Martin Tracey: Education Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Education Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 08 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8668. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. New Zealand First believes that there needs to be a review of the Education Act 1989. Absolutely it has been in our manifesto since 2011 but not like this—not like this.Hon Hekia Parata: No that’s happening separately.TRACEY MARTIN: Actually no Minister. Where did this come from because there was no callfrom parents actually for this bill and these pieces of legislation—there is no parent voice here there is no student voice here there is actually no school voice here and there is no board of trustees voice here. The Minister will stand up and say—I think she has already done it once at question time actually—that this bill has been developed after 2 years of work and consultation.She is referring to the report of the Taskforce on Regulations Affecting School Performance—[Interruption] Yes 26 individuals were spoken to by that task force and this is a quote from the report: “During the consultation phase the Taskforce met with 26 individuals or groups from education sector representative groups and a small selection of schools. Generally consultation respondents were pleased to have the opportunity to engage with the Taskforce. They put forward a wide range of views and provided significant input into the thinking of the Taskforce. Some respondents commented that the limited time period was not ideal and that the Taskforce would have benefited from a wider consultation.” Twenty-six individuals or groups—there is no parent voice in there there is no student voice in there. None of them were consulted around this.We have got this bill going through the House that actually makes substantial changes to the Education Act 1989—not small legislative corrections; it makes substantial changes to the Education Act 1989. The Minister is happy to ask parents how they feel about 5-year-olds enrolling in cohorts into school—something that schools can already do by choice—but she does not think it is appropriate to ask parents and students whether they want their school’s principal to be able to take on more than one school at a time. We are going to ask parents—and actually we are not even asking parents. There have been nine meetings throughout New Zealand from the 2 November date—and submissions close on 14 December—about a piece of legislation running alongside this one. There have been nine meetings in the whole of the country including one in Auckland—one—to ask parents what they think about it.It is interesting that this piece of legislation is here now before the House 2 days before we rise. I will guarantee that Dr Yang and the National Party backbenchers who are on the Education and Science Committee tomorrow will come up with a date for when the submissions need to be closed and that date will be before school returns in February—I guarantee it. That is because they know that the boards of trustees have had their last meetings for this year. They know that schools have 2 more weeks to go if that with prize-givings and final trips. They know that teachers will go away while this House rises and those members go away for 9 weeks’ recess. They have an expectation that teachers will come back and will discuss this legislation and will submit on it. This is what this Government does again and again and again. It is a ploy. It is a farce—the review is a farce. That is why New Zealand First will not support this.There are other reasons why New Zealand First cannot support this. Here is one: the amendments in clause 18. Clause 18 amends section 158 of the principal Act to enable students of specified schools with the agreement of the boards or sponsors concerned to receive tuition from other specified schools. They can do it now. What this is about is that there have been schools that have refused to allow charter schools to use their technology rooms. Charter schools are funded at a much higher level than State schools are and yet they have—and let us take the Whangarei kura that has banked millions of dollars because it has used an industrial site. It has used an industrial site and decided not to build technology rooms but it is supposed to deliver the curriculum—it is supposed to deliver the New Zealand Curriculum. But it has not built the technology rooms. So this bill is to break that impasse.This is about this Government removing powers from schools and making a suggestion—hiding it under different language—to make it look as if they are getting some power that they do not already have. They have it—they do not want charter schools inside their technology rooms. They do not want untrained teachers inside their technology rooms. They do not want schools that are funded higher than they are using the things that they have to pay the maintenance on that they have to get the property dollar for and that they then have to monitor. They do not want the discipline issues. If a charter school student should actually interfere with—or attack or whatever—another student in that school they do not want it. But they have the power to make that decision now so this is unnecessary.Clause 12 amends section 79 to allow grants from public money to be paid to sponsors of partnership schools—charter schools. This is interesting—did you miss that bit? Did the Government miss this bit? Was there some money that charter schools could not get their hands on so now we have an amendment to section 79? Is there a bucket of money somewhere that they did not get so now we have to change the law to allow them to do it? Let us have a look at the regulatory impact statement here about why tertiary institutions should actually need to have this capacity: “Since the introduction of partnership schools in 2013 many potential sponsors have been small community organisations.” Gosh I thought this was about parental choice and local communities so that they were connected to those communities for these children who needed extra support.It says: “New Zealand has yet to see the emergence of larger organisations acting as sponsors as occurs for similar schools in the United States and England.” I just sat here and listened to Mr Seymour and Ms Parata berate Jenny Salesa for actually talking about America and yet this is the Minister’s—actually this is not a regulatory impact statement. This is the Cabinet paper—this is the Cabinet paper. Yet I sat here and listened to Mr Seymour and Ms Parata having a go at Ms Salesa shouting out: “This is about New Zealand—this is about New Zealand.” This is the Cabinet paper parliamentary under-secretary. Did you not read it—did you not read it? We cannot ask you under the Official Information Act to find out.In the United States universities are associated with charter schools and in England they are associated with free schools and academies. New Zealand First could not possibly support any extension to charter schools. The only reason we have the task force to start with is that the ACT Party demanded it—the ACT Party which had two members on that task force. It was part of its confidence and supply agreement. Supposedly it is about removing regulation. It is interesting that one of the other options here actually not only adds more regulation but it adds more cost to New Zealand schools. If you have a look at the regulatory impact statement about principals being able to manage more than one school and you go and have a look at option 4 you see that enabling principals to manage more than one school would be cost-neutral for the Crown. However there may be additional costs on the schools that they will need to absorb.So not only is the Crown going to legislate for this to happen—and again I sit here and I listen to Ms Parata and Mr Seymour talk about schools with 60 students or schools with 40 students that should not have their own principal. In only April 2015 we had the best evidence synthesis around the value of principals in New Zealand schools—April 2015. This is what it said: “They show unequivocally that focused pedagogical leadership is essential—one in which the principal participates as a co-learner with teachers in moving learning and schools forward.”These changes have nothing to do with educating students; this has to do with money. Everything the ACT Party does has to do with money. It has to do with privatising the education system. It has to do with making sure that big business can get hold of the public purse.David Seymour: Oh damn it—you got us!TRACEY MARTIN: It is about troughing and Mr Seymour knows it.