Martin Tracey: Education Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Education Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 June 2013. Volume:690;Page:10685. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. You know you are in trouble when the most honest person on that side of the House is John Banks. The vision is actually 50 schools to 60 schools.Maggie Barry: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take exception and offence to that remark. I am an honest person.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. We know that in this House all members are regarded as honourable members. I think the debate will make more progress if we stay away from personal attacks and debate the issues.Denise Roche: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order?Denise Roche: Yes it is. I thought the Speakers’ rulings were that you could not say that you were offended by a comment that went to another member.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is the same point of order. I have already ruled on it. The member is quite out of order raising an issue after I have ruled on it.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order?Metiria Turei: Yes it is. It is another offensive comment from John Banks who just described my colleague as stupid. That is not in order in this House and I—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear the comment—Metiria Turei: Well I did hear it.Denise Roche: I heard it and I’m offended.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did the member—will the member withdraw and—Hon John Banks: I withdraw.TRACEY MARTIN: The reality is that this is an emotive issue. These are our children we are talking about. That is why it is emotive. These are the children whom each one of us cares about. I have no doubt that members of the Government care about the education of children. I have no doubt that Mr Banks believes somewhere insidehimself that this is a good policy. Unfortunately as Sir Peter Gluckman just said earlier this evening this is not evidence-based policy—this is not evidence-based policy. Peter Gluckman was here earlier this evening in the Beehive theatrette promoting evidence-based policy so that downstream these decisions are endurable. This is not an endurable decision.New Zealand First needs to join with the Labour Party and the Green Party in issuing a warning. That warning is: please do not mortgage your home to open a charter school. Please do not put yourself in debt to open a charter school because it is very unlikely that you have a long future. Any best practice developed inside a charter school will be brought inside the State school system and it is possible that you may want to shift from a charter school to a private school but please I beg you do not put yourself in debt to do this because its future is too unstable.If this policy was about targeting those children who are achieving in the tail—the stanine 1 to stanine 3—and if that was whom these schools had to direct their services towards that would be different. If these schools had to provide something that is not currently supported for those students whom Mr Banks refers to being in the “tail of underachievement”—for example dyslexic or dyspraxic children—that would be different. If these schools had closed rolls only to target those students whom we are not supporting well enough inside our public school system that would be different but they are not. Catherine Isaac came to my office and said: “No no no no we are targeting middle New Zealand.” There is no money in decile 1 decile 2 decile 3 stanine 1 stanine 2 and stanine 3 children. They are very intensive work—and they deserve it—but you cannot skim a profit off them. So there lies the flaw. If this was not-for-profit that would be different. But none of those things are inside this Education Amendment Bill.I am still trying to find out who is driving this bill because it is not the New Zealand public. Private schools’ rolls have not increased from the 5 percent for the last 30 years. They have not increased. There is no more demand for that style of education and yet possibly—possibly—this door was opened when the recession began in 2008 and private schools’ rolls started to drop. It may be—it just may be—because the public system is doing so well. The public system is doing so well particularly over the last few years with the extra supports that needed to be in place and with more professional development compulsory professional development around Te Kotahitanga and Ka Hikitia—Managing for Success then we might have seen even further leaps inside the public system. But perhaps because the mainstream public school system is doing so well private schools are under pressure. Perhaps that is what is driving this because there is no appetite for it out in the real world.I need to also issue another word of warning. Under this legislation it is not possible to have a school for Māori. It is not possible to have a school for Pasifika students. This is an open-door policy. Mr Toby Curtis and Mr Pem Bird think that they will take 23 successful kura from inside the current Education Act 1989—and I believe my colleague Metiria Turei made the Minister give us volumes in her answer today at question time while she was trying not to say something. Toby Curtis and Pem Bird—who is the president of the Māori Party and therefore the Māori Party has a conflict of interest in this House—are intending to take and I predict 23 kura outside the Education Act 1989 and turn them into charter schools. They can then throw away the current curriculum deliver what they believe is more culturally appropriate and do what they like.The word is that there is a contract here though. The Minister says: “There is a contract. Trust us. Trust us because there is a contract.” Earlier today we had a debate about a contract. That was a pretty big contract. It had key performance indicators in itit had levels of achievement that had to be reached or it would be stopped. Why should we be confident with our children that these contracts will be any different? The point is that we will not know the key performance indicators—we will not know the key performance indicators. If it is a primary school we have a 6-year window. We have a 6-year window in which to get it right. Are we doing it 100 percent right? No we are not. But $19 million is taken currently out of Vote Education. Instead of supporting literacy support for 5-year-olds and 6-year-olds with an identified need instead of supporting dyslexic and dyspraxic children inside our systems and instead of supporting truancy officers to make sure children go to school we have decided to open another competitor.The other word that is being bandied about the other thing that is said to calm us all and to calm the public is that this is about “choice”. But actually to have true choice just as Dr Gluckman said earlier today you need to be truly informed. You need to know all the pieces of information before you can make a choice. There has been information withheld from the New Zealand public. For one thing there is no transparency around the “high-quality applicants” for the 35 schools. I happen to know one school that has found itself on that list but never asked to be on it. I find that very very interesting. Apparently it was asked to speak at an ACT electorate meeting and the next thing it knew it had its name on a charter school list.There are things that have not been said. I cannot believe—I choose not to believe that my colleagues on the Education and Science Committee truly support this bill. I understand their circumstances. I understand why they have had to stand and say what they do—very little to be perfectly honest because there is very little they can say. But I am sad for them because their names will be on this legislation when it passes through this House.The other thing I do want to touch on is the clause that has been inserted around governance and around making boards of trustees responsible for the academic outcomes of all students. I find that very interesting. It is interesting because—[Interruption] Why the boards of trustees is the question. They are not the professional leaders of the school. They are elected parent trustees who are there to govern the school not manage it. The School Trustees Association has warned that this blurs even further the line between governance and management. Is it possible that what this is about is the fact that the Minister can remove boards of trustees but cannot remove principals or teachers? The Minister has had a problem implementing national standards and there are still schools—even more schools now after the farce of e-AsTTle and other testing—that realise that national standards are flawed beyond repair. So possibly the ministry has suggested this is the way to place pressure on to make sure the national standards will be met.The final thing is that Mr Banks forgets that of the 20 percent of children in the tail 5 percent are children with special needs. Every one of those children has an individual education programme to attain their best. But Mr Banks holds so much ignorance around the field of education that it is impossible to have a conversation with him.