O'Connor Simon: Education Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Simon: Education Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 June 2013. Volume:690;Page:10693. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you for the chance to speak on this third reading of the Education Amendment Bill. We have heard a lot of talk particularly coming from the Opposition using the word “ideology”—that this is all about ideology. There are two general elements that you can kick into here. The first is that this side of the House has not used the word “ideology”. In fact it has been straw man or “straw person” politics—we have to be gender-neutral tonight. It has been straw person politics arguing what supposedly the Opposition has said. That is not what it is about. You see the key with ideology is that you can flush it out pretty quickly. I suppose I want to suggest charging that this has been more about the Opposition.Firstly the thing that you see when ideology comes from the Opposition is that you know it is ideology because it is highly emotional it is yelling and it is screaming and it is that belief from the ideological left that if you yell louder somehow it makes your point more valid. The second side—and we have been hearing again about ideology and I am reversing this back on to the Opposition—is around consistency. We have heard the Opposition talk about special character schools and State schools. We have heard about integrated schools.David Bennett: How about Catholic schools?SIMON O’CONNOR: Yes very good Catholic schools as well. Of course the thing is that if you want to be consistent then a further option really is not a problem. I suggested during the Committee stage that actually these parties—the Labour Party and the Greens—would have been fighting against integrated schools in the 1970s because they are different. What they want and they have talked about it themselves is to have their hands on a singular control. I also get the sense that they just want to keep on talking.The third element where you know the Opposition is coming from an ideological side is proportionality. When you look at any argument it is all about proportionality. We have heard tonight the “Chicken Little” approach to politics from the—Hon John Banks: Chicken liver.SIMON O’CONNOR: Chicken liver even possibly. It is sort of a pâté maybe. But the Opposition has said the sky is going to fall in. This is going to be the end of education. This is going to be the end of childhood. Somehow this is going to destroy New Zealand this approach here that attempts another addition to help one out of five children.The final side—the fourth side—you realise is not about ideology from the Government’s side but from the Opposition’s side and that is threats. You hear threats: “We are going to change this legislation come hell or high water.” It is the same with the whole casino thing: “We do not like it so we are going to make threats.” So you can see that ideology is being spoken about and accused of the Government but actually it is coming from the other side—lack of consistency lack of proportionality lots of threats and emotionalism.This Government—and I think all sides of this Government—supports teachers. It has a respect for the teaching profession. A number of the people on this side have been teachers. A number of us have friends who are teachers. We have respect for the teaching profession and what teachers engage with. This bill is not about replacingschools; this is about an addition. This is not removing the current system; this is adding on to it in the same way that our special character schools work. Tracey Martin was talking about how we have got a number of people who have special needs who are well catered for but there are still options. So this is not about replacing it is not even about replicating; it is about an addition.I think there are other elements we need to consider. There has been a lot of talk a lot of mix-up particularly from the Opposition around the whole registered versus qualified side. The language from the Opposition has been very imprecise. This bill says that being a registered teacher is not an absolute condition; being qualified is. I want to challenge one of the last speakers who was suggesting that somehow the only way you can teach is to have gone through teachers college—the only way you can teach is through teachers college. That cannot make sense—that cannot make sense.People all through this House teach their children in all sorts of different ways. Each and every one of us teaches and imparts knowledge in different ways and not all of us needed to go to teachers college to do this. We did not need to do that. In fact even when you look at something like tradition if you would even use that word “tradition”—dare I use that in the House—there is an element of teaching as tradition comes from the root word the etymology “to pass on”. That is something that each and every one of us—Hon Simon Bridges: My mother was a teacher.SIMON O’CONNOR: Yes yes. His mother is a teacher.Hon Simon Bridges: My brother.SIMON O’CONNOR: His brother is a teacher.Hon Simon Bridges: Sister went to teachers college.SIMON O’CONNOR: His sister has gone to teachers college on this side of the House. But see teaching is about passing on. It is about tradition—handing on—and that is the core of the teaching profession. So this is not about not having qualified teachers; this is about registered teachers. Just a couple of final points—Kris Faafoi: Thank goodness!SIMON O’CONNOR: Oh we go “thank goodness”. I come back to the ideology and contradiction—contradiction. This side—Dr Cam Calder: Tautology.SIMON O’CONNOR: Tautology even—repetitious tautology. They have been yelling and crying that side of the House that someone will not take a call. And then when someone dares to stand up it is “Oh no we do not want to hear that now.” This is all about control.I want to come back to what I was saying in the Committee of the whole House. This is taxpayers’ money. Individual taxpayers contribute to the education system. If those individual taxpayers want to come together to form a school with their money well all power to them. They are taxpayers. They are individuals. They are families. They want this education system. Let us pass this bill. Let us put it into law. I welcome 2014.