Martin Tracey: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee[Sitting date: 27 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:969. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First):Kia ora Mr Chair. I know why the members on the Government benches may be shouting out but not actually commenting on this bill. It is because Mr Macindoe is the only member on the Government benches who actually heard any of the submitters and even Mr Macindoe cannot rise to his feet and articulate why these changes need to take place. That is very unfortunate because Mr Macindoe is usually a very constructive individual. Mr Macindoe is highly respected here. But even he cannot rise to his feet and explain why these changes particularly—and I again challenge the Minister of Education to rise to her feet and explain why we need the removal of natural justice for our teachers. [Interruption] And there is laughter from the new members of this Government. That tells you a lot New Zealand. It tells you a lot that when the discussion around natural justice is talked about and the removal of it is discussed with regard to New Zealanders and professionals in the New Zealand environment new members of this Government laugh. They laugh in your face. The Minister unfortunately just joins them. So again I ask them.I just want to read from an article. There was a ministerial inquiry in 2011 into how convicted sex offender—[Interruption] Do you want to keep talking Mr Bridges about convicted sex offenders? Convicted sex offender Te Rito Henry Miki managed to get back into teaching roles. This is why the department said we needed a code of conduct—this case. Apparently he did so simply by changing his name. Reportedly he had 53 aliases and then used that new identity to get fresh documentation.Hon Simon Bridges: So this is relevant to this bill how?TRACEY MARTIN: Mr Bridges the Minister over there makes light of this case even in the light of the case we have just had repeated.Hon Simon Bridges: No it’s not relevant. It’s not relevant to the bill.TRACEY MARTIN: If it was relevant to the code of conduct when it was put forward by the ministry it is relevant now Mr Bridges. But Mr Bridges has not read the bill or the regulatory impact statement or the report on what is one of the most major takeovers of the educational institution in this country.Apparently Te Rito Henry Miki did so by changing his name so he had 53 aliases and then used a new identity to get fresh documentation and a teaching job. It makes grim reading in the light of the subsequent ability of Phillip Smith / Phillip Traynor also a sex offender to get away with much the same thing. This is largely because the recommendations made in 2011 to Minister of Education Hekia Parata were evidently not acted upon—were evidently not acted upon.But now we have a code of conduct for the teaching profession that does not cover educators; it covers only registered teachers. And we have a widening of the criteria for limited authorities to teach. So that is unlike what we have currently where a school must prove that it has tried to fill that role with a qualified and registered teacher but cannot do so and therefore applies for a limited authority to teach to have a skilled individual come into their school—and 62 percent of them are music teachers.We are not having that any more under this bill. An individual can front up to the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand and say: “Look I’ve got a skill. I’ve got a skill—no I haven’t gone through any teaching qualification or whatever but I have got a skill. I would like to wander about the country and offer my services to—I don’t know—rural schools that might be hard-up for teaching staff or something.” Was that part of the recommendation that came out in 2011 Minister? Was that part of the recommendation to tighten up the system?Hon Hekia Parata: 2012.TRACEY MARTIN: It was 2012—I do apologise. Was it part of the recommendations of 2012 Minister which apparently have never been enacted or is this it? Because this is what the department said it was about and if it is not about that then what is it about Minister? Rise to your feet and answer the question. What is it about?Why do we have to remove the laws of natural justice for teachers? When did that become—and why was that really important clause not brought to the Education and Science Committee? When did this Government decide to remove natural justice from teachers? We had that long process with huge numbers of submissions. We discussed and discussed and discussed this bill and that topic never came up—never ever ever came up—but now suddenly it is desperately needed in a Supplementary Order Paper on this bill. Will the Minister answer for it? No she will not.