Delahunty Catherine: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDelahunty Catherine: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:822. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):It is a fascinating day at Parliament and a particularly fascinating debate. The parallel universes continue to collide. They collide over the meaning of success education freedom representation—you name it. We seem to be talking from different planets. The Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand (EDUCANZ) Bill—it is a funny name “EDUCANZ”. It sounds like recycling or something; you get education and you shove it in a can. It is not the Teachers Council. There is nothing wrong with reviewing the Teachers Council but really one of the things that the fifteen hundred and—was it 25 or 75 Tracey?Tracey Martin: 25.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: 1525 the majority of whom—there were only 13 who supported the bill—were really concerned about it. It started with the title because they felt that the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand (EDUCANZ) did not uphold the purpose of a professional body to represent some professionals—i.e. teachers. That was just a point for them. It was not the only reason they were opposing the bill but it was the starting point because they were very concerned about it.There are many issues with this bill but I would just like to start with a quote from one of the vice-chancellors. Although it applies to the provisions around tertiary education it really applies to the whole Government approach to education: “First you funded us then you supported us” he said “and now you are molesting us.” I thought that was a really powerful statement from a vice-chancellor of a university. First Governments used to fund the education profession and trust it. Then the Government stopped funding it completely but at least it supported the profession. Now these professionals are saying: “We feel we are being molested.” He is referring to the fact that the Government is confusing governance and management completely and does not understand the value of university councils. But you could equally refer to the debacle over EDUCANZ. EDUCANZ is being set up to replace the Teachers Council without the teachers’ enthusiasm or consent.There were a lot of issues that were raised but let us start with the code of conduct. In many ways this is a symbolic issue rather than a substantive one but I think it is a telling issue. The teachers who made submissions to us were really fascinating because they had made an effort to bring in younger people and older people experienced teachers and new teachers passionate young idealists and people who had worked in every type of role in schools. They came together from their different school backgrounds to present very coherently and they were very concerned about the code of ethics being changed to a code of conduct. That was one of their issues because they felt the change demeaned the profession.That was symbolic for the teachers because when you set up a council where they do not get to vote for who is going to be on it they will be looking for signs of trust or low trust—and this is a sign of low trust. It says: “We don’t trust you so we will appoint who’s going to be on your council. We don’t trust you so we will make sure that there are provisions in the bill where you are tied to a code of conduct because we don’t think you’ve got sufficient ethics or the capacity to manage your own ethics. It’s OK for doctors it’s OK for others but teachers—no you need to be tied to a code of conduct not a code of ethics.” It is a small point to some but it was brought up by many because they felt it was about a lack of trust. It was like the Government did not trust them.The huge issue that was fought through and won at the Education and Science Committee was the issue of the right for there to be teachers represented on the council at all. Originally there was a very low ceiling put on that but we have managed to get a guarantee of five people with registered practising certificates. That was the big fight. That fight was won and I think it is an absolute credit to the 1525 submitters many of whom addressed that issue as one of their primary motivations for speaking to the committee—that teachers need to be represented by teachers. So that was achieved. But unfortunately unlike the current Teachers Council with its absolute stalwarts such as Claire Amos and Lynda Stuart and people like that–people who are actually capable of leading successful innovative ground-breaking schools people voted in by their own profession because they have that leadership and because they understand what educational success is all about—teachers are not necessarily going to be on EDUCANZ unless the Minister thinks it is a good idea. It is pretty odd thinking to make a professional body chosen by non-professionals—i.e. by politicians. It is going to be appointed by the Minister and then he or she will let some teachers be on it but will decide who they are. That is a low-trust model. It is a continuation of a low-trust model. Really in the context of the educational debates that have taken place over the last 6 years we do not need any more low-trust models. We need a bit of mutual respect and we need a professional body like a teachers council—if you must call it EDUCANZ—to be elected by the teachers for the teachers.The Green Party opposes the bill clearly. We do support the improvements to quality assurance and registration. If that was all the bill was about which is what it was claimed to be about—if it had been just a tidy-up of registration issues—I think the Government would find a lot more support across the House. But it has not. In addition to those registration and quality assurance improvement issues it has jammed in all these other things—all this molesting and cutting and faux representation and ministerial control which is really not a credit to the Government or a credit to a modern education system.So those are some of the issues. The upshot of this was really that the teachers do not feel like paying for it—because it has to be remembered that they pay fees. They actually pay for this body. It is not something that the Government provides for them. It is not a gift to the teaching profession. It is not something whose members the Government is going to appoint and then fund the cost of. Oh no—the teachers are being asked to pay for it themselves.Hon Hekia Parata: Oh isn’t that terrible!CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: So if they have to pay for this perhaps they should get to decide Minister who it is they are paying for. I know it is a radical idea given that we have just passed a bill to limit democracy but it is quite important that these people are able to have more choice. We just had a vote for those people and they are very disappointed in the new regime. They do not believe it is a democratic regime at all. In fact the Teachers Council did have a representative role as well as an appointment role and now EDUCANZ will not.So why should the teachers pay? Do not be surprised if some of them will not. Do not be surprised if some of them refuse to pay because in fact they are able to.David Seymour: But don’t they also get a monopoly on being able to teach in schools—a monopoly on being able to? Isn’t that what they get?CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: I am afraid that the ACT Party member is ranting about monopolies and business again but this is a debate about education. This is a debate about education and I would like to support Dr Megan Woods on her point that it is not about a business. This is not a business model. A profession should choose who represents the profession. A profession should be able to decide—whether it is the University Council or EDUCANZ it should all be in the hands of the profession.The profession is upset not because it is going to have teachers. There were 1525 submissions in which the consistent theme was that they were all concerned—and they represented far more than the people who came to the select committee. They represented schools they represented clusters of schools. If you had been at the select committee you would have been impressed and amazed at the number of people those teachers represented—and they are not happy. It is OK if the Government decides it wants to do this but do not expect them to be happy because they are not. So let us not just play around and pretend that they are because it would suit the Government’s rhetoric. They are not happy.They are also unhappy about the issue of moderation of 10 percent of their registration. They think that is a logistical nightmare and a disaster and I think they have got a point because again it is a paper-based appraisal that could actually be very expensive. The Government may say: “Oh well they can pay for it again whether they like it or not whether they have power over it or not.” But they are having a system imposed on them that they do not think will work.Interestingly nobody really knows what the broader powers of EDUCANZ are going to be. You know there is a lot of rhetoric in the bill. It is quite a wordy and confusing rhetoric about what its powers will be and I think others have mentioned this. We are not quite sure why they need these powers. We are not quite sure why there is an intention to enhance the limited authority to teach unless it is to support more chartered schools which is always an option. It seems to be what the parliamentary under-secretary lives and breathes for but it is not actually what the teaching profession and the people who came to select committee are going to be supportive of at all.So there are a lot of issues with this bill that are very disappointing. It has been a major fight and if it is supposed to be about raising the state of the teaching profession one does not do that by taking away teachers’ sense of autonomy and professionalism. That is not actually how it works. My colleague will talk more about the university councils part of the submission but that was a disaster for the Government. Person after person—from the highest level from the vice-chancellor to the students from every university that I have ever heard of in this country—came and said: “You don’t even understand what you’re doing. You don’t know the difference between governance and management. Management needs to be small and efficient. Governance needs to broad and professional-creative.”It is like they did not even know what they were doing. It was some bizarre idea of Steven Joyce’s and it absolutely went down like a cup of cold sick with some of the most professional people in this country who run these universities. I was very surprised to see the range of people and they talked about a conflict of interest. They talked about the role of universities as the critic and conscience of society and therefore we will not be supporting the second reading because this is another unfortunate mess.