Datasets:

neibla

/

debates

like 0

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I want to ask the Minister whether or not he thinks that his Associate Minister was speaking out of turn—or made promises or comments, sorry, that perhaps she shouldn't have on the Jack Tame show Q+A on the weekend? Because she was very clear that reading recovery would likely be renamed, it would likely be a structured literacy approach, and it wouldn't continue as the three cueing system, as it is. Now, the Minister has just said that the Cabinet hasn't made a decision on that. So if he could let us know whether or not the comments that Jan Tinetti made on the weekend can be relied on.

The comments that she also made were around the fact that the science and evidence that she had seen meant that there wasn't anything else that she had seen that was anything better than structured literacy, when she was asked around this. So the question to the Minister is: why on earth, if that is the case, if that is what the evidence says, as Jan Tinetti has said—why on earth are we having a common practice model that the Minister has said today is going to include everything, whatever a teacher wants to put in there? It might be three cueing—if I look at the picture, guess from the context, have a look at the first letter of the word and try and guess it. Why is it, if all of the evidence and all of the science around the science of reading points to a decoding of the word to learn to read—why is it that this Government don't have the courage to stand up and say, "This is going to be the common practice model.", as Jan Tinetti herself said on Q+A, when pushed by Jack Tame this weekend? And isn't it the case that the Minister is just trying to keep everyone happy at the expense of teaching our kids to read in the manner in which the science suggests is the best way to teach them to read?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I reject the member's characterisation of what I have said and what the Minister has said. In terms of my confidence in Jan Tinetti, I have absolute confidence in her. She is a longstanding, well-respected primary school teacher and principal, and of course I trust her to make judgments and to make public statements in her areas of delegation, and this is one of them.

But I've also made it very clear, as Minister of Education, that I will continue to trust the judgments of teachers. When it comes to decisions around how each individual child will best learn the content of the curriculum, then, ultimately the teacher in the classroom is the person who is best positioned to make that. We need to provide resources and support to teachers so they can do their jobs as effectively as possible. But I am not going to dictate to them—in the way the last Government tried to, with national standards—exactly how to do their jobs, because it doesn't work.

So in terms of the question from Chris Penk around growth in his electorate, I don't have the 39 catchment plans that are contained within the National Education Growth Plan with me. But they are probably the best place to look for guidance around where we envisage extra schools are going to be required. I will say to him that one of the most tricky things in this area is we know, in many cases, exactly where we need additional schools, but we won't confirm that publicly until we've actually bought the land, because it immediately inflates the value of the available land in that area. The ministry are out in the market all of the time buying land. Sometimes people can't visibly see the progress that they're making until the deal is signed. There's often good reasons for that.

SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Two statements, and a question, but they are sort of all questions, too. I've been going around my own electorate, which is mightier than KKM—it's known as Tāmaki, come and visit some time. But talking to the various schools and principals, one point of feedback, it's certainly around growth and how to keep anticipating. That's always a challenge, as you'll understand, Minister—to anticipate the growth and find the funds for it. But certainly in our electorate, we're seeing greater intensification. A number of the schools are looking to expand their classrooms, but I will say they're also grateful for the buildings that have been done. They're also indicating questions around how much time can teachers be given to learn elements of the new curriculum, including the likes of the New Zealand history curriculum. While they welcome that, they're finding a little bit of a tension.

The question, though, is around—and I'm not fully up to speed on this. Several principals have talked to me about the regulations or guidelines around restraint of students and saying that this has been waited on for almost two years now. I could be wrong on the specifics of that, and that's not to prejudice my principals and teachers, but they feel at the moment quite exposed without those guidelines, and there's a growing frustration that these are not yet present to allow the schools to appropriately deal with their students. So I'm just wondering if the Minister has any information, obviously, to give to the committee but, in turn, that we could share to our principals around when we might anticipate these guidelines around restraint.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm happy to follow up for the member and get some further information for the member and get some further information on when the guidance around the guidelines will be updated. It has been a really contentious issue.

The guidelines were the ones developed by Hekia Parata, with the support of the then Opposition, because I think we agreed that seclusion in the use of the restraint in a lot of contexts was wrong. However, having said that, I know that there's a sense amongst some in the profession that the pendulum has swung too far the other way, to the point where reasonable steps that they might have previously taken are now ones that they are cautious in doing so. So further guidance—and I haven't looked at it for a wee while, so I don't have that—was being developed by the Ministry of Education. I'm happy to follow up and get back to the member.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): A point of order, Madam Chair. Can I just ask how long the Minister has got left to speak?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): He has just over four minutes left.

ERICA STANFORD: Four minutes—OK, thank you.

I want to go back to the literacy conversation we were having with the Minister around the common practice model. The whole point of the literacy document that was put out earlier this year, the Literacy & Communication and Maths Strategy, and then the action plan, was to put in place a common practice model. The common practice model, as it was explained, was to make sure that across the board, teachers were teaching the common practice. Now, the Minister today has continually told us that there won't be a common practice—we will not tell teachers how to teach. In fact, we will allow teachers to use whichever model they think is best for their class and their students. If that is the case, what is the point in having a common practice model, and what is going to be in it? If everything is in the common practice model, then why have a common practice model, because that's pretty much what we already have, which is everything is available to everyone. What was the point in spending all of the money, time, and resources on these groups to set up what is a common practice model that, in reality, will mean absolutely nothing?

My question to the Minister is: has he backed down? Has he bowed to the sector after what happened on the weekend where the Associate Minister clearly laid out what I thought were some really great, insightful comments around the use of structured literacy and made it sound like that was going to be the common practice model. We've been failing children—and it's not a political thing; we've been failing children in reading for decades. We know from international studies, we know from the National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement data, we know from our own internal data that things are going backwards at a great rate of knots, and the Literacy & Communication and Maths Strategy, when it came out—which didn't say a lot; we were waiting for the Minister to say what it actually meant, and finally we got something from her on the weekend, which was very much in favour of structured literacy.

Now, the Minister has told us today that he's going to be providing lots of resources, and that's all very well and good—lots of resources for teachers so that they can pick and choose. Great, an increase in resources, but that's a very different thing than a common practice model. What is a common practice model if it's just a model that includes absolutely everything that a teacher can choose from? How is that going to shift the dial?

Chris Penk: How is that common?

ERICA STANFORD: You know, it's not common at all. Well, I suppose it's very common, because there's everything.

Look, I really want the Minister to be really clear: what is a common practice model going to include, because at the moment, it sounds like we were just about to get there with Jan Tinetti's comments on the weekend, and now this feels like a massive U-turn away from what she said, away from the evidence and back to, "Well, we'll just let everybody choose whatever they want to do.", which is the thing that has been failing us for so many decades, because we've ignored the science of reading.

So please, Minister, tell us what the intention is for a common practice model, without telling us about resources, because that's a separate thing. What is a common practice model, and what will be included in it? Will it just be one way? Will it be two ways? Will it be three ways? Will it include the three-cueing system, especially—because that's the bone of contention that lots of other countries around the world have gotten rid of because of the evidence that it doesn't work.

So please, Minister, you need to explain to us the difference between a common practice model and your comments around "We will not dictate to teachers how they should teach kids to read." Those two things don't sit together, and I just want some clarification on what a common practice model is, and what it will include.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou e te Whare. I'll keep this as brief as possible, because I have addressed these questions to the Minister throughout the Estimates debate but I think it's really worthwhile putting it on the record in the House and also putting the question to him directly.

These Estimates occurred almost in parallel with our process for the People's Inquiry into Student Wellbeing, a document that I know that the Minister now has on his desk. Within this report, there is a crunch of data that shows that students are doing it incredibly tough. Here, I'd like to read just an excerpt from a story that we got permission to share.

This is Wiremu's story—and I quote—"I'm a full-time student and work 20 hours a week. To make ends meet I borrow money, stay with family until I can afford to leave, sacrifice certain things like hygiene products and do without food every few weeks and don't go to the doctor or dentist. It's not like I live in one of the most expensive cities or somewhere flash either. I sleep in an uninsulated garage with a large garage door that lets rain in. It's only half carpeted. In the winter the walls condensate and both sides of the windows frost over. I went looking for new places to stay recently but I could not afford a single one of the places I viewed despite them being pretty run down. When COVID hit, my kura offered support. I tried to access the support and I did everything that was required of me, but they didn't follow through."

That, of course, is reflective of the circumstances that many students shared with us with the COVID hardship fund, which we obviously canvassed throughout this Estimates review. It also is pretty reflective of the broader experience that shows in this report that two-thirds of students regularly cannot afford the basics.

So my question to the Minister is, what are the variables necessary for the Government—or the context, politically, or otherwise—that will see him implement a universal student allowance?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Just to come back very quickly to Erica Stanford's most recent comments, there is absolutely nothing contradictory between saying that we could have a common practice model and high quality resources for teachers and then saying that we're still going to trust teachers' professional judgments about how best to teach the children in their classroom. That is what a quality education system looks like.

In terms of the questions raised by Chlöe Swarbrick, in terms of we increase tertiary student support, it really is going to depend on the overall economic situation facing the Government and our ability to do that, as the member is well aware, for my entire working life, I have been advocating for a better deal for tertiary students, and I'll continue to do that.

I'm not able to make any pre-commitments at this point around a universal student allowance or, in fact, any other forms of increased tertiary student support, but I will point to the Government's record in that regard: increases in student allowances; the eligibility for things like the Cost of Living Payment; the hardship fund; first year fees-free; the targeted training and apprenticeships fund, the TTAF. There are a range of things that this Government has done that have been designed to bring down the cost of tertiary education and to better financially support tertiary students.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Turning then to the issue of student debt, we have in the Estimates on page 14 of the Education and Workforce Committee's report, but in page 83 of the broader Estimates document for anybody following alone at home, notation of the fact that there is $1.8 billion in overdue student debt; $1.7 billion of that is owed by people now overseas. The Minister will be aware, as I addressed in the select committee hearing, that these were also questions I put to the Minister of Revenue and I understand that there had been some work on it. As noted in the Estimates document itself, it states that the Minister said work was done on this in 2018 but had not looked into the issue in the past 18 months. So to that effect, knowing that debt accumulates interest for those students, particularly past students who are now overseas, and given that there hasn't been much work done on it in the past 18 months, may I ask the Minister if he intends to move ahead with any work in the future or at present?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I can certainly assure the member that we are very keen to get those students who are overseas, or former students who are overseas with student loan debt, repaying their student loans. And so we will continue to work to try and improve our data in that regard, improve our contacts with those people in that regard. The IRD do a great job, I think, of leading that process. It's not to say that it's perfect. In terms of any future policy change around that, as I've indicated to the member before, it's not something that I have been actively considering.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): To the point as raised in my initial question to the Minister around the hardship faced by students, we know that this is disproportionately being felt by those who have historically been structurally marginalised. But we also know based on this data, and recent data collated by Dr Sereana Naepi from the University of Auckland, that this is concentrated particularly with postgraduate students. To that effect, I have been hearing from a number of constituents in Auckland Central, but also tertiary students across the country, who have been speaking to the diverse approaches that universities, and even faculties within universities, are taking to the issue of stipends. We are seeing there is massive discrepancy in the value being paid out to students. I'm wondering if the Minister's done any work on this, particularly given that hardship and that barrier to access study and therefore the research that our country is powered by, or, if not, he would encourage the Education and Workforce Committee to do more work in this space.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): In answer to the first question, no, it's not a topic that I have done a lot of work on. In answer to the second question, of course I am not going to direct select committees, but it is an area that I think is worthy of further investigation.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the time for this debate has now expired.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the votes contained in the Appropriation (2022/23 Estimates) Bill stand part of the schedules.

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Noes 45

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 5 be agreed to.

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Noes 45

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The committee has considered the Appropriation (2022/23 Estimates) Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

REMUNERATION AUTHORITY LEGISLATION BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 August.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Can I start by thanking you for the opportunity to finally take a call on this Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill at its second reading. It has been on the agenda for several House sitting days now, and my name is there, and it's getting closer and closer to me, and today, just as I'm about to depart on a taxi to get back to the Far North, it's finally my chance to make this brief call. I'll make it brief because my friendly neighbour, flatmate, and neighbouring electorate member here is after me and she has a flight at the same time.

So we are here to debate the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill, which transfers responsibility for determining remuneration of certain judicial bodies and statutory officers to the Remuneration Authority to recognise the judicial nature of those positions. Currently, those decisions are made by the Cabinet fees framework. This bill proposes to transfer those to the Remuneration Authority. The bodies and offices to which this bill is related to are the disputes tribunal referees, community magistrates of the District Court, chairperson and deputy chairpersons of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, deputy chairpersons and members of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, environment commissioners, and deputy environment commissioners of the Environment Court, and tenancy tribunal adjudicators.