Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much Madam Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to take a call on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). This is the first reading of the second bill which this Government has brought through to make changes to the Education Act. I think the context that needs to be remembered as we debate this piece of legislation is the fact that there are I don't know how many reviews going on in the education sector. Yesterday I heard 16 reviews are being undertaken by this Government around the education sector. They're trying to make the argument that We're out there we're listening we're taking into account we're wanting to hear what people have to say and we want to have a conversation." and here they are—this is the second bill—ideologically repealing parts of the Education Act which they disagree with. Before they've had the conversation before they've heard back from teachers and parents and principals what they want to hear before they've even heard back from children what they want to hear here they are ideologically pushing through the next set of changes that they want.They're not exactly progressive changes. I thought this Government thought they were all progressive. Well these changes aren't progressive. All they are doing is taking the changes back—the changes that National put in place when we were in Government. That's all they're doing. They're just repealing stuff. That's essentially what they're doing in this piece of legislation and what they did in the previous piece of legislation. We really have to ask the question: why didn't they include these changes in their first Education Amendment Bill? Is it because they just want to look busy? Well that's what it seems to be. I know that members on the other side are talking about how busy the Education and Workforce Committee is. Well they're only busy because you're splitting the—not you Madam Assistant Speaker. The committee is only busy because they keep splitting their changes across multiple pieces of legislation rather than actually putting it together and making a cohesive coherent piece of legislation.Let me get to that point around cohesiveness and coherence because this bill is anything but cohesive and coherent. One of the key changes that this bill does is it means that the Minister will have the ability to direct the Education Council on Government policy. Now what they've just done—and we have to remember that the Government has just put through legislation to change the name of the Education Council and also to make it so that elected members have the majority of the appointments on the council not Government appointments. We heard members on the other side talk about how this would mean that the independent voice of teachers would be able to direct the Education Council and it would be able to make policy and be able to do its work and what do we have here in this piece of legislation? We've got the power going to the Minister so that he can direct the policies of the Education Council. What we will end up doing is giving the unions positions on this council but then telling them what to do. That's essentially the Government's position through these two pieces—Hon Andrew Little: I thought the unions controlled us! I thought the unions were running us!SIMEON BROWN: As Andrew Little reminds everyone here in Parliament the unions control the Labour Party. We know that. But in this instance and I know the Hon Andrew Little needs to be reminded it's really just jobs. The legislation put together provides jobs for some union mates on the Education Council but then the Government will just direct them in what to do. So that really just makes a mockery of what this Government's intention was when they put through that piece of legislation.We heard the Prime Minister—standing outside Parliament facing thousands of teachers—even saying "This Government is making a meaningful difference for education. We are going to give the Education Council back to teachers." Well this legislation gives the Education Council back to the Minister so I think this Government and the Minister of Education have a lot to answer for for their position in those two pieces of legislation taken together. I think it is an absolute mockery of the changes that this Government is trying to make and it absolutely reduces the independence of the Education Council which they said they were going to empower through democratic processes. We heard the cries of democracy. Well it's democratic election for positions but all that the members on the other side are then doing is telling them what to do. That's not democracy in the fashion that they stood up and spoke about in the House—Mark Patterson: That's not true at all—total misrepresentation. SIMEON BROWN: —for hour upon hour when they were debating that. And Mr Mark Patterson says it's a total misrepresentation. Well I just encourage the member—and he sits on the Education and Workforce Committee—to actually read the legislation which goes through the committee because I think he would actually realise that it's not a misrepresentation; it's the facts. I think he's got a thing or two to do before this comes before the committee and he listens to the submissions and actually tries to make sense of what the changes are that he's making.So that's only one of the changes. There are a number of other changes which this bill continues to do and I'd like to touch on the next issue around the registration of private schools. One of the changes that this does is it essentially puts in place requirements for private schools to have these new policies regarding well-being. Essentially what it allows the Minister and the ministry to do through that is to be able to then strike out schools where there is a complaint and they're found not to comply.Now we absolutely believe in the need for there to be good quality private education as well as good quality State education and of course we care about the health and well-being of students but the powers that are getting put in place through this legislation essentially raise the stakes so that the ministry has the power to deregister. There's no sort of progression of powers depending on the different breaches or potential breaches which could be in place. There's no progression of what could be done to that private school. There's no fine or decision to do something else. Essentially the decision is do nothing or deregister. That's essentially what this legislation provides the ministry. That is massive power for the ministry to cut to the heart of our education sector and our private schools and our private education sector here in New Zealand.On this side of the House we back our private education sector. Right next to my office is Saint Kentigern College a fantastic private school which does a great job and has a fantastic reputation across Auckland and across New Zealand. Under this legislation the Government will be able to just close that school down because there was some potentially minor breach of some policy which was put in place. There is no progression of how the Government can react; they simply can close it down or do nothing.Now I say to the private schools out there that they should be very worried because I ask: where is the evidence that this change is required? And we'll be asking officials for the evidence. Where is the evidence that these changes are actually required? What impact will they actually have on improving the private education sector? What cause of concern has the Government actually had to instigate these changes? They might point to a Law Commission report but where are the concerns that they've raised? [Interruption] And look as you can hear they're getting a bit worried here but where is the concern? Where is the evidence that they've put together? I think they have a duty an obligation to not just put in place legislation which has harsh penalties—actually the closing down of schools—but provide evidence to base behind their decisions and this piece of legislation has no evidence.Lastly I will touch briefly on the provisions relating to the communities of online learning another ideological change which they're pushing through in this piece of legislation. I note that in the explanatory note of the bill it says "These provisions [will be] repealed. This will provide further time to consider the future of online learning in New Zealand in the context of wider education sector reviews." So what they're saying here is that they've got a whole lot of reviews going on and they're not sure where that's going to land but in the meantime let's just repeal stuff. Let's just repeal some stuff. There were good reasons to put the communities of online learning into the legislation. They've got no reason to bring it other than they don't think their reviews will be finished on time. They don't think their reviews will be finished on time because there are 16 reviews. We know the education sector's saying to us "There are all these reviews happening. What's the strategy? What's the plan?" But all that their plan is is to repeal pieces of legislation they don't like while they wait for these reviews to happen. We oppose this piece of legislation."