Hipkins Chris: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHipkins Chris: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 29 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10540. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): TheJournals of the House will record that after little more than 2 hours of debate on the Education Amendment Bill National has just voted to dismantle some of the fundamental principles on which our State education is based: the principle that those in front of children should be qualified and registered the principle that all schools in New Zealand should teach to the New Zealand curriculum and the principle that there should be transparency around the way our education system operates. Part 2 of this bill deals with the last of the issues that I have just mentioned—the issue around transparency. I know that my colleagues are going to talk about clause 42 which deals with the Official Information Act. I want to deal with clause 43 which deals with the amendments to the Ombudsmen Act.The original bill as drafted by supposedly Hekia Parata—because the bill is in her name—but in reality by John Banks would have exempted charter schools from the Ombudsmen Act altogether. There would have been no oversight from the Ombudsman. With a very sensible amendment—I think it was actually an amendment put forward by Tracey Martin from New Zealand First—there was agreement at the Education and Science Committee to extend the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to cover decisions made by charter schools in so far as they relate to standing down suspension and expulsion under the Education Act. That is the only jurisdiction that the Ombudsman will have in so far as charter schools are concerned. That is absolutely outrageous. These schools will have enormous enormous control over the lives of young people in New Zealand. They will be entrusted with a great responsibility and yet one of the fundamental institutions that we rely on in our democratic system the Ombudsman will not have jurisdiction.When this issue was raised at the select committee and the officials were questioned as to why the Ombudsmen Act should not apply to charter schools they talked about the fact that the Education Review Office would review charter schools. Then they talked about the fact that the Secretary for Education would have oversight. Yet we know—from the votes that we have just taken in this House—that we have removed the power for the Secretary for Education to intervene even when they know that there are serious problems existing within a charter school. I put forward an amendment that would have given the Secretary for Education the power to intervene in cases where there were serious problems within a charter school and this Government voted it down. It voted it down without one member of the National Party justifying why it did that.Darien Fenton: With their heads down.CHRIS HIPKINS: Their heads are down and they do not want to hear about this.Hon Trevor Mallard: What are they looking at?CHRIS HIPKINS: I do not know what they are looking at. They are very intent on something over there.Actually there is a principle here with regard to the Ombudsmen Act because the Ombudsman has played a very very important role in the very recent history of New Zealand in dealing with a very serious education matter that was not picked up by the Education Review Office and that was not dealt with by the Ministry of Education and that was a case of systemic bullying within an existing school in our State school system. It took an investigation by the Ombudsman to shed light on those very serious matters. Under this bill under this clause 43 the Ombudsman will not have the power to do that in relation to charter schools. That is wrong. All of the agencies whose job it is to deal with education issues failed to pick up those concerns and failed to deal with them properly. It was the Ombudsman who stepped in and delivered what can be described only as quite a scathing report with regard to bullying at a particular State secondary school and that finally dealt with the issue. That was an enormous relief to all of the parents the students and all of the others who were involved in that matter. It shed light on a situation that had gone on for far too long and that had to be dealt with. If that were to happen in one of these charter schools there would be no protection. There would be no protection for those students for the teachers who work there or for others involved and that is just so wrong.The Ombudsman deals with a lot more than the Official Information Act and concerns relating to stand-downs and suspensions. What is the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman? The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman the purpose of having the Ombudsman is to ensure that New Zealand citizens are treated fairly by their Government. Why should charter schools be exempt from that? These are schools thatare going to deal with New Zealand children. They are effectively going to have custody of New Zealand children for the time that they are at school and yet this Government is washing its hands of the State’s responsibility to make sure that they are adequately cared for. One of the safeguards that we have now in addition to the Education Review Office and all of the agencies that deal with education specifically is the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has jurisdiction over all matters relating to Government decision-making to make sure that New Zealanders are treated fairly by their Government to make sure that children and students in our schools are treated fairly and to make sure that their welfare that their health and that their well-being is protected by the Government and by Government decision-making. This very clause—clause 43 of this bill—exempts charter schools from all of those safeguards and that is totally and utterly wrong.Charter schools should not be exempt from the accountability mechanisms and the safeguards and protections that State schools have. The Government has already voted down amendments that would have meant—Hon Trevor Mallard: Or even private schools.CHRIS HIPKINS: Even private schools. That is right. Private schools are subject to them so why should charter schools not be subject to them as well? It is just so wrong on so many levels. The Government has voted down measures that we in the Labour Opposition have put forward which would protect the welfare of young people attending charter schools and would make sure that they are taught by people who are qualified for the job that they are there to do. The Government voted those down. The amendments that I put forward that would provide further safeguards around making sure that these charter schools are subject to the appropriate levels of accountability have been voted down by this Government and that is wrong.I know that my colleagues are going to talk a lot more about the Official Information Act requirements in this bill around clause 42. I am sure they have got plenty of things they want to say about that in addition to the other consequential amendments that this part makes which range over quite a wide range of legislation including the Legislation Act; Accident Compensation Act; Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Act; Health Act; Immigration Act; Income Tax Act; Local Government (Rating) Act; and Official Information Act. But I want to talk about the Official Information Act very briefly and I know that my colleagues will pick this up.This amendment in clause 42 of this bill exempts charter schools from the Official Information Act. It means that they are not going to be subject to public scrutiny. They are going to be charged with caring for the health and welfare of young New Zealanders and they are not going to be subject to the accountability that every State school is subject to. They are going to receive the same levels of funding as every State school in the country and yet we are not going to have information about how they operate. Why is the Government doing that? The Government is doing that for one clear reason: it does not want people to know how much these charter schools are taking out of the education system in the form of profits. Charter schools will be allowed to make a profit and if they were subject to the Official Information Act we would know how much profit they make. This amendment means that we will not know that. The New Zealand taxpayers who pay for these schools will not know that.There are a whole lot of other decisions that charter schools will make regarding the health and welfare of our students that should be subject to the transparency and accountability that State schools are. When it comes to student achievement information—a very very controversial issue at the moment with regard to data collected by schools in relation to national standards and so forth—the principles that apply to State schools around making that information available under the OfficialInformation Act will not apply to charter schools. Charter schools will be exempt from some of the bureaucratic requirements that the Government has set on State schools—that this National Government has imposed on State schools. There will be two levels of accountability in this education system: one level of accountability for the vast bulk of schools which are public schools and which are accountable to the public as they should be and a whole other level of accountability a much lesser level of accountability for charter schools which will be profit-making institutions which will not have elected boards of trustees which will not be subject to the Ombudsmen Act or the Official Information Act and which will not have all of the safeguards and protections that we as a Parliament put in place to protect the welfare the health and the educational achievement of the students in our schools.This particular set of amendments is wrong on so many levels. New Zealand students deserve better. This Government should be hanging its head in shame about the fact that with this bill it is removing the safeguards that protect our young people. These amendments are wrong. I know that my colleagues are going to have a lot to say about them and we will be strenuously opposing them.