Mahuta Nanaia: Education Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mahuta Nanaia: Education Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 18 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5988. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 It is a shame that the Minister responsible for charter schools the Associate Minister of Education John Banks did not answer a question when he was present in the House and there was no one on the Government side available to answer properly in the capacity of Minister of Education on this particular policy. Had he taken on the challenge to answer the question it would have simply been this: “Will the policy and procedures for how charter schools are run are managed and deliver educational benefits to students be open to public scrutiny and accountability or will these terms and conditions be hidden away under sponsor contracts not accessible under the Official Information Act?”. The Minister is here and did not refer to it in his opening speech in respect of this bill the Education Amendment Bill. We should be concerned. 
I rise to speak on this charter school bill which is ACT and National’s attempt to privatise New Zealand’s public education system. We have a fantastic public education system. Sure more could be done but not by way of charter schools. This will not be the solution to the challenge that faces this nation to lift achievement for all children every child in their communities through their local schools. It will introduce competition. It will take money from the public purse and privatise the profit. How can that be good for every child in every local community when they are faced now with charter schools? 
It is the wrong thing to do in a country like ours. Despite the huge inequities that exist in our country we sit among the top seven of the OECD countries in educational performance. Under Hekia Parata and John Banks charter schools will see New Zealand lead a race to the bottom of the OECD because they have fundamentally ignored the systemic challenge in our society which is to get things moving on the right track for every child. They deserve the best opportunity for education at their local school. Labour believes that a quality public education should be guaranteed—guaranteed—to every child from every community at their local school. This should not be aspirational a goal or an ambition. It is an expectation in a country like ours if we want to assure ourselves that a small country can grow the potential of each and every child no matter who they are where they come from or what their socio-economic background is. 
Inequality in a developed country like ours has seen 270000 children living in poverty and it is not their fault. There is a growing number of hard-working families who fall into this category and rely on our local schools to deliver to their children an education of a high quality from the time they start school to the time they finish. 
Charter schools are a simple distraction. They take money from the public purse and privatise the profits with little or no accountability to students parents or taxpayers at large. In considering this bill why are the sponsor contracts not subject to the Official Information Act? Answer that. In considering this bill parents should be concerned about the real effect of what the Government is proposing. 
Setting up new schools where a sponsor by way of contract negotiates the terms and conditions for schooling provision may sound attractive but the devil is in the detail. Under the bill the policies and procedures of a charter school are hidden in these contracts and will not be available to public scrutiny—not via the Official Information Act and not even as a document tabled in this House. We as parliamentarians should be very concerned because this is an experiment. It has failed overseas. The Government is bringing it into this country and why are these contracts not being exposed to greater public scrutiny? It is a problem when taxpayer funds are being used to run these schools with little or no accountability for what they do or how they do it. 
The Minister will approve sponsors of charter schools which do not necessarily need an educational background to lead learning at those schools. An advisory group will be appointed by the Minister to monitor the progress of these schools in line with the sponsor contracts. It appears that these advisory boards may take over some role of the Ministry of Education. Who knows? These are just some of the aspects of the way in which charter schools will operate and we should be concerned as parliamentarians and as parents about the way in which charter schools are intended to operate. No public scrutiny is available of them whatsoever. 
Earlier this year the Minister of Education said that she believed that teachers made all the difference in improving learning outcomes. Yet in charter schools she is letting non-registered teachers deliver education. We heard the former Minister of Education in the House today acknowledge that non-registered teachers could teach at charter schools. She failed to make the connection that teacher training qualifications are a prerequisite to being registered which guarantees that the quality of a teacher cannot be compromised. Yet there is to be one standard for those at charter schools and another for those in the public school system. How do they reconcile that particular dilemma? 
Teachers in charter schools will get paid at a different rate. They are not subject to the same professional standards. Yet they still have the same critical influence on children’s learning like any other teacher throughout the schools in New Zealand. But why are they being treated differently? My concern is that the Minister either believes that there is value in teacher training qualifications or she does not. Right now she says it is one law for teachers at charter schools and another for those in the public system. She speaks with a forked tongue. 
The Government has put the education and safety of charter school children at risk by ignoring the advice of its own officials on who should be allowed to teach them. It is unclear what criteria will be used to fund charter schools and the staffing levels that will be agreed to. Will she promote larger class sizes in those charter schools or smaller class sizes? Who knows? Who knows how those staffing levels will be funded? Will these schools receive the same establishment funding as public schools or more? Who knows? It is unclear. The bill does not speak to that. 
There are more questions than answers and our children’s learning is far too important to be used as an experiment with charter schools. A model that has failed in other countries is being adopted here in New Zealand. Why? The international evidence suggests that charter schools do not work. In 2009— 
Hon John Banks 
: So we should do nothing? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: That member says we should do nothing. No what we should do is strengthen our public school system and look to the exemplars and innovations that are already happening and are delivering outcomes for Maori and Pacific students and all learners. We should strengthen the public school system not suck money out of public schools put it into a private model and privatise the profits. We should do more for every child from every community at their local school. 
Let us look to the international evidence. In 2009 the Center for Research on Education Outcomes which is part of Stanford University analysed the scores from across 16 charter schools. It found that although some charter schools do better than the traditional public schools the majority do the same or worse—the same or worse. Almost one-fifth of charter schools do worse. It is not the way to go in New Zealand. 
National’s agenda for charter schools poses a major risk to our public education system. Charter schools will not have to teach to the curriculum that every other child in the public school system has to learn by. In fact I am very sceptical about the narrowing of the curriculum through the charter school process but the devil will be in the detail and we are looking forward to this bill going to the select committee. 
I can only say as a closing comment that it is Labour’s sincere hope that if this Government is genuinely wanting to engage feedback from the public on this bill it will extend the period of time for which submissions can come to the select committee and not rush this bill through in urgency before the end of the year. We are in October and it would be unfair for public citizens in New Zealand to try to rush through a submission process. Let us give them time—time to consider the impact of a charter school within the network of public education provision. Let us not rush them and let us not put on a Clayton’s consultation round through the select committee. It is Labour’s hope that the Government will ensure that genuine time is given for submissions to come in and extend that into the new year so that real engagement can occur. They are sick of being treated like the people of Christchurch who are still fuming over the guise of consultation that happened down there over being steamrolled over and about radical reforms being proposed. All for what? So that the Government can introduce charter schools down in Christchurch. It is simply unacceptable. Charter schools are an experiment. They have failed overseas. They should not be here in New Zealand. Kia ora.