Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. Today I would like to talk about and just kind of unpack some of the Government's position around education. I'd like to play a little game in today's debate sort of comparing and contrasting what the Minister of Education is doing and what the Associate Minister of Education is doing.So let's start with round one; let's start with teachers and principals. So on one hand we have the Minister of Education saying prospective teachers are required to have NCEA level 2 maths in order to even begin teacher training. But what about the Associate Minister's charter schools? Oh look! Teachers are not even required to have a teaching qualification. Second the Minister of Education said teachers are going to be well resourced with professional development opportunities. But what about the Associate Minister's charter schools? Nope. Nope—actually no requirement for personal development whatsoever. Third one—still on the teachers and principals round—the Minister of Education: excellent and experienced principals result in excellent outcomes. Oh—what about charter schools? Oh no not the same. Sponsors have no need for an education background. How shocking!Now let's talk about round two on curriculum. The Minister of Education says We need consistency and an explicit approach to teaching reading writing and math. We need one hour of reading and numeracy and literacy in the classroom a day. We want to see cellphone bans."—green tick from the Minister of Education. But what about the Associate Minister's charter schools? Oh! Oh! Different again. We see inconsistencies and flimsy curriculums in charter schools. There is no requirement for anything that the Minister of Education has mentioned. What about the Minister of Education consistently talking about every child in this country having access to one of their programmes? Like surely this is a big green tick. But what about the Associate Minister's charter schools? Meh-eh—incorrect again. Charter school students apparently are not considered under the definition of "every child in this country".Now let's move on to parents whānau and students. We see the Minister of Education talking about how parents should be integral to student educational progress and indeed we see parents taking an active role in the school's governance—being on their school boards. But what about the Associate Minister's charter schools? Oh oh what a shame! Incorrect again. Parents are not required to be part of the governance structure or even decision making.Let's go on to the next question. What about when it comes to Māori educational outcomes? Now we have heard both the Minister of Education and the Prime Minister mentioning over and over again about how Māori educational outcomes are failing and that we need to work hard to engage and they have been working hard to engage Māori educational representatives and organisations to lift Māori student achievement. Surely this is a big tick. But is it the same thing as the Associate Minister's charter schools? Oh. No actually because charter schools do not even give effect to Te Tiriti—not in the bill.Finally the last round is around process. There are a lot of things we could really be talking about but in general we want to see transparency and accountability in our public education system—something that the Minister of Education supposedly cares very deeply about. So they gave an example: they can request information via the Official Information Act. But alas no—you cannot request information from a charter school via the Official Information Act if you are a student or parent.So I'm not sure what you think about this Government's educational objectives where we have the Minister of Education saying one thing singing one tune and the Associate Minister another. So what we see is a National Party continuously using their back on track slogan but my question is: what track is their coalition partner on? Thank you."