Martin TraceyTRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to oppose this bill. There is a lot in it that we wish to oppose. There is one single thing that I want to acknowledge. Inside this bill the Education and Science Committee has managed to amend clause 53 which amends the part of the Pacific Islands Polynesian Education Foundation Act—that is the interpretation of what Pacific person" means. We were able to gain Kiribati and Tuvalu to be able to be recognised inside that Act because they are now part of the New Zealand community. So that is a big up. That is a big win. Thank you very much. That was it. That was the positivity that came out of what was the most bizarre select committee I have ever sat on. It was very very very interesting. I just want to make this point too about the National Party member who spoke last Todd Muller. Not a single school came to submit to us on Teach First NZ. Not a single school came to submit. I go to the comment that the member made suggesting that a whole lot of schools came to submit to us—not a single one came. So I thought that was a very interesting participation record. I want to go back to—make sure we put on the record—the background of how we got this Supplementary Order Paper 176 first of all. Nobody heard a word about it. But where this came from was that back in December 2015 there was an Employment Relations Authority determination that the employment of Teach First NZ graduates who were largely untrained teachers was illegal. That was a determination of the Employment Relations Authority back in December 2015. Why was it illegal? It was because they were shoulder-tapped to go into jobs inside schools. They were shoulder-tapped to go into jobs inside State schools. That meant that registered and qualified teachers were disadvantaged because they could not apply for the job. The Teach First NZ graduates—they are not graduates; I mean they are graduates of a degree but they are not teaching graduates—were able to go in there for a job that was not advertised and get that position. So that was why it was deemed illegal. After that employment relations case the Post Primary Teachers' Association (PPTA) the Ministry of Education and Teach First NZ came to an arrangement. Teach First NZ said: "We don't have a problem with our graduates having to apply for advertised positions. We are confident in our young people that they are totally capable after a 6- to 8-week Christmas course of being able to be put unsupervised in front of the classroom but with the support and recognition of Auckland University." That was the arrangement that was in place until suddenly in this Education Legislation Bill with no notice to anybody at all after the full period of submissions had been heard Supplementary Order Paper 176 came in from Minister Parata. Then there was an enormous row—the biggest row I have ever seen at a select committee which is normally a collegial environment. This was because the Government members decided that this was not a big enough change—this was not a big enough change—to actually ask anybody inside the education sector whether there was anything we should be concerned about. So there was the biggest spat I have ever seen inside a select committee and strangely enough we ended up with the Government overturning the original position of not having any submissions and we opened it for 2 weeks—so a 2-week period of submissions. I can tell you exactly how many submissions we had. We had submissions from the PPTA we had the New Zealand Educational Institute we had two members from Teach First NZ we had a gentleman from a teachers' training college down in Christchurch and that was it—that was it—on this bill. The only people to speak in favour of this particular amendment were from Teach First NZ itself. Why should they do that do you think? Well what is interesting is that if you have a read about what this bill actually does it gives Teach First NZ a monopoly—a monopoly—to have the Secretary for Education designate positions at a school for the "employment-based trainee teacher". This is the really large title that the ministry came up with because calling them trainee teachers—well that has already been taken. Student teachers has already been taken. Teachers are teachers actually registered and qualified and they have done the hard yards. So the ministry had to come up with another way of saying this to try to suggest that these individuals who are going to stand in front of our children—quite possibly from year 1 all the way through to year 13—have some form of qualification. They actually should be called apprentices because that is what they technically are. They are learning on the job. They are apprentices. They have done a degree and good on them. They have done a degree in science biology engineering or whatever. Then supposedly after a 6- to 8-week block course they can now stand in front of 5-year-olds—because that is what this legislation allows them to do; stand in front of 5-year-olds—and kid those parents that they are teachers. They are not teachers and if there is a barrier to these young people becoming teachers because 1 year's teacher training is what too long for them or too expensive then for goodness' sake give them a scholarship and put them through the whole 1-year training and then allow them to teach only in secondary schools—allow them to teach only in secondary schools. Hon Hekia Parata: They do 2 years. The programme is 2 years.TRACEY MARTIN: Ms Parata rants on that they do 2 years. They do 2 years as apprentices in the classroom practising on real live children—real live children—and that is not good enough. That is not enhancing the profession. That is not raising the status of the profession. That is not good enough for our children. Parents have the right to know that the person standing in front of their child has been fully qualified before they get there and if they are not good enough they should not be there practising on them. There was another way to do this. There is no way that New Zealand First will actually support that sort of amendment. Let us talk about the suggestion that there are all these people asking for principals to be able to manage or be principal across several schools. I think what Mr Muller said was really really interesting. He said a contractual interface—that the principals can have a contractual interface with a variety of schools. I think he has hit the nail on the Government's head. It sees this as a business. The Government sees this as a business. It has no concept whatsoever that principals are the leaders of teaching and learning inside of a school. It has no concept about how hands-on a principal inside a school is. They set the tone and the culture for the school. I think what is interesting is that the only way that this will work for multiple boards is if the principal becomes a contractor. The principal will have to become an independent contractor. It will not be an employment agreement because how could a principal have five employment agreements unless they are contracting part of their time? So this is a move—and I think it is a really interesting move—to turn principals into contractors. The other thing we have got here—let us just go to charter schools and this dual provision that is in this bill. Charter schools are funded in a cashed-up way. They are bulk funded basically in a cashed-up way that includes the property dollar. The property dollar is supposed to be given to provide all the technical classrooms and so on required for them to deliver the curriculum for those students. What has happened? Charter schools have not spent their property dollars. They have banked them or they have paid big salaries to their chief executive officers or whatever whatever and now they want to use the technology rooms of other schools—the State schools that have to provide them for them. So on one hand they have been given the money to provide the technology classrooms; on the other hand they have banked it and decided they are going to use somebody else's. The State schools are required to maintain they are required to shift around their own timetables so that they can facilitate—it is another failing of charter schools. Charter schools if you are given the dollar spend the dollar. The last thing is around the opening hours. Schools can already do exactly what this amendment says. There is one major change. The schools have to consult with business. Before this bill they did not have to consult with business. This bill says they have to consult with business about their opening hours. I guarantee you this is not about shortening opening hours; this is about extending opening hours to suit the workplace not to suit children and not to suit parents."