Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak on the Education Amendment Bill—in opposition of course. Mr Hipkins has spent nine long years in the cold winter of Opposition—plenty of time to think about policy about education policy. And one of the first bits of education policy that we get is this—a bill that takes away things a bill that repeals things a bill that takes away national standards and gets rid of charter schools.Let's have a think about why charter schools were introduced in the first place. Why were they introduced? They were there to offer something different. They were there to be flexible to offer parents choice—something different for their children who are failing in mainstream schools. I have been to charter schools. I have one very successful charter school in my electorate and that is Vanguard Military School and I have spent many many days there talking with their students unlike Mr Davis. And can I tell you that when I talked to those students they told me things that broke my heart. They told me about the fact that they failed in mainstream schools—not only that they failed but that they were miserable that they were involved with drugs and gangs. They did not go to school they were self-harming but the worst thing that they told me was that they didn't believe in their own abilities. They didn't have any confidence in their ability to succeed. They didn't think they had a future. They didn't think that they were smart. They told me themselves in their own words that they thought they were dumb. That is what charter schools were introduced to address. Vanguard Military School has those students' lives around. One of the students that I met there has lost 56 kilos and believes in himself because he is now passing NCEA level 1 NCEA level 2 and NCEA level 3. I went to their graduation last year and I watched those students and their families. I watched the students cross the stage and every single one of them as they went across the stage to get their certificates hugged their teachers. They were crying they were emotional and so were their parents because they never believed in themselves until they got to this school. This school offered them something different and what this bill does is take that away. It doesn't offer any solutions. In fact do you know what it does Mr Assistant Speaker? It pushes them right back from whence they came—from those schools that were failing them.To say it's all going to be roses and honey and rainbows sending them back to special character schools which have existed since 1989—those students have tried those schools. Those students have tried the mainstream they've tried alternative and they didn't work. But what is working for those students is Vanguard Military School. I have sat down and spoken to those kids who now believe that they have a future. These are kids from troubled backgrounds who have a multitude of issues and challenges in their lives. These are the kids that our Prime Minister keeps talking about wanting to help with all her speeches of Won't somebody please think of the children?" Well this bill is the opposite of that. There's no action in this bill to address those kids' needs. That's what charter schools do and as Mr Seymour just said there's nothing wrong with that. They're working for these children. Have Labour not seen the results from these schools? Vanguard's result last year for NCEA level 2 was 89 percent compared to the national average of 77 percent. For their Māori students who make up 50 percent of the school it was 90 percent compared to the national average of 72 percent. At level 3 for those same Māori students it was 95 percent compared to the national average of 55 percent. How can you argue with that? Those kids who were failing in the mainstream go to this charter school and achieve beyond their wildest dreams and now have futures and this bill takes that away. Vanguard this year took 25 students who had previously been excluded from other schools—students who had nowhere else to go who were failing in the mainstream and who have now found somewhere where they can achieve. I met some of those students on a march. It admittedly was like some weird alternative reality because David Seymour was leading it and I was on it but I was there along with—David Seymour: I was halfway between Chlöe Swarbrick and Penny Bright! ERICA STANFORD: Ha ha! My first march with David Seymour. Who would've thought it? I was on that march with students from Vanguard Military School. Some of them had been at the school for only 2½ weeks and they were there on a Sunday in the rain in their immaculate uniforms so proud of their charter school because they knew that it offered them a future. They did a haka which they'd practised only four times and they were so proud of their haka their school and their future which this bill takes away. What we are doing with this bill is forcing those students that were on that march to go back to a system that failed them. Or as this Government says "We'll transition them into this model that we've had since 1989." which has been failing them. I think they miss the point. That model has been failing them. This model is working for them and yet here we are repealing it. What I'd like to also talk about is truancy. Tracey Martin got up in this House a number of weeks ago and in answer to a verbal question at question time said that she was so concerned about truancy rates because they had fallen from nearly 70 percent in 2015 to 67 percent last year. Well can I tell you that last year the truancy rate for Vanguard Military School in my electorate was 1.8 percent. Now these kids come from as far away as Waiuku. They get up at 5.30 in the morning they get a train and they get two buses to get to a school that is so far from where they live because they believe in their futures and their truancy rate is 1.8 percent. What does that tell you about the success of the charter schools that this bill is getting rid of? If Tracey Martin was so concerned about truancy rates she wouldn't be backing this bill to get rid of charter schools. So if the results from these schools are so good what are the real reasons that Labour are closing these charter schools? The cold hard truth as Denise Lee pointed out is that these schools work but they don't work for the unions. These schools are bulk funded they can pay the teachers whatever they like and that is the cold hard reality. The unions don't like them and that is why Mr Hipkins is trying to get rid of them. The evidence is clear: they work for the students and they work for the parents but they just don't work for the unions. The other problem is that you know this Government thinks they know best when it comes to education. All they know is that students must be in their system. How could a student possibly achieve in any other system? Well they are achieving and they're achieving at charter schools. Let me take my final minute just to talk about Mr Davis. Mr Kelvin Davis who has stood up for the charter schools in his electorate those Māori charter schools—the two of them in Whangarei that he said that he would resign over if they closed. Well I find it really interesting that he mentions only those two and he only ever has—the two schools that he has an interest in in Whangarei—because there are two other schools in his electorate that have been in his electorate for the last three years which he's never bothered to visit. Vanguard is one of them and there are no excuses because Mr Davis has been invited to Vanguard. The only piece of correspondence that Mr Davis has ever sent that school was a decline letter saying "No I'm sorry. I can't make your graduation." He never contacted them at all even though 50 percent of those students are Māori students even though that school is in his electorate. But let's not forget he is standing up for those two other schools in his electorate.Can I just finish by saying that charter schools offer young vulnerable students a future and all this bill does is take that away."