Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise to speak on this the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill or as I have suggested what should be better named the Back to the Future Bill" a bill that like so many initiatives by this Government is just another step in the long march backwards that Labour have planned for this country.Now in describing this bill I want to turn to the words of the Ministry of Education. I want to turn to the words of the Minister's own officials who in the impact summary released today in this Parliament on the bill that's about to be introduced following this bill have said that the Teaching Council of Aotearoa amendment bill: "In making changes … [this bill] … will reduce government's ability to protect the public interest"—this bill will reduce the Government's ability to protect the public interest because—"Council could exercise its function in ways that do not align with government's policy directions for the wider education system." This could have implications for the safety of children and young people for teacher supply and diversity for the quality of teaching and for Government's fiscal commitments.So if there has ever been a statement that would confirm what this side of the House has been saying about the potential impact of these changes it is this impact statement that has been released today—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order! Members can't anticipate business that is about to come to the House and you need to turn your attention to the third reading of the bill before the House.NICOLA WILLIS: I am very much paying attention to the third reading of this bill and I am sure—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I've made my ruling. That's the end of it. The member continues on her speech.NICOLA WILLIS: What this bill does is it claims to introduce independence for the Teaching Council and what the Minister gives with one hand in this bill he intends to take away with the other. This is a comment that members on this side of the House have made throughout the passage of this bill and we continue to state at this third reading that it is one thing to say we are going to elect members of a council and it is another thing to truly give them independence.I turn to what this bill disestablishes. This bill disestablishes effectively the Education Council and I want to take some time in this third reading to acknowledge the work of the Education Council because this is the existing professional organisation for teachers. It represents all teachers from early childhood education through to secondary. Its role has been to promote good practice to promote new ideas to provide inspirational leadership and to boost the status of the teaching profession and we have had words of derision from the members opposite about the way in which it performs its function. We have had members opposite claiming that somehow it is not representative of teachers and that it somehow does not give independence to the status of the profession. I would like the members opposite to tell me which of the members I am about to describe somehow let down the teaching profession. Let's talk about the people that currently sit on the Education Council that this bill today disestablishes. They are Barbara Ala'alatoa who is the principal of Sylvia Park School a registered teacher a Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit for services to education and someone who has been shortlisted for the New Zealander of the Year. Is she the one that shouldn't be representative of the teaching profession or is she OK?I want to talk about Anthony Mackay a moderator of the annual International Summit on the Teaching Profession who is someone so respected by the teaching profession internationally that he is the moderator of the international summit. Is he the problem that members opposite have—that he is somehow non-representative of the teaching profession and its interests?Or is there a problem with Claire Amos the principal of Albany Senior High School. Is she the one that fails to represent the teaching profession adequately? Or is it Simon Heath the principal of Renwick School or is it Ripeka Lessels who is on the Principals Council of the New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI) and who has taught for 30 years? Is that the member that is somehow non-representative of the teaching profession?Or is it that we need this bill read for the third time today because of the membership of Michael Rondel who has extensive experience as a statutory appointment adviser and who has worked with the Ministry of Education on advisory services for at-risk schools for a number of years? Is it his appointment that somehow demeans the role of the current Education Council? Or is it Nicola Ngarewa the principal at Pātea Area School or is it Helen Timperley who has had a career of teaching and educational research who is a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit? Finally if it is none of those people that are somehow non-representative of the profession perhaps then it is Clare Wells who is the chief executive of the New Zealand Kindergarten Teachers Association who works with teachers in the early childhood sector every day of her professional life.What I put to you is that it is absolutely superficial and misleading in a sense but not in a sense which this House would put it. But it is not fair for members opposite to claim that the current Education Council does not do a good job of representing the teaching profession and I want to thank the members that I have listed in this House today for their service to New Zealand education. I want to thank them for their service to the teaching profession and I want to thank them for the efforts they have made to support and boost the status of the very important teaching profession. I want to say to them that it is regrettable that this evening in this House a piece of legislation will pass that will take us backwards.I want to remind members of this House how the Education Council came about because of course there was extensive examination of the previous Teachers Council which did exist which today we are taking ourselves back to the future of. In that extensive review one of the comments that the Ministry of Education felt free to make was that the Teachers Council was seen "as a vehicle for government policy and lacked a distinctive brand for an effective public voice." But never mind we're going to go back there anyway because Labour members have decided it's important.So we have been throughout the debate on this bill throughout the select committee process trying to establish why this change is required because change does have a cost—in this case at least $700000. Change also has the cost of disruption and distraction particularly at a time of teacher shortage and at a time when primary teachers have been on strike for the first time in 24 years. We have asked why the change is necessary. The answers have not been forthcoming. But what we do know is that the previous model that we now revert to was found in the past to have had significant flaws. There were problems with enforcement of standards. There were problems in providing sustainable leadership and governance. That is why we have the Education Council we have today. Since it was implemented this Education Council I would argue—and members opposite have not argued otherwise—has worked incredibly well. It has adhered to a code of ethics and responsibility it has actively engaged in policy development it has provided stable governance to the sector and it has encouraged leadership and professional development.We have been told in this debate that the new Teaching Council will increase the independence of the profession and of its representation. Now if that were the case and if that is to remain the case I would not expect any legislation in future to come in that would remove that independence—that would allow for example the Minister to issue a Government policy direction relating to one or more of the Education Council's functions. We need to be wary that in examining this legislation that this House debates tonight we haven't been given the opportunity to consider what future directions the Minister might give this body.Of course this legislation does not allow the Minister to give any directions and I note that that was not examined by the select committee. That wasn't even considered as an option I think by many of the submitters had the NZEI or Post Primary Teachers Association considered that a future bill might allow the Minister to issue such directions. Of course the reason why that might happen is because what this legislation clearly does is it ensures that teachers are there elected and—according to Ministers opposite—are elected in a representative way. But at no point have we had an answer to the question put by many members on this side which is: how can they be adequately representative when only 13.7 percent of their peers vote for them? That is a very small number and it raises concerns.I would put to you that when Government officials say that a bill of this sort has implications for the safety of children and young people then it is upon us—[Interruption] Well that is what they have said. Those are not my words; those are the words of officials. If that is the case then we would all do well to pause and to consider that this is a bill that takes us back to the future that has had no case for change proven that is expensive and that gives with one hand so the Minister later on on the Order Paper can take with the other."