Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10289] 
Education Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 24 March. 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act ( 
continued 
)  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I will speak to amendments in Grant Robertson’s name. They are extensive amendments that have some very important points in them. 
The first focus which some of my colleagues will also look at is his amendment to insert into Part 1 a new clause 20A “Guidance and counselling” which would amend section 77(a) of the Education Act by inserting “ including guidance and counselling on career choices and career pathways” after “counselling”. The member has taken this approach because of the widespread concern and rumour currently circulating in the education community as to the Minister of Education’s plans for guidance counselling and in particular for career counselling. 
It is the very strong view of members on this side of the house that high-quality career counselling is a fundamental part of our secondary education system in particular. Students need to work hard to identify the pathway that they want to take to take the options that they think are important to assist them along that pathway and not to cut off particular options as they work their way through the system so that they keep their options open. I think that all of us could tell stories—and some of us might even have stories about our families or even ourselves—of people not doing particular subjects late in their secondary school career and as a result being considerably disadvantaged when it came to making choices at university or having to study for a longer period in order to get to that point. 
I think it is fair to say that career counselling career education career guidance has sometimes in some schools been a bit of a Cinderella. It is a subject that has not had quite the attention that it should. It is also fair to say that in some schools—and I think it is less common now—career counselling used to be the place to put teachers who were not confident in the classroom or had spent too long in the classroom. Now there is a new generation of career councillors a new understanding of the subject and there are organisations that give councillors a lot of support in order to make sure that their important work is properly supported even if it is not well understood in schools. 
All of us are aware that some schools are better than others at career counselling at facilitating students’ choices. There are certainly some schools in rural areas that do a very good job as far as rural options are concerned but it is also fair to say that some other schools in rural areas do not provide options and also do not provide students with a steer in a way that is appropriate. 
I know that the Minister of Education has had a flurry of emails on this particular topic from people around the country who have a good understanding of the importance of career guidance. Those people would see a decision not to include in the Act the amendment 
proposed by Grant Robertson—and it was included in Labour’s bill—as an indication that they were not as well thought of as some of their colleagues who teach more regular academic subjects. As I have indicated there is considerable rumour and fear at the moment that the funding made available to schools for guidance and for career guidance is likely to be taken away or somehow reallocated. A very very important area of work which I think just about all members of the House support could very well be lost as a result. 
The second area that I will focus on in my contribution—and I will take a couple of calls now then one of my colleagues will have a go and I will come back on the later points—is the functions of school boards. The bill introduced by the Labour Government Minister of Education Chris Carter was much more explicit with regard to the functions of boards and the things that they should do and the things that were important than this bill as it has emerged from the Education and Science Committee is—in fact as the current Minister of Education introduced it. I am not sure that one could argue with any of the things on Mr Robertson’s list in new section 60AA(1) in his new clause 16A. Section 60AA(1) states that the board must perform the following function: “(a) ensuring the enrolment at the school of all persons who are entitled to be enrolled at the school and apply to be enrolled at it:”. Frankly some boards do not do a very good job at that. Some boards allow systems within their schools that actively discourage students from enrolling at the school. I would be interested to hear the view of Hone Harawira on the schools that occasionally discourage Maori pupils especially those who are not academic from— 
Hone Harawira 
: Not my one—94 percent NCEA. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have been to that member’s school and it is a good school. I am not saying that the board’s governorship of it was always perfect. I am not saying that its financial controls were perfect. In fact it was pretty good at controlling the spending of the cash but not necessarily at always keeping it in the right pockets. The member probably does not want me to go too far down that track. But the point that I am making to Mr Harawira is that he knows as well as I do that a lot of schools around the country actively discourage some Maori students especially the less academic those from the poorer suburbs and those whose families are associated with gangs. They discourage those kids. Grant Robertson’s section 60AA(1)(a) states that a board must ensure the enrolment of those students. I want to know whether Mr Harawira will vote for that amendment; whether he will vote for boards to take kids from poor homes or whether he will say that they do not have to take them. That will be interesting to see. 
Section 60AA(1)(b) states that the board must ensure that “education is provided to each student enrolled at the school:”. Well that means that the board has to take a much more active interest in the quality of education and whether it is appropriate for each student at the school than some boards have been taking to date. Again I congratulate Mr Harawira because the school whose board he chaired did a very good job for its students in identifying and working on their needs having programmes and recruiting staff. I think it is fair to say that the member concerned was intimately connected with the recruitment of some of the staff or at least one member of the staff of that particular school. The school board appointed good teachers and staff who worked to make sure that education was provided to each student enrolled at the school and they made some real progress. I think it is fair to say that over the years I have had some discussions with the member about his school and about what was and was not appropriate but there was never an argument that the school did not have the kids’ interests at heart that the board was not looking carefully at the school or that it had programmes that did not work for the kids in that school. 
Section 60AA(1)(c) states that the board must promote “a school environment that supports the highest standards of achievement for all students:”. I want to know why National members would vote against an amendment that promotes a school environment that supports the highest standard of achievement for all students. Why would they not support that? What has got into their water? What has made them think that that amendment is not good? Why is the Minister in the chair the Minister of Education saying that she does not want an amendment that is much more likely to lead higher standards than the approach she is taking at the moment? There is much to debate. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak to Part 1 of the Education Amendment Bill and to offer Labour’s support. Labour did not support the bill at its first reading because we were concerned about the proposals in Part 1 to lower the police-vetting requirements for contractors who work at schools or early childhood education services. That could put our children’s safety at risk. However I am pleased to report that during the select committee process amendments were proposed that appeased some of our concerns in that area. We now find ourselves able to support the bill. 
This bill is about doing practical things that support standards in our schools and in our early childhood education sector. Unlike other proposals this Government has for education where it purports to be looking to improve standards but will in fact do the opposite this bill will actually do something practical to lift standards. This bill ensures that our children are well protected in their schools and in their early childhood education environments. 
During my call I will focus on one of the key changes that Labour was able to force at the select committee and that is the part relating to the ability of a school board to be taken over by a commissioner. The bill originally when it went through its first reading proposed a policy to allow a corporate takeover of school board functions. We were very concerned about that. I think that if we look back on what has transpired over the last couple of weeks we will see that we were right to be concerned about that issue. 
We know that this Government has a tendency to replace democratically elected organisations with commissioners at will and to leave them in place for quite some lengthy period of time. So getting it right in this bill was incredibly important. We did not believe it was correct for a faceless corporate entity to be able to take over in the role of a commissioner for something as important as our schools. 
Labour’s view which happened to be shared by others on the select committee was that it was important to have an individual responsible when democracy was overtaken by the appointment of a commissioner in the case of our local schools. So we fought for that measure and were able to convince the Green Party and the ACT Party to support that position. I congratulate both those parties on coming on board in making that very important change during the select committee process. This Government was committed to going forward and allowing corporate takeovers of board functions by bringing in commissioners that were not named individuals but could be corporate entities. I think that could have been a very frightening prospect. 
We know that local government is not the only area in which this Government has a tendency to replace democratically elected people—such as school boards of trustees—with commissioners for lengthy periods of time. In the part of the country I come from in Hamilton we currently have two secondary schools that have commissioners appointed to them. One of them Fairfield College has had a commissioner in place for 18 months or more. That is a very very lengthy period of time for a school not to have community representation via a school board of trustees. The other school in the area is Fraser High School which has had a commissioner for a shorter period of time. 
The point I am making is that when we determine by legislative means the process by which a Government any Government can replace a democratically elected school board of trustees with an appointed commissioner we need to be very very careful about the powers that are bestowed upon that person—or as the Government was arguing a corporate entity. 
Labour members believe that it was not right to allow corporate entities to take over that function because corporate entities do not have the same culpability as individuals do in that situation. We were very pleased to be able to make that particular change at the select committee and because of that change we can support the bill at its Committee stage. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 In talking to Part 1 of the Education Amendment Bill I too would like to talk about the police-vetting measure. We have to ask why we have a police vet and the intent of the legislation is to ensure that learners are not exposed to an unacceptable risk from persons with whom the school or early childhood service causes them to come into contact. Information provided by the New Zealand Teachers Council says about schools that “Before appointing a person who is not a registered teacher or holder of a Limited Authority to Teach to a position at a school the Board of the school or management of school in certain cases must obtain a police vet of the person from the NZ Teachers Council.” This is going to change so that schools can apply directly to the police which I think is a sensible move in that it eliminates the middle man and will speed up the whole process. 
When I was the principal of Kaitaia Intermediate School I was lucky enough to have an executive officer who would do that work for me. I would sign the form and she would send it off. I would basically forget about it for a couple of months until the police vet form would return saying whether the person had any convictions. It is really good that this intermediary step is being taken out and schools can apply directly to the police. 
I would like members to understand some of the difficulties that some schools have especially some schools in the outlying areas of Te Tai Tokerau such as Te Hapua Matihetihe Panguru and Whangaruru. Those sorts of schools have to vet contractors. New Section 78CA in clause 21 talks about the police vetting of contractors and employees who work at the schools. It states “The board of a State school or the management of a school … must obtain a Police Vet of every contractor or the employee of a contractor who has or is likely to have unsupervised access to students at the school during normal school hours.” The problem arises when principals and boards of those outlying areas have difficulty getting a contractor. Te Hapua School is a drive of an hour and a half to 2 hours from Kaitaia which is probably where the closest contractors are if the school needs help with plumbing or a contractor to come in and do painting or electricity work. Quite often it has to get the first person who is available. The school might not know who these contractors are. It is really difficult to get contractors to come up to do a job that might take a couple of hours or a day or two and to make sure the contractors or the employees of those contractors are police vetted. 
I have spoken before about my concerns about police vetting and I have spoken before about a social worker in a town who wanted to set up a mentoring programme. She selected a hundred males whom she felt would be excellent mentors and role models for a hundred boys at risk in schools. As an afterthought she thought she had better do a police vet on those people. She found that 78 of those 100 people had convictions. 
I am concerned that people seem to believe that schools start at 9 a.m. and end at 3 p.m. and that the kids are there only between those hours. Quite often kids stay behind after school for any number of reasons maybe sports maybe extra tutoring maybe just waiting for buses and people such as cleaners who are contracted after hours may have contact with those kids inadvertently. They may be inside a classroom vacuuming cleaning or dusting and the kids are in there doing homework or whatever. So I have concerns that these contracted cleaners may not have had police vetting. 
We cannot tell by the appearance of people whom we employ as to whether they have a criminal conviction. It may be that people who have been contracted into schools as cleaners and who we think are fine and have not had the police vet are not appropriate to be working after hours in the school where they may inadvertently have unsupervised contact with kids. It is an issue I want to raise because I have a dilemma about it. On one hand I want the safety of the kids to be paramount but on the other hand I do not like overburdening principals and office staff with paperwork. Police vetting is another one of those things that at present have to be done. If we can work out a way so that the kids are safe and there is a minimum of paperwork that would make everybody a lot happier. 
In Part 1 new section 78CC states that further police vets need to be obtained every 3 years which I think is sensible. As a principal I had staff members who in between police vets went and got convictions—one was for drink-driving unfortunately. So peoples’ circumstances change and they fall foul of the law. It is really important that schools have that mechanism every 3 years checking that their staff members have the police vet. I also believe that the safety of the kids is paramount. Although police vetting does add a little bit of extra paperwork to the role of the principal or the office staff we have to realise that the safety of the kids is paramount. 
I want to touch on another issue that my colleague Trevor Mallard raised about the function of the board of trustees. There are half a dozen or so National Administration Guidelines such as for finance property and health and safety. The most important one I believe is the first one which is about the curriculum. If we are talking about the functions of the board of trustees then the curriculum is the most important function that a board of trustees can oversee. I was fortunate enough at Kaitaia Intermediate School to have a board of trustees whose primary interest and the item that took up most time in our board meetings was the curriculum. In fact of even more interest than the curriculum was the achievement of the kids at school. That was the focus of our board of trustees meetings every time. That then had a flow-on effect to me as the school leader which had a flow-on effect to the school teachers and that in effect was part of what was instrumental in our school raising achievement—this unrelenting focus on achievement on the curriculum. 
The board would call in heads of curriculum areas to board meetings to discuss what was going on in their curriculum area what their achievement results were how the board could support them and what resources they needed. If we are talking about a quality education system we need to encourage all schools to have the board of trustees’ core function as an unapologetic and unrelenting focus on improving the curriculum and raising achievement. That comes down to the quality of teaching. A number of teachers still do not realise unfortunately that teaching and learning are related but separate things. Even if a teacher has taught a student something that does not mean to say that the person has learnt it. When there is a board of trustees that focuses unapologetically on raising achievement that is when we will see massive improvements in schools. I wanted to touch on that point that Trevor Mallard raised earlier. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 There are a couple of points I would like to make. I think it is really important that although Labour is supporting this bill at the Committee stage we register on the record one of our disappointments about the bill—though we are happy that a number of other amendments we sought in the course of the Education and Science Committee’s deliberation on this bill were adopted. We are disappointed about the dropping of Labour’s proposed amendment to make it explicit for principals to ensure that schools provide guidance and counselling on career choices and career pathways. I will take a moment of the Committee’s time to talk about this matter as it relates to this bill. 
Right now we are hearing a lot about tertiary education opportunities and about completion rates and failure rates at tertiary institutions. We are hearing a lot about the need to peg some part of tertiary institutions’ funding to the success rates and completion rates of their students. One of the things that happens repeatedly when one discusses this with chief executive officers of polytechs and vice-chancellors of universities—and to some extent with chief executive officers of private training establishments—is that a lament goes out about the degree to which students exiting secondary schools are prepared to make appropriate career choices and appropriate further education choices. 
One of the things that has taken on a new dimension of concern for us in the Labour Party—and this is why we lament the dropping of our proposed amendment that career counselling be mandatory in schools—is that there is now some sort of disjunction between where this bill is going the things that it could say but will not say and the kinds of requirements that are emerging at the end of the compulsory sector of education and the movement into tertiary education opportunities. 
Frequently vice-chancellors say that students have made inappropriate choices. How are they meant to avoid making inappropriate choices if they are not supported by career counselling and career guidance at the end of their compulsory schooling? Let us take Mr Joyce’s example. At the end of secondary schooling if a student wants to go into veterinary science and is accepted and if at the end of year 1 that student does not make it into year 2 then clearly an inappropriate study choice has been made. That lends new weight given the kinds of policy directions that the Government is proceeding with under the tertiary education portfolio to the idea that the dots are not being joined in respect of this legislation. If it were possible for this even through a Supplementary Order Paper in the Minister’s name to be reinstated as a part of this legislation I would urge the Minister to do that. 
It is a matter of joining the dots. Here is legislation that could have something in it to equip students to make sensible and appropriate choices not simply to go into medicine because their mother was a doctor or their father was a scientist but to choose a course where they can stay the distance succeed and not be one of those figures that the Government is keen on avoiding—that is those who do not complete courses or who fail more than half of their papers. That is something that we on this side of the House continue to lament. It should have been something that could have provided a more seamless framework for education between the compulsory and the post-compulsory sector. However that is now on the record as one of our objections although we have decided to support this bill because of some of the further changes that were made in the course of the select committee’s deliberation. 
The second area I will talk about is that relating to the new section 128A which is inserted by clause 36 of the bill. It is about the matching of register information and information about the payment of teacher salaries at payrolled schools. On the face of it this appears to be simply a matter of sharing information between one Government agency and another and so it should be. One of the things that is particularly important—and this is stated as the purpose of the bill—is to introduce information matching between the New Zealand Teachers Council and the Ministry of Education to identify individuals teaching in schools without registration. This is something that the Labour Party absolutely supports. As I understand it this has been worked through to the satisfaction of the Privacy Commissioner. This kind of exchange of information is beneficial to teachers because to all intents and purposes the ultimate purpose of this is to ensure that they receive every payroll entitlement that they should. However the more important consideration is that it is useful for principals and those who are appointing teachers to have the confidence to know who is still registered and who is not. 
I know that my own experience in this area is somewhat out of date now and I readily concede that. In the time when I was a secondary school teacher there was a huge shortage of teachers. The human resources policy that was adopted at the time—we did not even have human resources in those days as there was no such thing; it tended to come later as an academic discipline and as a practice—could best be characterised as the “warm body” recruitment strategy. It did not matter who was in front of the class as long as it was a warm body. There was a shortage of teachers and being able to put any poor unprepared person in front of a class of children was better than having nobody at all. This measure goes further than that and it becomes useful when teachers are deregistered and move away from that town or that city. They may have been deregistered for nefarious reasons. They may have been deregistered for all sorts of serious misconduct. Those people should not be allowed to move around the country from school to school or city to city and pick out another teaching job. They should not be allowed to be in front of children in classrooms. 
This measure allows that to be policed. The sharing of the information even for payroll purposes ensures that principals in employing teachers know for sure that the people they are employing are registered and therefore have met all the requirements of registration and are fit to teach children. With this kind of matching of information the possibility of deregistered teachers moving about the country and under the cloak of anonymity being able to take up another teaching job somewhere else far away—particularly in a situation where a teacher shortage might compel a principal to employ anybody—is hopefully avoided. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 As the member Maryan Street resumes her seat I would like to take a quick call on the Education Amendment Bill. She is obviously unaware that in fact one of her colleagues has a set of amendments that include an amendment in the area of guidance and career counselling. I will go through those amendments from her colleague Grant Robertson and say that the Government will be voting against them for a variety of reasons. If we look at his amendment to Part 1 to insert new clause 5A we see that it is quite unnecessary because it is already provided for by section 41 of the State Sector Act 1988. That is a piece of bureaucracy we do not need as is amending Part 1 by inserting a new clause 5B. The Correspondence School enrolment criteria are already published in the  
Gazette 
. Again that is a bit of bureaucracy that is not needed. We have tried very hard to get rid of a whole lot of bureaucratic requirements in education that duplicate things that are done elsewhere. Interestingly amending Part 1 by inserting new clause 20A and new clause 16A was picked up directly out of the previous Labour Government’s bill that Labour speakers have fondly referred to right through the debate. Well I say to them that this is new legislation that was introduced by a new Government. 
Despite the talk about guidance and career counselling there is no foundation for Labour’s scaremongering that National is going to do away with that. That is just a figment of Labour’s imagination. We do not see that if we put something into legislation it necessarily makes it happen or makes it better. It was interesting to hear Mr Mallard ask of the functions of a board of trustees why anyone would not support it. In actual fact there has been no consultation on putting into legislation those descriptions of the functions of a board either with the New Zealand School Trustees Association or with the many parents who are putting their names forward— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s not true. They’re in a bill that was introduced. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: It is true. There was no consultation with the School Trustees Association. The first time the association saw it was when it appeared in legislation under the previous Government. Certainly there has been no consultation through this process. There has been no opportunity for any of the parents who might have put their names forward for the board of trustee elections that are happening in a couple of weeks to have any opportunity to discuss the sorts of tight restrictions that these amendments would put on them. 
In fact I ask the Committee what the problem actually is. There is no evidence that the majority of boards of trustees are not focused on the sort of things that we read about in these amendments. In the year to March there were 98 interventions in schools out of over 2500 schools so our schools are working very well. The amendment to Part 1 to insert new clause 60A would just change the names of terms that are still valid. It was a good try by Grant Robertson but we do not see any need to support any of those amendments. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairperson. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou kia ora. The Greens are the only party opposing this bill and we do so because we believe that this bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The asserted aims of this bill are to introduce information matching between the ministry and the New Zealand Teachers Council to spot uncertified teachers to toughen suspension procedures for teachers under investigation and to reduce compliance costs relating to police vetting. However there are unspoken aims in this bill that are not written about in the bill’s description. These aims are to create the conditions required for direct corporate management of public schools to strip the Education Review Office of oversight of integrated schools and to introduce National Certificate of Educational Achievement testing into special schools. 
The bill has all the hallmarks of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. There are some good points contained in the bill like the changes to the vetting of tradespeople in schools or the teacher registration clauses which we think are quite reasonable and we would support. But on the balance of evidence we will not be supporting this bill. 
Over the course of this debate enough people have talked about the positive sides of the bill so I will cover the points in the bill we are opposed to. Firstly we do not support and did not support the introduction of the term “body corporate” when appointing statutory managers in schools needing help nor did we support entrenchment and corporatisation which are not in the interests of the public education system. The bill would allow the Secretary for Education to appoint a corporate sole or body corporate as a limited statutory manager or as a commissioner for the board of a school as well as giving the Minister discretion to establish a combined board for two or more schools. This would allow the private running of multiple public schools by a single corporate entity effectively privatising our public schools—good for some but not for the high-quality public education Kiwis demand. 
Yes the Labour Party got some good amendments in the Education and Science Committee such as changing the bill to allow a natural person being named as part of the body corporate but for the Greens the substantive issue is still there. We are concerned at the changes to school governance. I do not believe the arguments in favour of the changes proposed have yet been convincingly put by anyone in this Chamber. We are opposed to the combining of boards of trustees when this could lead to external control of unique school communities. As a former board of trustees member myself I am proud that the Green Party is standing up for public ownership and local governance of the public school system. 
Likewise the Green Party stands with the submitters from the Quality Public Education Coalition who are concerned that the legislation was potentially legitimising corporate control in public schools as opposed to local autonomy and local control. Our concerns have only been intensified by the proposals for school buildings to be owned in public-private partnerships. Our children’s schools are not a worthwhile experiment as the Minister of Finance Bill English has said. They are a core public service. 
The long-term effect of this ownership model is to undermine State responsibility for schools and to take a further step towards the privatisation of our treasured public resources. The profit motive has no role in our public schools. The question that has to be asked is where this profit is going to come from. What will be the cut to pay the shareholders and who is paying the bottom line? Obviously it has a role in the private sector but not in the public school system where equity is essential. We would support a complete review of Tomorrow’s Schools rather than these piecemeal changes. It is a lonely vote for the Greens tonight but we are showing the value of an independent party in this Chamber that is prepared to look at both the good and the bad of legislation coming before us. I am proud to be voting No on this bill tonight.  
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I just want to pick up one of the comments that— 
Hon Simon Power 
: Speaking of rising stars! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I thank Mr Power very much. I appreciate the endorsement. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Believe me it won’t help. It didn’t help me; it won’t help you. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That member has got his future behind him! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is right—his best years. 
I want to pick up the comments made by the Minister of Education regarding the amendments put forward by members of the Labour Party and the bill as drafted by the previous Labour Government. I think it is a terrible shame that the Government has decided to vote against some of the provisions put forward by Labour that would have clarified the responsibilities of a school board of trustees. It is something that I think new board members who will be elected at this year’s elections would appreciate—a clear articulation of exactly what it is they will be responsible for. National is voting against what I think is a very common-sense and practical amendment put forward by Labour. Why is National opposed to articulating in the legislation that a school board of trustees’ responsibility is ensuring the enrolment at a school of all persons who are entitled to be enrolled at the school? Surely nobody could object to articulating clearly that one of the responsibilities of a board of trustees is ensuring that education is provided to each student enrolled at a school. That is what a school is all about. Why can we not articulate that in legislation so that school boards of trustees are very clear and can be held to account against those responsibilities as set down in legislation? 
There is the responsibility to promote a school environment that supports the highest standards of achievement for all students. The National Government keeps talking about raising standards and setting standards in education yet it wants to vote down the idea that schools should be held accountable for that that a school board of trustees should have that responsibility defined in legislation. National is going to vote against that. 
Actively managing and monitoring the performance of the principal and ensuring that the performance of the school’s other staff is actively managed and monitored are things that I think are really important to articulate as being a responsibility of a school board of trustees. Having spoken to a number of members of school boards of trustees I know that a different approach is taken in some schools. Some boards see their job as being the employer of the principal and therefore any other responsibility for staff employed within the school is no responsibility of theirs; all the responsibility is then on the principal. This amendment would clearly set down for boards of trustees that one of the board’s responsibilities is ensuring that the performance of the school’s other staff is actively managed and monitored and board members cannot simply say that it is a matter that only a school principal needs to deal with. Yes boards of trustees have the primary management responsibility for the principal but they do have a role in making sure that other staff are actively managed and monitored as well. 
Another responsibility set down for a school board of trustees is the active management of and reporting on a school’s performance against the aims and objectives set out in the school charter. This is a Government that says that it wants parents to have more information about how schools are doing and how kids are doing yet it is opposed to the idea that one of the fundamental responsibilities of a school board of trustees should be active management of and reporting on a school’s performance. That is one of the things put forward by the previous Labour Government. It is a very common-sense thing but the National Government is opposed to it. 
Ensuring that a school including its assets finances and property is managed in a financially responsible manner has to be one of the central functions of a school’s governance. A school cannot be effectively governed if the board of trustees is not ensuring that its assets finances and property are managed in a financially responsible manner. That has to be something that is clearly set down as a responsibility of a school board of trustees. I do not understand at all why the Government seems opposed to articulating very clearly and concisely what the responsibility is of a school board of trustees. A new school board of trustees member—and there will be new members after the elections this year—should be able to know that. 
I will also turn to some of the recommendations put forward by the select committee. The select committee has recommended that only natural persons and not bodies corporate may be appointed as limited statutory managers or commissioners of a school but a natural person may be appointed “as being of a named body corporate”. I think that is really important. I speak to schools in my own electorate who have been the subject of limited statutory management. They tell me that relationships are vital; having a good relationship with the limited statutory manager is really important. Limited statutory managers effectively take away some of the responsibility from a school’s board of trustees. In doing so they are handed a great amount of trust and responsibility. It is important that they have a good relationship a relationship of trust with the community that they are there to serve. That relationship would be hindered if there was not an actual person with whom a school could identify and say “This is our person; this is the person we are dealing with.” I think that that amendment put forward by the select committee is very sensible. 
The committee also recommends inserting new clauses to allow the Minister of Education to split one or more schools from a combined establishment board. That will allow for the situation where one of a group of new schools is ready to be opened before the others and it will allow the Minister to split off a new board to govern the school that is opened while retaining a combined establishment board for the remaining schools. I think that that is a very sensible practical amendment put forward by the select committee. It is one that I think should be supported. 
In conclusion I have to say that I am at a loss to explain why the National Government seems so opposed to clearly articulating a school board of trustees’ responsibilities. I think that is really important in the case of limited statutory managers and I have spoken to some schools in my own electorate that have said that relationships are really important and having a person they can deal with is really important. I think that is something that the select committee has recommended and something that I think the House should support. Overall many of the amendments put forward in this bill are positive; they are constructive amendments. It is a shame that the Government has put on blinkers and has said that only the amendments it is putting forward itself are those it will support; it will not look wider and it will not pick up many of the other practical sensible things put forward by the previous Labour Government or by members on the Labour side at the present time. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 In my previous call I focused on the amendments in the name of Mr Grant Robertson. On this call I will focus on the bill the Education Amendment Bill most of which we are quite supportive of. There are a few specific points. I think there will be amusement amongst senior members on this side of the Chamber at clause 8 of the bill where there is a change from “which” to “that”. The thing that most members will not understand is that former Prime Minister Helen Clark would have seen that as a bit of a direct attack. I think it is fair to say that Helen Clark had a view. I do numeracy I do the numbers. I do not pretend to be an English language expert but it is fair to say that Helen had a view of “which” and “that” that was not shared by the parliamentary drafters at all times. I think that this might be a case of them getting their revenge and doing a reversal. 
I have a question for the Minister of Education on clause 15 with regard to the Education Review Office reports for private schools. I ask why they are to be given to the chief executive and managers. I think there might be a mistake because the chief executive is the manager of a school. 
Through the Minister I would ask the officials to look very carefully and tell me whether she means the trustees or the governors of the school rather than the managers. By stating “the school’s principal (or other chief executive) and managers.” we have stated the same class of person twice when obviously if an adverse Education Review Office report reflects on the principal it is very important that the report goes to the trustees. My understanding is that reports go to trustees of State schools. Therefore I ask why there is a difference. 
I will plead guilty now: I would have looked at this clause eight or 10 times over the consideration of the bill at the Education and Science Committee as I was looking at the submissions going through and I did not pick this up before. I take some responsibility as a select committee member for that. But I think that if the Minister can get some advice on it it would not be a big thing if I am right that we did get it wrong coming out of the select committee and we could put forward a quick amendment in order to correct the position. 
I may be wrong; managers may be a class of people in private schools that we do not have in other schools. I met quite recently with the Independent Schools Association. Although I do not know well the three I think schools in Auckland that are for-profit schools generally speaking private schools have fairly traditional boards. Sometimes they have a proprietors’ board as well as a trustees’ board in the way that integrated schools do but they always have an equivalent of a board of trustees whose role is to appoint the principal and to run the school and so forth. 
I am slightly stretching this in order for the advice to come to the Minister. I will move on and if necessary I will come back to that point. 
There is a degree of unanimity on the vetting question. Although my colleague Mr Robertson has brought in a number of amendments to the Minister’s bill that look back to the legislation of the previous Labour Government I want to make it clear that I prefer this Minister’s bill in the area of vetting especially at the point we have got to on the legislation as amended by the select committee. We have come to the point of compromise where there is a degree of unanimity on it. This bill is now better than both the bill that Labour introduced and this bill as it was introduced. We have worked together to get this right. 
On the question of limited statutory managers again this is a very interesting case of a select committee working under MMP. I ask members to remember that I have not been a member of a select committee for a decade and I think that MMP has evolved. It was very interesting to see members of the select committee develop alliances on particular issues sometimes coming from quite different perspectives in order to get to a particular position. On clauses 22 and 23 the committee got to the point where the alliance that formed between the Green Party ACT and the Labour Party outvoted the National members on the select committee. I understand that the National Government has now adopted the position that it had opposed in the select committee. 
It is fair to say that even within the Labour Party the reasons for getting to the position that we did varied. My view as someone who has had some experience as a Minister dealing with these matters is that it is very important—not on a frequent basis but where necessary—to pick up the phone and talk to the person who is responsible for what is effectively the statutory management whether it is a commissioner or the limited statutory manager of a school. With the way that provision was introduced one would have been ringing Ernst and Young or PricewaterhouseCoopers. Well that is all very well but as we know—even as the Minister of Commerce who has responsibility for matters to do with the statutory management of companies knows—liquidators and receivers are always named even if they are effectively a front-person for an accounting company. That is the practice. I think it is important firstly to have the contact and secondly in order to have someone who is held responsible. That is the position that Roger Douglas came to and that is the reason he was supportive of this provision. 
It is fair to say that the Green Party saw the ability to have statutory managers as privatisation. I might say that one or two of my colleagues were slightly suspicious in that area. I have been around long enough to know that if we really want to privatise that is probably not the route that we would take. Having said that the Greens were supportive of the Labour Party position—and we now have the then spokesperson for the Greens and member of the select committee Metiria Turei in the Chamber. For a wide range of reasons we got the balance of opinion of the select committee to the point where it supported this particular clause and that is useful. 
The select committee also did well on the question of splitting the establishment boards. It is my view that this area can be fraught especially where an establishment board is developing a number of schools—as is happening at the moment in the Botany area for example where there is a lot of new development. It is fair to say that both the Minister and I have had more experience of closing schools than of opening them but we know that when we are opening a school it will last for a long time and it is important to get it right at the beginning. It is important to leave the Minister with flexibility on how we split the schools off and flexibility as to whether we even do that. Where we generally have quite innovative schools in those new areas that are testing different shapes models and approaches to education we need to keep on thinking about the governance models a bit more than we have done. For example both in the Albany and the Botany situation I probably would have preferred to keep one board for those schools and see whether that worked. 
I think we might have an answer to the question that I have been delaying for. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I know it is very irregular. Without there being any further debate from our side I seek leave for the Minister to say yes or no on that very minor technical question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member is seeking leave? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I seek leave for the Minister to— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Sorry we have moved beyond that. We still have Part 2 to debate. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(3)Section 2 is amended by inserting the following new subsection after subsection (2): 
“(2A)In this Part and Parts 2 and 3 unless the context otherwise requires any term that is undefined has the same meaning as that term has in the Education Act 1964.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
5APower of Chief Executive of Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to delegate 
Section 4(5) is amended by inserting the words “or any person employed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade acting with the delegated authority of and on behalf of the Chief Executive”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
5BRequirement for Minister to advise House of Representatives of changes to criteria for enrolment in Correspondence School 
Section 7(1) is amended by adding the following new paragraph after paragraph (c): 
“(d)upon making such notice the Minister must as soon as reasonably possible present such notice to the House of Representatives.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
16ANew sections 60AA and 60AAB inserted 
The following sections are inserted after section 60: 
“60AAFunctions of board 
“(1) A board must perform the following functions: 
“(a)ensuring the enrolment at the school of all persons who are entitled to be enrolled at the school and apply to be enrolled at it: 
“(b)ensuring that education is provided to each student enrolled at the school: 
“(c)promoting a school environment that supports the highest standards of achievement for all students: 
“(d)actively managing and monitoring the performance of the principal: 
“(e)ensuring that the performance of the school’s other staff is actively managed and monitored: 
“(f)actively managing and reporting on the school’s performance against the aims and objectives set out in the school charter: 
“(g)ensuring that the school including its assets finances and property is managed in a financially responsible manner: 
“(h)ensuring the maintenance of proper standards— 
“(i) of integrity and conduct appropriate to the board’s status as a Crown entity; and 
“(ii)for the safety and wellbeing of all students enrolled at the school: 
“(i)any other function imposed on it by or under this Act or any other enactment. 
“(2)A board may perform the following functions: 
“(a) allowing the school to engage in activities that are incidental and related to or consequential upon the board’s functions other than those functions that are authorised under section 60AAB: 
“(b) any function authorised under section 60AAB: 
“(c) any other function it is authorised to perform by or under this Act or any other enactment. 
“(3)Nothing in this section overrides any provision in this Act or in any other enactment that relates to a particular function of a board. 
“60AABMinister may authorise board functions 
“(1)By notice in the  
Gazette 
 the Minister may authorise all boards or classes of boards to perform any function or class of functions— 
“(a)not otherwise specified in this Act; and 
“(b)with any condition on the performance of the function or class of functions that the Minister considers is necessary or desirable. 
“(2)By written notice to a board the Minister may authorise it to perform any function— 
“(a)that is not otherwise specified in this Act; and 
“(b)with any condition on the performance of the function that the Minister considers is necessary or desirable. 
“(3)Before issuing a notice under subsection (1) or giving notice to a board under subsection (2) the Minister must consider whether or not the proposed function— 
“(a)is associated with educational outcomes that will bring educational benefit to the school or its community or to any other school; and 
“(b)has a community purpose that presents no educational disadvantage to the school; and 
“(c)will use or displace resources allocated by the Crown for educational purposes; and 
“(d)may involve significant fiscal risk for the Government or significant financial risk for the board or boards as the case may be; and 
“(e)may involve a high level of reputational risk for the Crown or the board; and 
“(f)may place unwarranted compliance costs on the board or boards as the case may be. 
“(4)The Minister may from time to time after reconsidering the matters set out in paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (3) amend or revoke— 
“(a)by notice in the  
Gazette 
 an authorisation notified under subsection (1); or 
“(b)by written notice to a board an authorisation notified to it under subsection (2). 
“(5)A board’s functions authorised under this section must be performed in accordance with the requirements of this Act and any other relevant enactments.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause:  
20AGuidance and counselling 
Section 77(a) is amended by inserting “ including guidance and counselling on career choices and career pathways” after “counselling”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
60AExercise of certain powers of Authority 
Section 260(7) is amended by omitting “laid before” and substituting “presented to”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Transitional provision validations and consequential amendments 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I will focus particularly on Supplementary Order Paper 99 today. It is in my name and it inserts new clause 78A in the Education Amendment Bill to validate borrowing by King’s High School in Dunedin. 
This matter has a long history and it is one that I think neither the ministry nor two three or even four Ministers of Education have very much to be proud about. The short story is that a number of years ago King’s High School entered into an agreement to build a joint facility with Queen’s High School. It received some additional Government money in order to build a performing arts centre. Unfortunately the school’s board—we think probably through the former principal—was under the impression that it could effectively draw down on its 5-year property plan money: that it could get a bank loan in that year and a year or two later when it became eligible for more 5-year property money it could use that to repay the loan. The advice to the board was wrong and as a result the school has been paying about $4800 a month since that time to service the loan. At the same time that the school has this loan which it would like to get rid of it has a large amount in credit in terms of the 5-year property plan money that it would have been able to draw on from 2008 onwards. 
I make it very clear that the board was not correctly advised. It took out a bank loan for a building and it has a large credit with the Ministry of Education for building purposes. It wants to use that credit—about $400000 of it—in order to repay the loan so that it stops paying the $4800 a month to service the loan from the school’s operations grant funding. That money would otherwise be used for the direct educational benefit of kids and the school has indicated to me that its top priority if it could for spending the money in credit would be to apply it to the repayment of the loan. 
I will put all the cards on the table. At least one former Labour Minister of Education received a letter from the school and turned it down. It might have been two Ministers but I know that one Minister did. That Minister was wrong to do so. 
I have now had two meetings with the current Minister of Education about this issue. It is fair to say that at the earlier meeting she understood the problem and asked the ministry for advice on a solution to it. I make it clear that this is not the only solution to the problem. There could be a policy change in relation to 5-year property funding to sort it out; there are a number of routes that the Minister could take in order to solve it. But the trouble is that if the Minister makes a policy change she probably opens up the door for other schools which I think is probably not a wise thing to do without going through a longer process. 
But in relation to this particular school the facts are well known. We have a school that has now been committed to using its resources and it is not a rich school. Despite the names “King’s” and “Queen’s”—and when we hear “King’s” a lot of people think of Auckland and of a school that is in a much better financial position than this school—Dunedin South is a medium to low decile area and King’s High School is not a wealthy school. It is not in an area of growth and it is not in an area where there are major benefactors. It is fair to say the school is in quite good condition. One of the interesting things that we learn while serving as the Minister of Education is that boys wreck their schools but that girls do not. The sad thing that occurred there in relation to the two schools—which are of the same vintage—is that the boys received their new school buildings before the time provided for under the 5-year property plan but the girls did not get their new school. So the boys’ school King’s High School is in a much better position than Queen’s High School. I actually like the style of the buildings at the girls’ school a bit more than those at King’s High School but there is no doubt that King’s High School has more up-to-date modern facilities and more room than the girls’ school has. 
My question is really about whether it is appropriate or right for the interest on that loan to keep on flowing to Westpac ad infinitum instead of that money being used by the school. It could be used for the special-needs pupils at the school for extension work at the school for the maintenance of the school—and it does not need a lot of maintenance—or to buy computers. Over $50000 a year could be used to employ another teacher. I think that the Minister although she and I might have debates about the adequacy of schools’ operations grants—I think that schools need more of that funding—would agree that the grants are not particularly generous. Nor are they set up in order for a mid-sized medium-decile secondary school to use that money in that way. 
I want at this stage—and it is interesting to note that I am doing this in two debates in a row—to acknowledge the work that Sir Roger Douglas has done on this issue. He has taken the time to investigate the issue and look at the fairness of the situation. Notwithstanding the fact that the suggested amendment has come from the Labour Party he has agreed to support it. I say to my colleagues from the Maori Party that I think it is sad that to date they have not made any contact with the school. There is an issue there and there is an offer for them to be briefed on that issue. There is an offer for the Maori Party to understand the priorities of the school but that offer has not been taken up either by its education spokesperson or by its local member of Parliament. I think that is sad. 
At this stage it is important to acknowledge Clare Curran the Dunedin South member of Parliament who took me to the school where I was briefed on the situation. I think it is fair to say both of us are a little embarrassed that we are in this situation. It is something that could have been fixed by a former Labour Minister of Education. There is no glory in this situation and it is something that I think could have and should have been sorted out. 
The Minister says the approach set out on Supplementary Order Paper 99 is inappropriate under the Public Finance Act. I have invited her to look at legislation of a very similar nature that has been passed in the last year. Every year Parliament passes dozens of validating clauses to sort out wee mistakes that have been made. That is what Parliament is for. Parliament is there to make sure that when mistakes that are against the law—that breach the law—are made that are technical not deliberate people should not suffer because of it. We are here as parliamentarians to try to sort out these things for the sake of the kids and there is a solution here. It will make no difference to anyone who is not at the school. It does not involve any extra money. Nothing extra has to be voted as a result of this exercise; the money is sitting there for that school to use as it wants. All that this amendment does is to say to King’s High School that it has the ability to use its money from its 5-year property plan which it thought it could use to pay off the debt to pay off the debt. I think that it is not an unreasonable request. We have thought a lot about this and I cannot think of a better way of doing it without opening the gate to other schools. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I think it is outrageous that this issue has come to the Committee in this manner. I am really disappointed on behalf of the school that Mr Mallard has chosen to do this in this manner in the Chamber. But let us put out some information. 
I am advised that in 2005 contrary to ministry advice King’s High School in Dunedin built a performing arts centre. It was encouraged to do so as I understand it by Mr Mallard himself. The school built a performing arts centre that was 60 percent larger than was required for the size of the school and it paid a square metre rate that was 168 percent higher than the industry benchmark for that type of facility. King’s High School paid almost $4.5 million for its performing arts centre which compares with the Ministry of Education’s current valuation for it of $1.275 million. This was a conscious decision made by a board of trustees and we entrust boards of trustees to make these sorts of decisions. Mr Mallard himself when discussing this with me has admitted to the part that he played in getting the board into this situation. But it was a conscious decision that the board made and the board knew that it would have to borrow money in order to complete the centre. 
I am not sure where the idea came from that the board had received wrong advice from the ministry about the idea that the 5-yearly agreement funding could be used but it was incorrect information. If the board had listened to the ministry it would have known that it could not use the 5-yearly agreement funding to repay a loan. That 5-yearly agreement funding is provided to refurbish existing property; that is what it is appropriated for. Under the Public Finance Act it cannot then be used for another purpose—in this case to repay a loan. We have been down that track and I have explained that to Mr Mallard. In fact in fairness I tell the Committee that Mr Mallard asked his colleagues the former Ministers of Education—both Minister Maharey and Minister Carter—to do a similar thing to what he is asking this Committee to condone tonight and they declined to do so. They declined because other schools have also made similar decisions around borrowing to build property that is outside what is provided by the ministry. If we allow one school to come back later and say: “Oh hang on a minute. We didn’t do this properly and now we would like to remedy this because we are paying for a loan from our operations grant.” we will open the floodgates and destroy our policy. 
But I say in mitigation because we do have some sympathy for a school— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable Minister but the time has come for me to report progress. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.