and being accountable always mattered more than whether a partnership school is run by a trust charity business iwi or church group.I want to thank Cam Calder the chairman of the Education and Science Committee. I want to thank the Prime Minister and Hekia Parata and her colleague Nikki Kaye for the support they have given us and I want to thank the Māori Party because the Māori Party does not want institutionalised failure amongst Māori any longer. The Māori Party does not want kids to leave school after 13 years with no literacy and no numeracy. The Māori Party wants aspiration for young Māori and the Pacific Island representatives on the other side of the House should be ashamed of themselves for not supporting this—ashamed of themselves. Every second young Pacific student leaves school after 13 years without NCEA level 1 maths or English.I have good news for the House tonight: 35 quality applications have been made from groups across the country to turn this policy into something very worthwhile to turn education into an opportunity for everyone and to make sure that Māori and Pacific kids can foot it with the best of the other kids in the schools and have the dignity of work after a first-class education.It is a big loss for the small-minded apologists for the schoolteacher unions opposite and it is a big big win for kids up and down the country who are wondering what they are going to do when they have had 11 years at school and they cannot read and cannot write. Partnership schools will be established in areas that experience significant underachievement where students are underserved by the current system. I cannot for the life of me understand why the educated people on the other side of the House do not want a world-class education for everyone. They can sling the abuse and they do not like it they can wear the lipstick and look good on TV and make a big impression and they do not like it—Denise Roche: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Hon JOHN BANKS: —but they do not like it because they come into the House—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! There is a point of order.Denise Roche: Once more we are having to put up with sexism from that member and I find it really offensive.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did ask the member to desist. He will withdraw the remark.Hon JOHN BANKS: I withdraw. The ACT Party—Hon Members: Apologise.Hon JOHN BANKS: If these members opposite would breathe through their noses and listen for a minute I have got a compelling finish to this great piece of policy change. It is going to revolutionise education in this country for our poorest students right across the board.Sue Moroney: Downwards downwards—you’ll make it worse.Hon JOHN BANKS: Listen carefully Mrs Moroney and you might learn something. The unelected member of Parliament from the Labour Party might learn something if she breathed through her nose and this is what it is. We want to be associated with partnership schools. These schools will stand or fall on their results as it should be. I want to thank everyone who has helped support the passage of this bill and who believes like ACT does that every child deserves a world-class education—every single child deserves a world-class education. This is a land of opportunity and our future is predicated on looking after the poorest of the poor who can raise their aspirations by having an education that teaches them to read and to write. Partnership schools will make a difference—a big difference. Roll on first day first term 2014.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. You know you are in trouble when the most honest person on that side of the House is John Banks. The vision is actually 50 schools to 60 schools.Maggie Barry: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take exception and offence to that remark. I am an honest person.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. We know that in this House all members are regarded as honourable members. I think the debate will make more progress if we stay away from personal attacks and debate the issues.Denise Roche: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order?Denise Roche: Yes it is. I thought the Speakers’ rulings were that you could not say that you were offended by a comment that went to another member.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is the same point of order. I have already ruled on it. The member is quite out of order raising an issue after I have ruled on it.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order?Metiria Turei: Yes it is. It is another offensive comment from John Banks who just described my colleague as stupid. That is not in order in this House and I—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear the comment—Metiria Turei: Well I did hear it.Denise Roche: I heard it and I’m offended.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did the member—will the member withdraw and—Hon John Banks: I withdraw.TRACEY MARTIN: The reality is that this is an emotive issue. These are our children we are talking about. That is why it is emotive. These are the children whom each one of us cares about. I have no doubt that members of the Government care about the education of children. I have no doubt that Mr Banks believes somewhere insidehimself that this is a good policy. Unfortunately as Sir Peter Gluckman just said earlier this evening this is not evidence-based policy—this is not evidence-based policy. Peter Gluckman was here earlier this evening in the Beehive theatrette promoting evidence-based policy so that downstream these decisions are endurable. This is not an endurable decision.New Zealand First needs to join with the Labour Party and the Green Party in issuing a warning. That warning is: please do not mortgage your home to open a charter school. Please do not put yourself in debt to open a charter school because it is very unlikely that you have a long future. Any best practice developed inside a charter school will be brought inside the State school system and it is possible that you may want to shift from a charter school to a private school but please I beg you do not put yourself in debt to do this because its future is too unstable.If this policy was about targeting those children who are achieving in the tail—the stanine 1 to stanine 3—and if that was whom these schools had to direct their services towards that would be different. If these schools had to provide something that is not currently supported for those students whom Mr Banks refers to being in the “tail of underachievement”—for example dyslexic or dyspraxic children—that would be different. If these schools had closed rolls only to target those students whom we are not supporting well enough inside our public school system that would be different but they are not. Catherine Isaac came to my office and said: “No no no no we are targeting middle New Zealand.” There is no money in decile 1 decile 2 decile 3 stanine 1 stanine 2 and stanine 3 children. They are very intensive work—and they deserve it—but you cannot skim a profit off them. So there lies the flaw. If this was not-for-profit that would be different. But none of those things are inside this Education Amendment Bill.I am still trying to find out who is driving this bill because it is not the New Zealand public. Private schools’ rolls have not increased from the 5 percent for the last 30 years. They have not increased. There is no more demand for that style of education and yet possibly—possibly—this door was opened when the recession began in 2008 and private schools’ rolls started to drop. It may be—it just may be—because the public system is doing so well. The public system is doing so well particularly over the last few years with the extra supports that needed to be in place and with more professional development compulsory professional development around Te Kotahitanga and Ka Hikitia—Managing for Success then we might have seen even further leaps inside the public system. But perhaps because the mainstream public school system is doing so well private schools are under pressure. Perhaps that is what is driving this because there is no appetite for it out in the real world.I need to also issue another word of warning. Under this legislation it is not possible to have a school for Māori. It is not possible to have a school for Pasifika students. This is an open-door policy. Mr Toby Curtis and Mr Pem Bird think that they will take 23 successful kura from inside the current Education Act 1989—and I believe my colleague Metiria Turei made the Minister give us volumes in her answer today at question time while she was trying not to say something. Toby Curtis and Pem Bird—who is the president of the Māori Party and therefore the Māori Party has a conflict of interest in this House—are intending to take and I predict 23 kura outside the Education Act 1989 and turn them into charter schools. They can then throw away the current curriculum deliver what they believe is more culturally appropriate and do what they like.The word is that there is a contract here though. The Minister says: “There is a contract. Trust us. Trust us because there is a contract.” Earlier today we had a debate about a contract. That was a pretty big contract. It had key performance indicators in itit had levels of achievement that had to be reached or it would be stopped. Why should we be confident with our children that these contracts will be any different? The point is that we will not know the key performance indicators—we will not know the key performance indicators. If it is a primary school we have a 6-year window. We have a 6-year window in which to get it right. Are we doing it 100 percent right? No we are not. But $19 million is taken currently out of Vote Education. Instead of supporting literacy support for 5-year-olds and 6-year-olds with an identified need instead of supporting dyslexic and dyspraxic children inside our systems and instead of supporting truancy officers to make sure children go to school we have decided to open another competitor.The other word that is being bandied about the other thing that is said to calm us all and to calm the public is that this is about “choice”. But actually to have true choice just as Dr Gluckman said earlier today you need to be truly informed. You need to know all the pieces of information before you can make a choice. There has been information withheld from the New Zealand public. For one thing there is no transparency around the “high-quality applicants” for the 35 schools. I happen to know one school that has found itself on that list but never asked to be on it. I find that very very interesting. Apparently it was asked to speak at an ACT electorate meeting and the next thing it knew it had its name on a charter school list.There are things that have not been said. I cannot believe—I choose not to believe that my colleagues on the Education and Science Committee truly support this bill. I understand their circumstances. I understand why they have had to stand and say what they do—very little to be perfectly honest because there is very little they can say. But I am sad for them because their names will be on this legislation when it passes through this House.The other thing I do want to touch on is the clause that has been inserted around governance and around making boards of trustees responsible for the academic outcomes of all students. I find that very interesting. It is interesting because—[Interruption] Why the boards of trustees is the question. They are not the professional leaders of the school. They are elected parent trustees who are there to govern the school not manage it. The School Trustees Association has warned that this blurs even further the line between governance and management. Is it possible that what this is about is the fact that the Minister can remove boards of trustees but cannot remove principals or teachers? The Minister has had a problem implementing national standards and there are still schools—even more schools now after the farce of e-AsTTle and other testing—that realise that national standards are flawed beyond repair. So possibly the ministry has suggested this is the way to place pressure on to make sure the national standards will be met.The final thing is that Mr Banks forgets that of the 20 percent of children in the tail 5 percent are children with special needs. Every one of those children has an individual education programme to attain their best. But Mr Banks holds so much ignorance around the field of education that it is impossible to have a conversation with him.COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to take a call on the third reading of the Education Amendment Bill. This bill represents very very positive options and choices for the public. I just want to put it on record that the House has heard the venom that has come from members on the other side who have spoken against the communities that have shown a passion to take ownership of the underachievement in education. I stand here tonight to say that it would be a lunacy of any future Government if the Opposition were to get into power to do away with communities taking ownership of the achievement of their young ones.So on that basis let us clarify a couple of points that have been falsely represented on the other side. They talk about unqualified teachers. Sadly when you hear Opposition members speaking when they are speaking to their friends they are trying to sound angry because they want to be believed to be wedded to that side of the debate. The truth of the matter is that those people who are unregistered teachers will have to show outstanding qualities in teaching in order to be in a charter school. There will be police vetting. There will not be secrecy around the Teachers Council vetting of teachers. The State system is not the only solution.What has ever happened to the Labour Opposition? It is not since 1989 that it has had any vision. What have we seen coming out of the National Party? We have seen the Industry Training Act the New Zealand Qualifications Authority framework the private training establishments the trades academies and more. It gives me great pleasure to support this great step forward this addition to the Education Act. I commend this bill to the House.SUE MORONEY (Labour): This bill—the Education Amendment Bill; from the crew who tried to convince us that bigger class sizes would be better for educational outcomes—just about says it all. This is the same bureaucratic babble and nonsense that those members tried to foist on New Zealand parents when they said that having more children in classes and fewer teachers in classrooms would be better for educational quality. Well they were trying to pull the wool over parents’ eyes then and they are trying to do the same now. Well actually they are not even trying to argue let us be honest about it. National members cannot even sustain more than 1-minute’s worth of arguments for charter schools. They are so embarrassed by their feeble attempts.I challenge the next National MP who gets on their feet to talk for 10 minutes and argue for charter schools and not do what Cam Calder did. He is the chair of the Education and Science Committee and he could not even utter the words “charter school” when he gave his contribution. He wanted to talk about search and surveillance. He would not even address the issue the main issue in this amendment bill and that is that the Government is borrowing a failed system from the United States like National does all the time with all of its policies. It cannot come up with New Zealand - grown Kiwi-based success stories so it looks to wreck our education system by borrowing from a failed system in the United States. Is not that the National Party all over? Is that not also John Banks all over as well?The shameful thing about this piece of legislation is that the Government is putting politics before our children. It is putting politics before our children and the quality of the education system. It is trading in our world-class public education system—it is trading that in—for a failed system. I am going to disagree a little with Tracey Martin from New Zealand First on this issue because she said there is no evidence around charter schools. Well there is. The evidence is that they fail. The evidence is that they fail. In every other country where they have been implemented they fail. So we have got the evidence. We know that charter schools do not work.What is it that the Government does not get about its so-called 20 percent tail of underachievement which it keeps going on about? The Government says that 20 percent of our children do not achieve. John Banks agrees. He has to agree. That is the line the Government has been trotting out for about 5 years now—20 percent. There is another 20 percent figure I want to remind that Government about. Twenty percent of our children in Aotearoa live in poverty. Twenty percent of children in the land of milk and honey live in poverty.What do Government members not get about the correlation between those two statistics? Twenty percent of our children live in poverty and 20 percent of our children the Government says are failing. What do those members not get? Why dothey not join the dots? [Interruption] Join the dots Mr Banks because you and that party over there will do nothing about addressing poverty. They are doing nothing. In fact they want to pretend it does not exist. That is the way that party wants to address poverty. It wants to pretend it does not exist.Instead of dealing with the root causes and addressing the issues that New Zealand families are crying out for in terms of support for their children what do those members do? They come up with a solution that no one has asked for. They come up with a solution over a cosy cup of tea—well actually a corrupt cup of tea as we learnt afterwards. That is the solution they have come up with—charter schools.No one asked for charter schools. Well actually I may be wrong there. I apologise if I am wrong because I think John Banks asked for charter schools. This was the dirty deal that was stitched up between ACT and National so that National could get back into power. They did a dirty deal over Epsom and they did a dirty deal over the teacups with charter schools as well. That today sadly is what our children are being exposed to. That is what future generations are going to be exposed to because of that dirty deal over a dirty cup of tea and that dirty deal over the Epsom electorate.Hon John Banks: Oh diddums!SUE MORONEY: John Banks says “Diddums”. That is a really mature contribution to the debate. That is about the level of it in terms of maturity. This is the man New Zealand who is wrecking your education system and his response is “Diddums”. That is as good as it gets. I want everyone in New Zealand to understand who the mastermind is behind charter schools. The best defence he can come up with is “Diddums”. Well that about says it all.On the select committee we had a briefing from a woman from New Orleans and Karran Harper Royal was her name.Hon John Banks: How bad was that!SUE MORONEY: Mr Banks wants to know how bad it was. I think he needs to listen up. It was pretty prophetic what she told us—not pathetic but prophetic. It was a prophecy. She warned us that in New Orleans what had happened was that the Government there used the opportunity of a natural disaster to close down a number of State-funded schools.Dr Rajen Prasad: It sounds a bit familiar.SUE MORONEY: It sounds a bit familiar does it not? Those State-funded schools were replaced by these failing charter schools. She came to warn us that she believed that exactly the same thing would happen in Christchurch: a natural disaster and the Government comes along and closes down State schools and then opens up on those same sites privatised charter schools without any accountability to the public.What did we hear today from the Minister of Education? I think the Minister pretty much confirmed that that is exactly what this Government has planned. Members opposite know it—listen; you can hear a pin drop. They know it. They know that their Government has gone about closing down State-funded schools in order to slip taxpayer money across to charter schools run by their mates without any accountability.And let me say while I am on that issue that John Banks tried to pretend—and so did the last speaker Colin King—that somehow these are going to be community-run facilities facilities run by the community for the community. Well they are not required to have a board of trustees; not like State-run schools. They are not required to actually give any information to the public about how the public’s own money is being used in running these schools. There is only one reason why the Government would want to hide that information—no actually I can think of two: one is it does not want the public to know how their money is being misused and secondly it does not want the public to discover how those charter schools are failing.The Government makes a lot of the contracts that are going to be made between the Crown and these charter school operators whoever they may be—and they could be anybody quite frankly because there are no rules there are no regulations and there are no standards when it comes to who can run a charter school. Is that not right Mr Banks? There are no standards at all as to who can run a charter school. There are no standards. The Government is dropping the standards. It will not let anyone understand what is going on because it has deliberately kept charter schools out of the purview of the Official Information Act. And it expects us to believe that this bill is about improving the education system.Well if it were an ounce about improving the education system the Government would be proud of it; it would not be hiding it. While I am on the subject of who would be proud and not hiding can I say “Shame on the Māori Party.” Shame on Māori Party members for not being involved in this debate and for putting their votes to something they are not prepared to even come and speak to in the House. They have not made a contribution to this debate. They are instrumental in forcing this upon our wonderful education system yet where are they when the rubber hits the road? Where are they to stand up and be counted on why they are putting their votes—Alfred Ngaro: What are you doing?SUE MORONEY: —beside these schools? I can tell that member what we did. The Labour Government funded te kotahitanga. We did not cut the funding like his Government is doing. He does not care at all for Māori achievement if he can be a member of a Government that will cut the funding to one of the most successful programmes for Māori students—te kotahitanga. That member need not take that attitude because if he really meant what he said he would not be doing that.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I am astounded at what I have heard from the previous speaker Sue Moroney—actually at what I have heard from everyone on the Labour side and from their coalition partners their mixed-ownership model partners the Greens. It seems that it is OK for them to have choice but they do not want New Zealand parents to have choice. They do not want to see parties like the Māori Party actually trying to do something about the one in five students who is failing. They say partnership schools will fail but they do not want us to do anything about it. What are they doing and what did they do about the one in five who is failing? Their argument holds no water much like many other of their policies.I want to focus on just one aspect of the Education Amendment Bill which deals with the surrender and retention components.Sue Moroney: Oh search and surveillance here we go.MIKE SABIN: Well if that member actually took a little bit of time to talk to some people out there in the school community—parents principals and boards of trustees—instead of swanning around this place she would find that it is a challenge out there. This bill actually provides them with the meaningful tools that they need to keep students safe and the learning environment conducive to learning. That is what this is about—that is what this is about.I think I have pretty much nailed my point on this but can I just say over the din and the ranting I am hearing from the other side that the search and surrender components of the Education Amendment Bill are about providing the tools that these schools need to keep their environments safe and protect the learning environments of those students who are there to learn. The guidelines are something I encourage the Ministry of Education and the school community to get on with and to get sorted and let us make our schools function and work well.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A split call. Louisa Wall—5 minutes.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora. Thank you very much for this opportunity to talk about what is titled the Education Amendment Bill but for me is actually the “Anti - Public Education Amendment Bill”. This bill is gutting community involvement in education. It is gutting parents’ involvement in their children’s learning. I want to say from living in a community like Manurewa that my principals and my teachers are incredibly dedicated and hard-working people as Cam Calder knows. They are dedicated and hard-working people. So what is the biggest challenge in communities like Manurewa? As Cam will know it is not that our principals and our schools do not have the best interests of our children at heart. The reality is that we have two cohorts of children living in Manurewa—and my colleague Sue Moroney touched on this. We have children who come from stable families. They are able to go to school day in and day out. They may not have an early childhood education experience but what we know from Jane Milner and Redoubt North Primary School is that if they can have our kids who are on average 18 months to 2 years behind as 5-year-olds for up to 3 to 4 years those kids can catch up. Our children are clever. They just live in circumstances beyond their control that mean that it is hard for them to go to school.So we have a cohort of children who are stable kids and who come from families living in homes as part of the community. They can go to school and they can succeed. The other cohort of children is called unstable children. They come from homes from which some are enrolled in nine schools in 1 year. So what does the Government want to say? The Government’s solution in terms of charter schools does not address the underlying issues. The underlying issues are that families do not have access to affordable housing. That is the primary issue. Transience is a huge issue in communities like mine. The solution that this bill proposes is actually incredibly flawed and it is also scientifically corrupt. It is an incredibly dishonest piece of legislation. But at the heart of this legislation you are actually eroding parents’ rights to be on boards of trustees and to be part of solutions to ensure that their children are getting the best education.I am proud to say that of my 29 schools eight have had Education Review Office reports that say that they do not have to be visited for 5 years. Why is that relevant to this debate? It is relevant to this debate because what it says is that my schools—the schools that Cam Calder visits—are run by principals and boards of trustees who are doing a fantastic job for our children. I want to acknowledge the work that our teachers are doing and that whānau who work in Manurewa are doing to better our children and their education. But the reality is that they cannot control the social determinants of those children. They cannot control the fact that the children do not have a home. They cannot control the fact that some of the parents in my community are in low-paid work.Mike Sabin: What on earth has that got to do with this bill?LOUISA WALL: This bill is about charter schools and partnership schools being incredibly flawed and corrupt. Did you not hear me earlier? The solution that this Government is proposing is pathetic and it is not going to achieve anything for communities in my electorate.I want to conclude by agreeing with my colleague Sue Moroney about the Māori Party. It is only because of the Māori Party that this bill will be passed. It has tools within the current Education Act—sections 155 and 156—forkura kaupapa Māori to be designated as special character schools. We do not need charter schools and partnership schools in New Zealand and we will repeal this legislation as a priority. Thank you.HOLLY WALKER (Green): I am very pleased to be able to take a call in the third reading of the Education Amendment Bill on behalf of my colleague Catherine Delahunty. I am pleased to report for the benefit of the Hon John Banks that I am not wearing any lipstick tonight so unfortunately he will have to put his sexism aside and listen to the content of my speech.I am glad to be having my say because I have to say this is one of the most appalling bills to pass through the House in my time in Parliament so far. Basically at its heart this bill is a $19 million cup of tea. It is the result of the deal between John Banks and John Key which allows for a single member in this House to insist on an unpopular undemocratic non-transparent law change which no one publicly campaigned for before the election. That is the $19 million cup of tea that we are getting tonight in the form of this bill. It is yet another example I think of this Government governing for the benefit of its mates and in this case for its mate John Banks.What is so abhorrent about this bill? Well I have got five things and I hope I have time to talk about them all. The first is that there is no requirement for partnership schools—yes I will use the terminology—to have registered teachers in their schools. A university degree is apparently enough perhaps not even that to teach children—Hon Member: No they don’t even have to have that.HOLLY WALKER: —yes not even that—in the vital stage of their education. Teaching is a highly complex job it is vitally important and it is a job that we should value very highly. It is informed by theory pedagogy culturally appropriate knowledge and having the right skills to work with vulnerable learners none of which are going to be available to people who have not trained as teachers and who are not registered teachers. So this bill is undermining the teaching profession and with unregistered teachers it is an experiment essentially on our kids.The second reason that this bill is abhorrent is that it is not subject to the Official Information Act. So we have got $19 million of public money being spent on these schools with absolutely no level of public oversight on how that money is spent. There is no transparency there is no ability for the Ombudsman to investigate complaints about the schools of which I am sure there will be many and it is basically an inexcusable lack of accountability for the use of public money in our school system.The third reason that the bill is abhorrent is the use of public money for private profit-making businesses and it is straight-out corporate welfare. It is handing taxpayer money to private profit-driven companies to allow them to run schools for profit and to pocket public taxpayer money for profit. They can receive special funding for certain elements of that including for students with disabilities but they do not have to provide any level of accountability that that money is actually spent on what they say it is going to be spent on. They can pocket it as profit if they want to and that is taxpayer-funded public money.The fourth reason that the bill is abhorrent is what we heard today that it is rubbing salt in the wounds of schools that have been closed. Today we heard in question time that first of all the Minister of Education could not even remember signing her own Cabinet paper that suggested closed schools would be the logical first locations for the new charter or partnership schools. She did not remember signing that advice but that was her advice to Cabinet. Then when she was questioned about it she could not rule out that she might use closed school sites in Christchurch to open charter schools. After everything else that she has put the school community in Christchurch through—trying to tell them that their schools are irreparably damaged or that they do not have enough students to stay open and then closing their schools—she is now telling them that she might allow private for-profit charter schools to open up on the sites of the schools that she is about to close. Talk about adding insult to injury.The fifth and final reason why this bill is so abhorrent is that it is an ideological solution in search of a problem. We have a great public education system in this country and it delivers some of the best results in the developed world in terms of public education. There is absolutely no evidence including from the United States from where this model was imported that charter schools will actually deliver anybetter results for those most vulnerable learners whom those on the Government benches like to trumpet in this debate as though they are going to be solving the problem of inequality and education through the mechanism of charter schools. There is no evidence that that is required and that charter schools actually achieve that. It is already possible to establish special character schools to meet particular community needs under the Education Act. There is no need for this legislation. It is abhorrent and I am very proud to speak in opposition to it.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you for the chance to speak on this third reading of the Education Amendment Bill. We have heard a lot of talk particularly coming from the Opposition using the word “ideology”—that this is all about ideology. There are two general elements that you can kick into here. The first is that this side of the House has not used the word “ideology”. In fact it has been straw man or “straw person” politics—we have to be gender-neutral tonight. It has been straw person politics arguing what supposedly the Opposition has said. That is not what it is about. You see the key with ideology is that you can flush it out pretty quickly. I suppose I want to suggest charging that this has been more about the Opposition.Firstly the thing that you see when ideology comes from the Opposition is that you know it is ideology because it is highly emotional it is yelling and it is screaming and it is that belief from the ideological left that if you yell louder somehow it makes your point more valid. The second side—and we have been hearing again about ideology and I am reversing this back on to the Opposition—is around consistency. We have heard the Opposition talk about special character schools and State schools. We have heard about integrated schools.David Bennett: How about Catholic schools?SIMON O’CONNOR: Yes very good Catholic schools as well. Of course the thing is that if you want to be consistent then a further option really is not a problem. I suggested during the Committee stage that actually these parties—the Labour Party and the Greens—would have been fighting against integrated schools in the 1970s because they are different. What they want and they have talked about it themselves is to have their hands on a singular control. I also get the sense that they just want to keep on talking.The third element where you know the Opposition is coming from an ideological side is proportionality. When you look at any argument it is all about proportionality. We have heard tonight the “Chicken Little” approach to politics from the—Hon John Banks: Chicken liver.SIMON O’CONNOR: Chicken liver even possibly. It is sort of a pâté maybe. But the Opposition has said the sky is going to fall in. This is going to be the end of education. This is going to be the end of childhood. Somehow this is going to destroy New Zealand this approach here that attempts another addition to help one out of five children.The final side—the fourth side—you realise is not about ideology from the Government’s side but from the Opposition’s side and that is threats. You hear threats: “We are going to change this legislation come hell or high water.” It is the same with the whole casino thing: “We do not like it so we are going to make threats.” So you can see that ideology is being spoken about and accused of the Government but actually it is coming from the other side—lack of consistency lack of proportionality lots of threats and emotionalism.This Government—and I think all sides of this Government—supports teachers. It has a respect for the teaching profession. A number of the people on this side have been teachers. A number of us have friends who are teachers. We have respect for the teaching profession and what teachers engage with. This bill is not about replacingschools; this is about an addition. This is not removing the current system; this is adding on to it in the same way that our special character schools work. Tracey Martin was talking about how we have got a number of people who have special needs who are well catered for but there are still options. So this is not about replacing it is not even about replicating; it is about an addition.I think there are other elements we need to consider. There has been a lot of talk a lot of mix-up particularly from the Opposition around the whole registered versus qualified side. The language from the Opposition has been very imprecise. This bill says that being a registered teacher is not an absolute condition; being qualified is. I want to challenge one of the last speakers who was suggesting that somehow the only way you can teach is to have gone through teachers college—the only way you can teach is through teachers college. That cannot make sense—that cannot make sense.People all through this House teach their children in all sorts of different ways. Each and every one of us teaches and imparts knowledge in different ways and not all of us needed to go to teachers college to do this. We did not need to do that. In fact even when you look at something like tradition if you would even use that word “tradition”—dare I use that in the House—there is an element of teaching as tradition comes from the root word the etymology “to pass on”. That is something that each and every one of us—Hon Simon Bridges: My mother was a teacher.SIMON O’CONNOR: Yes yes. His mother is a teacher.Hon Simon Bridges: My brother.SIMON O’CONNOR: His brother is a teacher.Hon Simon Bridges: Sister went to teachers college.SIMON O’CONNOR: His sister has gone to teachers college on this side of the House. But see teaching is about passing on. It is about tradition—handing on—and that is the core of the teaching profession. So this is not about not having qualified teachers; this is about registered teachers. Just a couple of final points—Kris Faafoi: Thank goodness!SIMON O’CONNOR: Oh we go “thank goodness”. I come back to the ideology and contradiction—contradiction. This side—Dr Cam Calder: Tautology.SIMON O’CONNOR: Tautology even—repetitious tautology. They have been yelling and crying that side of the House that someone will not take a call. And then when someone dares to stand up it is “Oh no we do not want to hear that now.” This is all about control.I want to come back to what I was saying in the Committee of the whole House. This is taxpayers’ money. Individual taxpayers contribute to the education system. If those individual taxpayers want to come together to form a school with their money well all power to them. They are taxpayers. They are individuals. They are families. They want this education system. Let us pass this bill. Let us put it into law. I welcome 2014.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Education Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes62New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes57New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a third time.