Mallard Trevor; Hipkins ChrisClauses 4 to 37 39 to 71 and schedule 1The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Members we come to the first debate on the principles and central management. This comprises clauses 4 to 37 39 to 71 and schedule 1. Just to make it clear to members this is about the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities. It is about enrolment it is about cohort entry and it is about exclusion. I would not expect any debate on topics other than those during this theme.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): Thank you for the opportunity to be the first speaker in this debate on the Education (Update) Amendment Bill. Can I thank all members of the House for agreeing to trial this new approach to the Committee stage. I hope that this will result in a more logical debate and some better scrutiny of the legislation put before the House. I look forward to some interchange with the Minister during this debate as well.The first contribution that I want to make is with regard to the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities and the setting out in the law of some objectives for our early childhood and compulsory education systems. Can I say from the outset that these are provisions being inserted into the Act that I welcome. I have some issues around how they are worded but the idea of putting some clear objectives for our early childhood and schooling system into the Act is something that has been broadly welcomed by people within the education system. The idea that we would have a clearer statement of priorities is also something that I think the sector could come to embrace depending on how that statement of priorities is established and how much consensus is built around that.First up in section 1A(2)(d) in new Part 1AA inserted by clause 4 it states that the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities would be for a period of 5 years. So the first question that I have for the Government is why it chose the period of 5 years because actually 5 years in the lifespan of our education system is very short. Children are in the compulsory part of the education system—the school part—for 13 years and they are normally in the early childhood part of the system for at least 2 years prior to that. So all up 15 years is sort of roughly what we would expect. Some children are in the system for much longer than that.There is a real desire I think by people working in education to see a degree of consensus around priorities that lasts beyond a parliamentary term a 3-year term or even a 5-year term. So my first question for the Government is: why 5 years? Why not a longer-term horizon for this statement of National Education and Learning Priorities? I think there is a real craving from people who work in education to see a bit more stability in some of these things.In terms of the objectives—and they are set out in new Part 1AA section 1A(3)—it sets out the objectives for the early childhood and compulsory schooling sector. Again I will be very clear that I think this is a welcome addition to the Act having that clear statement that will guide future Governments in terms of the setting of priorities for the education system.But the real question that I have for the Government is why it did not follow more closely the objectives set out in The New Zealand Curriculum. The curriculum has been broadly supported by all of the stakeholders in the education system—parents employers students teachers principals school boards. There is a broad degree of support for our curriculum and the objectives contained within it and yet the objectives in this Act are narrower than the ones in that curriculum.In particular I have put forward a Supplementary Order Paper—it is sitting on the Table now—that suggests some amendments to this section around the objectives for the system. In particular it inserts the notion of lifelong learning being one of the objectives of the system. We have got to get used to the idea now that people are going to come back into the education system throughout their life and to the idea that a linear education—you start with early childhood you go through school and you do tertiary and then you are off into the workforce or wherever and that is that—is over now. People are going to constantly be coming back through the education system including people who left the school system early on in the piece. They may be coming back into the school system not necessarily into the tertiary education system through their adult life and we need to embrace that. So the principle of lifelong learning I think is something that we should be putting in there.I have made a suggestion to change some of the wording of these clauses to align with The New Zealand Curriculum. The curriculum does not just talk about participation in community life; it also talks about building a strong and just New Zealand socially culturally economically and environmentally. Those are in the curriculum now and they are broadly supported. So why would we not take this opportunity to incorporate in the law something around which there is already a great degree of consensus?I want to acknowledge the National Opposition through the term of the last Labour Government for its engagement in the development of The New Zealand Curriculum. I think one of the reasons that that remains an enduring document is that there was a bit more engagement on both sides of the House in its development and there has been more support for it.The last objective here for the system in the first part is preparedness for work. I have put forward a suggestion that would extend this significantly into promoting the development of knowledge values and skills to enable students to succeed in further education and to live full and satisfying lives both personally and in the world of work.I think it is important that we do not narrow down the focus of our education system to simply preparing children for the world of work. Actually it is much more than that. It is about preparing people for life including the unpaid work that people will do throughout their lives. I think that that is important. I would like to see those priorities changed to reflect the curriculum and also to have a broader vision for our education system. So I guess I would be interested in the Minister's comment on that.Then I move to section 1A(4) in new Part 1AA where it talks about the consultation requirements. At the moment when issuing a statement of National Education and Learning Priorities in the bill as drafted the Minister only needs to consult with stakeholders whom he or she considers ought to be consulted. I do not think that is good enough for a primary piece of legislation. I actually think we need to be more specific than that. Members will find on my Supplementary Order Paper that I have spelt out in more detail some of the stakeholders who must be consulted in the development of this. Children must be there. The Children's Commissioner gave a very passionate contribution to the select committee saying that in the development of this bill and in these priorities children have not been at the heart of that process. They have not had their voices heard enough and we should go back and start again.I think that we should ensure that children are consulted in the next part in the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities. I think teachers principals school boards early childhood educators and parents should all be included. That is set out on my Supplementary Order Paper and I would very much welcome the Government's support for that.I have a few other points to make on this statement the first of which is that minor changes can be made without consultation and yet there is a real lack of definition around what a minor change would be. I have put in some more definition in my amendments around what a minor change would be. I think it is important that the Minister of Education is able to make genuinely minor changes such as updates in wording and the fixing of typos and stuff but in the legislation it says that a minor change does not include something that constitutes a withdrawal or replacement of the statement being changed." That does not preclude the Minister from adding things to the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities as a minor change. I think adding new material makes it more than a minor change and yet under the definition of the legislation that would be allowed. So I would welcome the Minister's comment on further clarity around the consultation requirements because I think that that will be very important.Finally I would like the Minister's comments around how the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities is actually going to be developed because as I said in the very beginning of my contribution I think there is an appetite within the education community for this but there is also a great deal of trepidation if you like around how this might be developed and where it might go. Further down the bill in the part that we are debating now there is a provision that allows the Minister to set national performance measures. I think what a lot of people will be very concerned about is that those two things will become intricately linked and whatever is in the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities will actually be undermined by an unrelenting focus on simply the performance measures. We see that already in the focus on national standards and NCEA level 2 to the detriment of the wider objectives in The New Zealand Curriculum. So my question for the Minister is how the current Government would avoid that happening. If we are setting performance measures how will it ensure that that does not undermine the broader objectives in the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities?The final point that I will make—I have got only 40 seconds left in this contribution—is on how the current Government would go about achieving a greater degree of political consensus around this because I see this as an opportunity to reach out across the aisle and get some greater stability in our National Education and Learning Priorities. That is a commitment that I would make: that if after September I am sitting where the Minister is sitting I will actually be trying to get all of the parties in Parliament engaged in this discussion because I think it is too important actually to not at least attempt to achieve a greater degree of political consensus around the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities. There will always be bits in that that we disagree on but we can at least try to get a high-level agreement like we did with the curriculum."