Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak on the Education Amendment Bill and for the first time in the years that I've been in this Parliament it's a pleasure to rise to speak on an Education Amendment Bill. I want to be very clear. Yes you can hear out there on the radio. Those listening on the radio and those watching the live stream—what you can hear is the National Party freaking out. What's very interesting about this piece of legislation—I want to make this 100 percent clear—is this legislation does not close a single charter school. [Interruption] No no. You see there's the problem. Mr Seymour's just gone apoplectic because he doesn't seem to understand this either. This piece of legislation does not close a single charter school. What it does do is it removes the capacity for any more to be opened. So this doesn't shut anything but it means no more can be opened. First fact right? Second fact: the levers that are currently able to be used by the current Minister of Education around charter schools and their futures were put into place by the National Government and Hekia Parata. We have changed no legislation. We have not introduced any other tool by which these schools can be managed. I go to talk about Whangaruru school. The very instrument that is at the disposal of the current Minister of Education which was used by the previous Minister of Education Hekia Parata to close that school was put into place and voted on by the ACT Party and the National Party. So I just want to be 100 percent clear when we're in this conversation who put in place the tools to close charter schools and it was David Seymour of the ACT Party and Hekia Parata of the National Party.Now let's have a conversation about wasting money shall we—David Seymour: Good on you.Hon TRACEY MARTIN: —listen up matey because it was your party—$4.8 million of taxpayers' money given by the National Government to the Whangaruru trust Ngā Parirau Mātauranga Charitable Trust who now owns a farm. They now own a farm. How many times did the National Government Minister of Education Hekia Parata stand up and say We are working through opportunities to bring back that taxpayer-purchased asset underneath the State umbrella."—how many times? And I challenge any member over there to provide me with any evidence that that was ever done. I challenge any member over there to provide me with any evidence that the previous Government sought to repatriate that farm and that four-point-something million dollars Mr Seymour.I want to talk also about the fact that somehow people think that when this bill passes there's no opportunity for Vanguard Military School for example or no opportunity for Villa Education Trust schools. I'd just like to mention that I've visited Vanguard.Erica Stanford: It's just a gun to their head.Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Are you suggesting that I shoot myself? Is that what you're suggesting madam?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! [Interruption] Order! Don't bring me into the debate.Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Sorry madam. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There was a hand signal of a gun to the head by one of the new members of the National Party.Erica Stanford: I clearly said "It's a gun to their head. It's not a negotiation." I would never say such a thing.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Can you confirm that there was a gesture made?Erica Stanford: I withdraw and apologise if that's what she believed that it was but it wasn't.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Does the member feel she warrants an apology? [Interruption] Yes please. I recommend the member withdraw and apologise.Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I'll take the member at her word.Erica Stanford: I withdraw and apologise.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you. I appreciate that.Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. So let's just be clear. It's been suggested that none of the things provided by charter schools for example—and the two schools that are constantly talked about are Villa Education Trust schools—those I have visited; I have visited Alwyn Poole at his school—and Vanguard Military School. Vanguard I have visited. I've visited Nick and the other students at Vanguard Military School. I've visited the kura up in Whangarei because unlike the suggestion from the members of the Opposition it's not ideology. It's about students. It's about students. It's about models. I just want to point out that what I have here are pictures. This is to educate not only the public but the members of the Opposition. These are all the trades academies. These are all the serviced academies—military serviced academies—available in State schools across New Zealand. This is the mapping. That model is available in the State system and has been since the Education Act 1989 was first introduced. There are 23 trades academies where students can actually go and be funded from year 11 to year 13 to not only get NCEA credits but also get level 1 level 2 and level 3 inside trade qualifications. There are 28 services academies—28 services academies—that have a military ethos. And so there is no need to panic for those parents who believe that a military-style services-style model will not be available for their students. We hope we wish—we are in conversations with Vanguard because we want Vanguard to work with us to transition these students with that model grow that model and learn from that model as they are there.I have delegations around alternative schools. That model is already available and has been available for some time. Unfortunately this legislation the ability to open charter schools was put in place by an ignorant Government—an ignorant Government that did not know what was available already inside the State system; an ignorant Government that had marketed themselves on bulk funding back in the 1990s and finally found a partnership with the ACT Party to by stealth bring bulk funding back into the education system of New Zealand.I will just start to close on national standards. I have recently been in conversations with a particular political party that were rather in-depth. What I found very interesting was that during some of those conversations and since then publicly a member of that political party has talked about how there was recognition that they needed to move to progressions. They recognised that national standards and a line in the sand were not working and were not appropriate and that they needed to move to progressions. The Hon Nikki Kaye mentioned it in this House during her speech just earlier today. In 2009 the New Zealand curriculum—I believe it was Lockwood Smith. I understand it was Lockwood Smith who did all the work on the New Zealand curriculum—a proud National Party member and a man who understood education and worked with the sector to create The New Zealand Curriculum and the progressions that are inside that document. They are progressions that parents understand because they mirror in some ways the growth progressions that they already know with regard to their children's growth at Plunket. We were talking academic growth of children in a similar way that we were talking about physical growth of children. Nobody expects every child to be at the same height on the same day at the same time. That's why even the Hon Nikki Kaye talked earlier today in her contribution about knowing that they needed to shift to progressions. So it's very difficult for the members of the Opposition to stand knowing that they were about to change their policy anyway.National standards have been removed. They've been removed. The administration burden that has been on schools has been taken away. And we have had nothing but comment after comment after comment from parents from teachers from students about the removal of national standards. Simeon Brown: I'm yet to receive one.Hon TRACEY MARTIN: What I find really interesting is when the Opposition says they are "yet to". The unfortunate thing is people can see those that there's no point having that conversation with so they don't bother to actually reach out and have that conversation with certain members of the National Party but Minister Kaye already acknowledged that there was a need to move to progressions. So we will be working with the sector. We will be having the nationwide conversation to actually talk with the New Zealand parents the sector—anybody even the members of the Opposition can participate if they like—about setting the criteria of what is success in this country and we will take education forward. But we will not continue to burden either the sector or our children with an arbitrary line in the sand that everybody needs to try to jump over. Some have been teachers that are sitting over that side and some know exactly what I'm talking about. Some know about those students. Some know about those students that require more that require the confidence of knowing that they are good at something that they moved from there to there. Some on that side of the House who have been teachers also know that progression takes place at different speeds for some children or you might get great progression in one year it flat-lines for a period while you entrench that learning and then you go on. Those are real education conversations that should have been had in this House—not about an arbitrary line set in the sand not about a packed tool that was to try to get teachers to fit inside a box to tick box off and to dumb down the profession. Nor should it have been a conversation where we took away the status of our teaching professionals and decided that we would bulk fund others and leave that profession out to dry. Kia ora."