Martin Tracey: Education Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Education Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 14 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:9867. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First):Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. The focus of our contribution will be on the charter school section of the Education Amendment Bill. Although there are other issues inside the amendment bill that concern us greatly at this moment we will concentrate on the charter schools section. I wish to acknowledge the kind mention by the Minister of Education of my contribution at the Education and Science Committee. As New Zealand First has always stated we will come to this House and do our best to be constructive to gain the best outcomes for New Zealanders. That is our single goal and our single purpose here.So when at the first reading the then chair of the Education and Science Committee and now Associate Minister of Education Nikki Kaye stood and implored all Opposition members to keep an open mind specifically around the charter schools issue during the select committee hearings I took that on board. I personally took that on board. I read every submission looking for a key element that would show up that would highlight a reason—a single reason—why charter schools would be of benefit to New Zealand children and New Zealand communities. I asked questions and I believe that my select committee colleagues on both sides of this House can attest to the fact that these questions were to seek answers. They were not vicious or overly political. They were designed to uncover any truth to the statements that these schools were an answer to those students currently performing in the stanine 1 to stanine 3 band of academic performance—the tail of underachievement.I listened to the comments and questions from the Government members in an attempt to judge their commitment to the open-minded consideration of this topic requested by us the Opposition. I listened to Paul Goldsmith tell submitters that because he had given some lectures at university that proved that it was not necessary for every teacher to be qualified or registered. I heard Colin King tell submitters that it was not really the quality of the school you attended but it was surely the school tie that would judge the students’ professional success or failure. For the party he represents that may well be true. We heard Government members and pro-submitters tell us that being non-registered did not mean non-qualified. We heard from Simon O’Connor that to teach was a natural human ability so therefore anyone can do it—no big deal. That is probably the single greatest problem with education today—every man and his dog think they can do it. I sat in those select committee hearings and I recognised that good people though they may be on the Government benches they had already been instructed to close their minds to any alteration of the charter school section of this bill.We spent hours discussing socks being up or down or roundabout or on or off under the surrender and retention provisions but hardly a single hour on charter schools. I am deeply deeply disappointed in my counterparts on the Government benches. Although evidence was produced again and again and again the flexibility and innovation touted as being required for charter schools are already there inside the current Education Act 1989. Although this evidence was put out by so many submitters—2100 submitters—the Government members on the select committee were left with a single course because they already had instruction. The only course that they had was to shrug their shoulders and say: “Oh well. Why not?”. So there is only one way to stop this profit-driven madness from destroying our country’s commitment to a high-quality education system for all—a system that does not discriminate by race or need and a system where the Government reinforces its commitment to lift its own performance rather than outsourcing it to a profit organisation—and that is for the New Zealand public to once again flex their muscle. So I am going to ask the New Zealand public. I am going to ask Māoridom to bombard the Māori Party MPs with calls to withdraw their support for this bill. Only they stand in the way of turning back this profiteering from our education system.I mentioned before—and I do not know where Mr Calder got his numbers from—that there were 2193 submitters to this bill. Of those 2100 were opposed—and yes some of them are actually trained educationalists—62 were in support of partnership schools and 31 remained silent on that specific issue. I say to the Māori Party: “Tell your people the truth.” On 8 May Te Ururoa Flavell and the Minister of Education through a manipulation of question time tried to send a message to Māoridom that there was overwhelming support amongst Māori educators for this proposal. There is not. The number of individuals involved in Māori education who are represented by submitters opposed to this legislation overwhelmingly outnumbers those who submitted in favour of this bill. The submission quoted by the Minister during question time on 8 May was in fact on behalf of 23 iwi schools that currently operate very successfully under the flexibility of the existing Act. They are a perfect example in fact of why we do not need to change this legislation.What we need is for this Government to commit to expanding those types of best-practice models throughout the country through compulsory professional development. Instead of introducing legislation that allows it to wash its hands of its responsibility to our Māori and Pasifika students—and we give warning to those communities—this Government will give you a contract. Yes you will receive public money but then you are on your own. There is an old saying out there: “Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it.”I note that one of the schools recently showcased in a mainstream newspaper as one of the possible best-practice solutions for Māori children boasts an 85 percent success rate among the students who remain in that school. I believe it is probably one of the 35 that have expressed an interest for charter schools. Considering the requirement of that school for physical activity in order to even gain entry this removes any special-needs children from this environment. Under this bill the school needs to be careful with its application because under an open-door policy you cannot have a requirement such as that. You cannot have a requirement that means only people who can run 300 metres in so many seconds can come into your school. But that requirement in that school removes any special-needs children from that environment and those children make up approximately 5 percent of the compulsory sector tail. I guess we are now looking at marketing spin because 85 percent is the same success rate as that of our State schools. It is a hell of a marketing job that is being put on to the public of New Zealand.I have here TheNew Zealand Curriculum. This is a world-recognised document. This document was developed within the profession and with the profession and it has been endorsed not only by educational professionals but by all political parties. Not a single political party says that this document is anything but valuable. This is a rubbish bin. This page I am holding is the single piece of The New Zealand Curriculum that charter schools have to follow. This is what you can do with the rest of it—you can bin it.And to the Māori Party this document here is the curriculum guidelines for teaching and learning Te Reo Māori in English medium schools. We can chuck it out too—there is no requirement for it. There is no requirement for it any longer under this legislation. Do Māori voters know that? Does the Māori Party itself know that? Never has this been mentioned and this is the sort of secrecy and this is the sort of comment that has been removed from any part of this conversation. What annoys me even more is when Mr Banks who is completely ignorant of how the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) works goes on national television and makes a statement that every second young Māori is leaving school after 12 years of schooling without NCEA level 2 with no numeracy or literacy. I have here the numbers for school-leavers from 2011. There were 63362 school-leavers in the 2011 year and 28.25 percent of them left without NCEA level 2 qualifications. Of those 14.5 percent were Pākehā 10.33 percent were Māori and 3.87 percent were Pasifika. The New Zealand people need to see through the information and the spin that has been placed on this bill and they will. We will oppose the bill.