If the Government were to listen to the PPTA and the results of their clearly biased survey questions it would be the end of the PPTA and the education system in New Zealand.

The PPTA want to take ‘for profit’ organisations out of the New Zealand education system.  

This would mean the immediate closure of more than 1900 Licenced Early Childhood Education (ECE) centres and would affect more than 80,000 children.  The PPTA profits from education, so it is advocating against itself.

The PPTA wants everyone who is not fully registered with the New Zealand Teachers Council (NZTC) out of our education system.  

If the Government were to listen and therefore exclude teachers who are newly-arrived from overseas or are otherwise not fully registered with the NZTC volunteers, support staff, private tutors, and informal tuition by hard working and dedicated parents, siblings and family friends, every education institution would immediately grind to a halt and most could not continue to exist.   This too would result in an end to the PPTA.

The PPTA are against Partnership Schools because of the for-profit, teacher registration aspects of the policy, but these features are already part of the current education sector.   Removing these features from education would have a detrimental impact on the sector as we know it and students would suffer. 

The PPTA also likes to claim that the majority of submissions on the Education Amendment Bill were opposed to Partnership Schools.  But, the vast majority of the submissions received by the Education and Science Select Committee received were 'form submissions' from the PPTA, NZEI and their Union affiliates.  Excluding these left a balanced pool of properly considered submissions.

Partnership schools, known overseas as charter schools or free schools, are not an experiment.  Evidence has shown that the best models of charter/free schools have been very successful in raising achievement for students from disadvantaged areas and those with English as a second language.   They were first started 20 years ago in the United States by... you guessed it... the teachers unions.

The PPTA is clearly not much concerned about poor educational outcomes from failing public schools.  It is not plausible that it is terrified that some partnership schools might fail; it is more plausible that it is terrified that greater parental choice might improve outcomes.

The PPTA survey can be found here

I rise to speak in favour of the second reading of the Education Amendment Bill.

The Bill provides the legal framework for Partnerships Schools | Kura Hourua.

I want to join with the Hon Hekia Parata in thanking Dr Cam Calder the Chair of the Education and Science Committee and the members of the Committee for their hard work. 

They have improved the Bill.  The first change is to require the existing independent review option to now be a mandatory term of all sponsorship contracts.

I can advise the House that officials are working on some default dispute resolution options that will be focused on the educational needs of the student.  These will be superior to arrangements in most state schools.

The second change is a partial extension of the jurisdiction of the Ombudsmen to suspensions, stand-downs, exclusions and expulsions.  This change both protects the students and ensures sponsors who are non-government organisations have their status preserved.

I want to acknowledge all those who took the time to make a submission to the Committee.  Even when we disagree, I know that our education system can only improve with the passionate engagement of learners, parents and educational professionals.

This Bill as it relates to Partnership Schools is drawn from a proposal in the ACT and National Confidence and Supply Agreement.  That proposal was given life by the Partnership Schools Working Party ably led by Catherine Isaac whose work shaped this Bill.

Partnership schools spring from the values of the ACT Party.  In education we believe in parental choice and the funding following the child whatever the school type. 

We know that in education, one size does not fit all.

In essence we believe in the transformative potential of education.

That is why we backed Aspire Scholarships last term and why we promoted Partnership Schools this term.

Every child has potential however humble their origins.

Every child has inherent value.

And every child deserves the opportunity to get a world class education.

No member in their heart-of-hearts can say that New Zealand is delivering on that.

So this Bill is important.   It will determine whether this House is on the right side of history.

I believe we will stand with young Māori and Pasifika who deserve to discover the spark of learning.

We will stand with those with learning difficulties or from low socio-economic backgrounds who yearn to achieve. 

We will stand with the dedicated educators including Māori and Pasifika educators who are able to inspire and lead and achieve for our most vulnerable learners.

We will stand with the proposition that greater freedom to educators should be coupled with higher levels of accountability. 

Partnership Schoolswill help to address the endemic problem of underachievement of our most vulnerable leaners.

The good news is that the current education system works well for the majority of our young people.  Our best students are best in the world.

There is more good news.  There have been significant recent gains for Pasifika students and slight gains for Māori.
The bad news is that still too many of our vulnerable students are being left behind.   In terms of equity, which is the size of the gap between our highest and lowest achievers, we are among the worst of OECD countries.  

The good news is that Partnership Schools are on the way.

Being a first world nation means five out of five students gaining the knowledge and skills to be successful citizens in the 21st Century. 

This country has huge potential.  However we waste that potential because of the continuing disparity that characterises our education system.

Partnership Schools will help target the problem of underachievement. 

In the Partnership School model, the Crown enters into a contract with a sponsor, who operates the school. 

Sponsors vary from school to school and could be, for example, groups of parents, not-for-profit community groups, businesses, churches, Iwi or Pasifika groups, or Trusts.

The term ‘partnership’ captures the essence of what these schools represent – a partnership between the Crown, the business sector and the community.

They will introduce more choice, and more flexibility, into our education system.

More choice for parents – who will have greater freedom to choose the education that best suits their children’s learning needs.

And more flexibility – as Partnership Schools will have greater freedom around how they operate. 

They will be given more autonomy from the usual rules and regulations under which state schools are required to operate. 

This includes the freedom to offer a different curriculum so long as it can be mapped against the New Zealand curriculum and its principles and qualifications framework, and adaptable operating hours.

They must employ teachers who are trained and qualified in their fields, but they may, in certain, limited circumstances, be teachers who are not registered with the Teachers’ Council.

This flexibility will allow them to do things differently. They will be allowed to use new and diverse approaches to teaching and learning, and property and school organisation. 

They can focus on specialist areas of learning, such as art, music or sport, and they can answer a particular need in their community, such as for faith-based schooling or holistic development.
In exchange for this flexibility, Partnership Schools will have higher levels of accountability with a unique evaluation framework. 

I’m pleased to advise the House that we have received 35 applications from potential sponsors for Partnership Schools.

They are currently being considered by the Authorisation Board, an expert panel of independent advisors.

The Authorisation Board will make recommendations to the Minister of Education.   

No final decisions will be made, or contracts with potential sponsors entered into, until this Bill is passed.  Contracts are expected to be in place by the middle of this year.

This ensures successful sponsors have enough time to prepare their schools to open in 2014.

Can I once again express my appreciation for the work of the Select Committee.   Can I also place on record my appreciation for the support of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Education and the Maori Party for Partnership Schools.

Roll on day 1 term 1 2014

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Welcome to ACT’s regional conference for the lower South Island. I acknowledge ACT Scenic South board member, Guy McCallum and deputy board member Colin Nicholls and I thank you both for your efforts in organising this conference today.

I also acknowledge and thank ACT Leader John Banks for his attendance.

When Guy first asked me to speak on the subject of ‘why I support ACT’, I thought that’s easy.  ACT has been the only party in New Zealand that has constantly elected into Parliament a group of MPs who all agree on free trade, the Reserve Bank Act, flexible labour laws, the importance of private property rights, one law for all and the rule of law.

There are many reasons to support ACT.

However, the focus of my speech today will be Partnership schools and the announcement yesterday about the establishment of the Partnership Schools Authorisation Board by John Banks in his role as Associate Education Minister.

At last week’s national conference in Auckland, I stressed the need to rejuvenate and rebuild ACT.  We need to take our message directly to ordinary kiwis by direct mail, social media and public meetings. I mentioned that I first joined ACT at such a public meeting in May 1995.

However, what I didn’t mention were the two significant events prior.

Firstly, in February 1995, I sent away a cheque for $5 for a copy of ACT’s founding document – the 100 page ‘Commonsense for a Change’. This laid out ACT’s policy prescription and I could immediately see that ACT was a new kind of party offering new solutions to the country’s problems and was unlike any other political party at the time.

In particular, I was attracted to ACT’s proposals to have people paying part of their taxes directly into their own retirement savings accounts, rather than as general taxation - making them less dependent on the government at retirement age.

ACT also proposed providing greater choice in education by allowing alternative independent schools to establish and compete on an equal footing with the state education system – thus driving up standards for all through competition.

Secondly, in March 1995, I attended a public meeting – the first ACT meeting I ever attended.  It was at the property now known as the ASB Showgrounds in Greenlane, Auckland and there were close to 1000 people.

The featured speakers were the joint ACT founders, Sir Roger Douglas and the Hon. Derek Quigley.  I also heard for the first time, Rodney Hide and Muriel Newman – both of whom went on to become ACT MPs.

However, the speakers who left the biggest impression on me that night were Donna Awatere-Huata and Iritana Tawhiwhirangi – founder of the Kohanga Reo movement in the early 1980s and ACT’s first Education spokesperson.  

Iritana, now Dame Iritana, gave an inspired, uplifting speech as she explained how ACT’s policies to provide greater choice to parents, particularly those from lower socio-economic areas who didn’t then have choice, would do more to address Maori under-achievement in education than any other single policy change.

Educational under-achievement was leaving vast numbers of Maori marginalised and unable to read and write.   Far too many were ending up in prison. Under-achievement also lead to disproportionate numbers of Maori and Pacific Islanders becoming dependent on social welfare and robbing them of their independence, their spirit and their lives.

She explained how those from lower socio-economic areas lacked the resources that more affluent parents had, to send their children to private schools. School zoning captured young Maori in poorer performing state schools.

I was so impressed with Dame Iri’s speech that I went up and introduced myself to her during the break. Over time, we became friends and we have spent hours since, discussing educational and social issues for Maori and other New Zealanders.

With the founding of the Maori Party, Dame Iri became a member and subsequently stood for them in general elections on their party list.

While ACT has clear policy differences with the Maori Party in some areas – for example we opposed the Marine and Coastal Area Bill and we don’t support separate Maori seats in Parliament – we still have much we agree on, such as providing choice in education as a means of raising educational achievement for ALL, but particularly for those in lower socio-economic groups.

The Maori Party and ACT also recognise the huge damage the social welfare system has done to Maori and the way it has created a system of dependency and a feeling of entitlement.

So I was absolutely delighted that when John Banks announced the members of the Partnership Schools Authorisation Committee on Friday, Dame Iritana was among them alongside Chair Catherine Isaac, Deputy Chair John Shewan, John Morris, Dr Margaret Southwick, Tahu Potiki and Terry Bates.

Finally, 18 years after Dame Iri stood and addressed that crowded ACT public meeting in Greenlane, she will have the opportunity to bring to fruition the vision that she saw and so strongly advocated that night and ever since.

It was also pleasing this week to see that Pem Bird, President of the Maori Party also appeared before the Education and Science Select Committee to speak in favour of partnership schools.
 
There has been much misinformation about Partnership Schools – much of it spread by the teacher unions in a newspaper campaign that must have cost their members hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Far from being the ‘rich party’ portrayed by the media, the ACT party doesn’t have the resources to combat it.

The first and most important thing to know about Partnership Schools is they will not be compulsory – no parent will be required to send their child to one.

It will be THEIR choice, and for a lot of parents they will actually have a choice for the first time!

However, those who choose not to send their children to a Partnership School, will have the benefit of a higher standard of education that ACT believes will eventuate as a result of competition. So everyone will win.

Secondly, Partnership Schools will be designed to primarily serve lower socio-economic areas.

Thirdly, Partnership Schools will be funded by the state, largely to the same extent that the taxpayer would fund the same child in a state school – the funding will follow the child as ACT has advocated since its inception in 1994.

Fourthly, Partnership Schools will be closely monitored by the Department of Education – far from being unaccountable as our opponents argue. Partnership schools will be bound by an agreement entered into between the state and the schools’ founders and they will be required to meet the standards jointly agreed.

Fifthly, ACT’s partnership schools will not be subject to the Official Information Act as they are run by private organisations in exactly the same way that many thousands of privately run early childhood centres who receive Government funding are not subject to the Official Information Act.

Sixth, the Labour Party has argued that private enterprise or for-profit organisations will be involved and that this is somehow a bad thing!  Yes, it’s true, that private for-profit organisations may wish to be involved but why is that deemed bad?  And how is that different from the many thousands of privately owned early childhood centres that have opened and been funded by the taxpayer to provide 20 hours of early childhood education?

Labour is quite happy for profit organisations to operate early childhood education but not primary and secondary schools – how hypocritical is that?

In any event, my understanding is that none of the 34 initial preliminary applications received are from for-profit organisations, albeit that overseas research shows that for-profits run the most successful schools.

Seventh, there is overwhelming overseas evidence that properly monitored charter schools, as they are known overseas have been very successful, despite the opposition’s efforts to argue otherwise.

Sweden for example introduced ‘free schools’, their version of partnership schools in 1992 and they continue successfully to this day under both ‘right’ and ‘left’ wing governments. If Labour’s claim that Partnership Schools hadn’t been successful overseas is correct, surely an incoming left-wing Swedish government would have scrapped them and they haven’t.

Eighth, Partnership Schools will have more autonomy than state schools – there will be no regulated pay scales nor set hours. They will not be required to have all of their teachers registered with the Teachers Council, however you don’t need to be registered to be qualified. I personally have a world of business experience. I taught accounting briefly at the then Manukau Technical Institute and I wasn’t registered with the Teachers Council.

Delegates, for the last 18 years the ACT Party has championed reforms to education and social welfare systems. The ACT Party has stood up for the less well-off and campaigned on providing choice for those who don’t have choice. We don’t expect there will be a large number of Partnership Schools initially, but we are optimistic that a sufficient number will open at the beginning of Term 1, 2014.

While there may not be many, the fact that there are some will lead to competition between those first Partnership Schools and the surrounding state schools and we expect the benefits will only grow as time progresses.

Each week the Opposition parties stand up in Parliament and claim to represent the poor.

The first step out of poverty is a top quality education and if the opposition were truly concerned for the poor and the less well off, rather than their Teacher Union mates, they’d support us and the vote in Parliament would be unanimous.

Partnership Schools are a fundamental part of our Confidence and Supply Agreement with the National Party and from my discussions negotiating that agreement with the Prime Minister and since, I am sure we have his full support.

Like Dame Iritana Tawhiwhirangi, I look forward to ACT implementing the vision that she and Donna Awatere-Huata so ably enunciated in March 1995.

Thank you for your attendance here today.

ENDS

I rise on behalf of the ACT Party and the people of Epsom to support the Statement from the Prime Minister.

Over the summer break I have been out-and-about talking to New Zealanders - taking stock. 

New Zealanders are working harder and longer for less. 

What they want is the freedom to achieve though their own effort and enterprise. 

They don’t want hand outs - most reject the entitlement society.

They back the Prime Minister.  They rate John Key.   

They don’t see Labour, the Greens and Winston First – the coalition of the Dispirited, the Deluded and the Bewildered - as an alternative Government.  

They don’t see David Shearer as a Prime Minister, even less Russel Norman as Finance Minster.

I tell them that under MMP it could happen.  They tell me to work hard to make sure it doesn’t.

I will be.

The ACT Party and the people of Epsom back John Key as Prime Minister.  But we want him to do more to resist and roll back the entitlement society. 

We want this Government to expand the freedom to achieve.

What Labour promises in hands-on-government is a government of hand outs - the sapping culture of entitlement. 

In Labour’s world to get ahead is to put your hand in the pocket of the taxpayer. 

It is not about the freedom to achieve through the enterprise of your efforts.  It’s about taking from someone else’s hard work.

Take housing.  

Young Aucklanders want to buy or build a home with a back yard.  Yet the median house price in Auckland is now almost seven times the median household income. 

Auckland is almost as unaffordable as London.

We know that housing unaffordability is complex.  However the major culprit is central and local government – the RMA, metropolitan urban limits and building regulation.

What’s the Opposition response? 

Labour promises to build government houses to fix a problem largely created by government.  No word on where the money will come from to build ten thousand houses a year.  Mr Shearer promised $300,000 dollar homes.  Now he’s backtracked and said $300,000 is just the median value.  In Auckland they will be chicken coops. 

On Sunday, Mr Shearer told the country that he is going to hold a conference this year to work out his policy.  That’s after he has announced it.  Not good enough.

Labour have shown they are not serious.  They have not uttered one word on RMA reform. 

Here is my prediction; they will vote against every major RMA reform this year that will help young New Zealanders get their first home without a government handout.

Now the Greens won’t be outdone in the auction of make-believe money. 

For them the Government will not only build the house but loan you the money to buy it.  What they won’t say is how many houses or how much it will cost.

What we do know is that you can’t have a backyard for the kids to play in and the RMA can’t be touched.

After promising make believe houses with make-believe money,  the next day the Greens attacked the dairy industry that helps New Zealand earn its way in the real world and pays the taxes they are so keen on spending. 

For them wealth is created by the printing press - not by working hard, taking risks, selling things other people want and saving.

This year we need major RMA reform. 

I have told the Government we have a one-in-twenty year chance to get it right and get it done.  

We need to be bold.   ACT will be helping.

In other areas, the Government is moving towards giving New Zealanders the freedom to achieve and away from the policies of handouts and the politics of entitlement that the Opposition are keen on. 

ACT wants National to pick up the pace.

Here are three examples.

Partnership Schools are about the freedom to achieve for talented educators, dedicated parents, and for kids who need a break.  It gives educators another option in our education system, a system that currently sees almost one in five students missing out.

We will have a Bill providing for regulatory standards around increased disclosure for Government Bills.  This will help New Zealanders better gauge whether any reduction of their freedom is justified.  

ACT’s Spending Cap will help New Zealanders better understand how much politicians spend and how good that spending is.  Politicians will have to signal their spending plans in advance.

These initiatives and others will help get government off the backs and out of the pockets of New Zealanders.  

ACT wants the Government to keep moving towards the freedom to achieve and away from the culture of entitlement that saps independence. 

We reject Mr Shearer’s hands-on government of hand outs.

We know anything is possible however humble your origins, if you simply give New Zealanders the freedom to achieve.

ENDS