Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise to speak on the Government's first education legislation in this House. I want members opposite to ponder this because this Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill is certainly the first piece of legislation I had the privilege of considering as a member of the Education and Workforce Committee. I want to thank my colleagues on that committee for their consideration of this bill and for the process which we went through in listening to submitters about it. What was utterly clear in that process was that this bill wasn't actually about the students that are at the heart of the education system because amongst those 36 submissions there wasn't a lot of talk about what a real difference this would make in the classroom for New Zealand's children. Really this is a piece of legislation that's quite symbolic of the approach of this Government because what it does is it takes us back to the future. It doesn't construct something new; it says Let's make it like it was before." because there is really an absence of new ideas opposite but a desire and a nostalgia for the past. Not only does it symbolically change the name which I'll dwell on further later it also stands for things that the Government is against rather than what it is necessarily for.So let's talk about the name. Renaming the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand as the Teaching Council of Aotearoa is absolutely symbolic of the Government who say that changing the name will somehow change things for teachers on the ground. As previous speakers have detailed this is simply not the case. The bill then goes on to increase the numbers on the council from nine to 13 to make it a bigger group and as the NZEI Te Riu Roa who have been much quoted from members opposite and much referred to in this debate said in their submission "it does make the Council larger and potentially a little unwieldy"—hmm that was an interesting contribution from the NZEI Te Riu Roa on that matter—and upping the numbers retains a balance in which six ministerial appointees are there and seven elected members are there. Now what members opposite have disingenuously tried to argue today is that somehow National Party members are opposed to teachers having their voice for their profession. We have taken serious issue with that because of course right now in New Zealand we have an Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand with six members who are either currently practising teachers or previously practising teachers. I think it's regrettable that members opposite have implied that those teachers and those previous teachers do not provide a voice for teachers in their roles. It is regrettable that members opposite have declined to acknowledge that they are currently practising teachers working in our education system to make a difference for students. But no no—the members opposite would deny their contribution because they weren't elected by as Erica Stanford pointed out 13 percent of those eligible to vote.So we then look at what the appointment process is and how these elections will be carried out because there is a real question about the nature of the representation that will result from those elections. Again I refer members to the NZEI who said in their submission "it is artificial to say that this person"—the elected representative—"will be cognisant of all the views of all the people in a particular sector." They then went on to ask "what actions will be undertaken to assist the successful candidates with their roles as a 'representative' of [the] sector [because] … Ways for the elected members to be the voice of their sector and to report to their sector … need consideration and development."So I'd urge the members opposite who've been very happy to lecture this side of the House on how they are the high-water mark for representation to consider that actually the very union body that represents teachers shares the questions about what improvements these elected members will be able to make in terms of their representation. There are still questions to be answered there.We then turn to a matter that is very necessary to consider in this House and that is the cost. What we've had members opposite say is that this is just the cost of democracy. What we would say to that is that would be true if what was happening right now was that there was a group of people doing something that was totally out of line with what the teaching profession wanted that was causing havoc in our schools and that showed that actually it was not representative. But in fact what we have is an Education Council that is functioning well that has produced more than 2000 submissions on matters of educational importance that is successfully registering approving and developing teacher practices. So what we don't have is a situation that is crying out for change.But on the flip side we have a significant cost to that change. Members in the House tonight have covered those costs but I want to remind you of them because it is $220000 for the name change alone. So let's break down what we're going to spend that $220000 on. It includes $30000 on logo and brand elements website and social media platforms. It includes a further $30000 on letterhead business cards signage and an update of the building directory. These are the matters for which money is being prioritised for under this Government.As the Waitakere Area Principals' Association made clear in their submission—they referred to a recent meeting where the Associate Minister of Education noted a concern about "the amount of money that filtered out of the education system without providing any tangible benefits for students." Mark my words Mr Assistant Speaker that concern is a concern that every school principal shares and that every schoolteacher shares and actually that parents share as well. People are concerned to see that the best use is made of education dollars so it is right and proper that members opposite question the cost that this change implies when there is no obvious problem to be solved.The costs of course mount up. Denise Lee did a wonderful job in her contribution of taking us through them. Let me remind you of the number: $700000 over three years for this change. I'd ask the Minister David Clark opposite how many cochlear implants that would fund; I imagine quite a few. So it's easy for the Government to on the one hand say "Costs are tight. We can't afford the cochlear implants. Rural health's a bit expensive." but on the other hand say "But look $700000 to make an unnecessary change to the name of an institution to get some teachers elected by 13 percent of teachers—now that's a priority."Let's think about what we actually have in place now and how it came to be. Actually the Education Council that New Zealand has today wasn't the result of an election manifesto of a few bullet points; it was the result of a major review—a major review that when I went to print it out I realised was more than 200 pages. It was well thought through and that was the result of having significant flaws being found in the previous Teachers Council the "back to the future" model that we're now imitating with this new version by Labour. It found significant flaws in its ability to enforce standards to improve teaching performance to provide sustainable leadership and governance. So that report found clear evidence that this kind of a model wasn't effective. What that report said—I have it here; members opposite probably should have read it before they prioritised this legislation—was that what was needed was more skills-based more capable more self-regulation more self-review and that it needed to be independent from both Government and industry advocacy organisations.Hon Member: I.e. the unions.NICOLA WILLIS: I.e. organisations that would seek to dominate this new council with one set of views that in the end won't be representative of the 87 percent of teachers who don't vote in the elections for those people. Those 87 percent of teachers won't be represented or have a voice in this new body but that 87 percent aren't spoken for by members opposite today.It's also worth remembering that this Education Council that we had under the previous Government and that we have today was actually going to be the vehicle for furthering reform. The National Government had a proposal that $200 million which is currently used for development programmes administered by the Ministry of Education—that funding would be transferred to the Education Council to use as it saw fit over a period of three years. It is a valid question to ask whether in all the hubbub about changing the name and introducing elections members opposite have thought about those substantive issues. So in closing let me say that when we change things in this House we need to realise that our resources are finite. There is not endless money. There is not endless time. There is not endless ability to introduce legislation. So what we must do is prioritise the things that will make the biggest difference to the people we are here to serve. The people that we are here to serve in the education system are the students in our classrooms and we have every right to focus on them and to say that these sorts of changes with a case for change that's not stacked up are not a good use of our resources. The members opposite should hang their heads in shame that this is their priority in education."