Submission Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill – Transfer of Teaching Council Functions - Jan 2026

New Zealand Kindergartens

New Zealand Kindergartens (NZK) is a For-Purpose Charitable Peak Body. It represents nineteen of the twenty six local Kindergarten Associations (73%) across Aotearoa. This submission is published on behalf of NZK Member Associations: Ashburton, Central Kids, Dannevirke, Dunedin, Geraldine, Heretaunga, Hutt City, Kindergartens South, Marlborough, Napier, Nelson Tasman, Northland, Oamaru, Ruahine, South Canterbury, Te Aroha, Waikato, Waimate, and Westport.

Executive Summary

This submission opposes the proposed transfer of core professional standard-setting and ethical functions from the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand to the Secretary for Education, as provided for in the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill.

While New Zealand Kindergartens supports the stated objectives of maintaining teacher quality, protecting learners, and sustaining public trust, the Bill does not clearly articulate the specific problems these significant changes are intended to resolve. The Explanatory Note largely describes what will change, rather than providing a robust, evidence-based diagnosis of system failure or demonstrating why existing arrangements are inadequate or incapable of improvement. In the absence of a clearly defined problem statement, it is difficult to assess whether the proposed transfer of functions is necessary, proportionate, or likely to achieve its stated aims.

The proposed transfer is not a technical or administrative adjustment. It represents a substantial structural shift that relocates professional standard-setting from an independent statutory body into the executive arm of government. This raises material risks to professional independence, regulatory coherence, workforce confidence, and public trust. Independent professional regulation is a cornerstone of trusted professions in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Other regulated professions, including medicine, nursing, law, psychology, architecture, and social work, retain arm’s-length bodies responsible for setting professional standards and ethical frameworks, even in the face of workforce shortages and system pressure. Teaching shares the same characteristics of complexity, ethical judgement, and public impact, particularly given its central role in the education and wellbeing of Tamariki from early childhood onward.

The Bill would also fragment regulatory responsibility by separating professional standardsetting from discipline, competence, and certification functions. This undermines regulatory coherence and accountability, and appears inconsistent with established principles of good regulatory design and the Government’s stated commitment to clearer, more integrated regulatory systems, including lessons from the Early Childhood Education Regulatory Review.

There are unresolved funding and capability concerns. The Teaching Council is funded through teacher levies and fees, ensuring direct accountability to the profession. It remains unclear how the Ministry of Education would resource and consistently deliver these highly specialised professional regulatory functions, particularly given existing regional inconsistency and ongoing organisational change. Under-resourced or uneven regulation risks delays, inconsistency, and increased uncertainty for teachers, employers, and providers.

The submission also highlights significant workforce risks. Aotearoa New Zealand is already experiencing acute teacher shortages in a highly competitive international labour market. Increased bureaucracy, duplication, or uncertainty in professional regulation is likely to exacerbate attrition and undermine retention at a critical time.

Concerns about newly qualified teachers should not be conflated with systemic failure in initial teacher education. There is limited publicly available evidence of widespread ITE quality issues that would justify such a significant regulatory shift. Graduate readiness is more appropriately addressed through strong induction, mentoring, and early-career support, rather than transferring professional standard-setting into a government ministry.

The proposed changes also raise important Te Tiriti o Waitangi considerations. Honouring Te Tiriti requires education governance arrangements that are stable, principled, and capable of sustaining long-term partnership and trust beyond electoral cycles. Independent professional bodies are better positioned to carry Tiriti commitments forward consistently over time, embed Mātauranga Māori within professional standards, and maintain enduring relationships with iwi, hapū, and Māori educators. Any reform that fundamentally alters these arrangements should be grounded in clear evidence and careful consideration of impacts on Māori learners and Kaiako.

The objectives of improving quality, confidence, and consistency can be achieved without transferring Teaching Council functions. More proportionate alternatives include strengthening the Council’s capability and resourcing, clearly defining the problem to be solved, formalising collaboration with the Ministry of Education, commissioning independent evidence-based reviews, strengthening induction and mentoring, and developing a coherent teacher education workforce strategy.

For these reasons, this submission recommends that the proposed transfer of professional standard-setting and ethical functions to the Secretary for Education be rejected.

Overview – New Zealand Kindergartens

Kindergarten in Aotearoa New Zealand is steeped in the history of pioneers who sought to provide education and care for children within their local communities. Dunedin is the “Home of Kindergarten,” established in 1889. Christchurch followed in 1899, Wellington in 1905, Auckland in 1908, and Invercargill in 1919. By 1975, there were 75 Kindergarten Associations operating 384 Kindergartens.

Our pioneering foremothers/fathers focused their efforts and resources on teacher training, policy and funding. They were pivotal in improving the standards of programmes, staffing, qualifications, and buildings and equipment.

New Zealand Kindergartens as we are known today was established as the New Zealand Free Kindergarten Union in 1912/13, and was legally constituted in 1926.

New Zealand Kindergartens is a For-Purpose Charitable Peak Body. It represents nineteen of the twenty-six local Kindergarten Associations across Aotearoa. Collectively we have provision to educate and care for more than 14,000 Tamariki, we employ a minimum of 1,785 registered teachers, and a minimum additional 380 professionals to support our teaching teams.

Our purpose is to support for-purpose trailblazers to thrive in the provision of fit-forpurpose, teacher-led, quality education that enhances social, emotional, economic and environmental impact.

Submission Feedback on the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill – Transfer of Teaching Council Functions to the Secretary for Education

Introduction

New Zealand Kindergartens strongly opposes the proposed transfer of core professional functions from the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand to the Secretary for Education.

While we support the stated objectives of maintaining teacher quality, protecting learners, and sustaining public trust in the profession, we do not consider that the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill provides a sufficiently clear or evidence-based articulation of the specific problems the proposed changes are intended to resolve. The Explanatory Note largely describes what will change and how responsibilities will shift, but does not clearly diagnose failures in the current system, demonstrate that existing arrangements are inadequate, or explain why less intrusive or more proportionate options have been discounted. In the absence of a clearly defined problem statement and supporting evidence, it is difficult to assess whether the proposed transfer of professional standard-setting functions is necessary, appropriate, or likely to achieve its stated aims.

The proposed transfer of functions is not a technical or administrative adjustment. It represents a significant structural change that relocates professional standard-setting from an independent statutory body into the executive arm of government. Such a shift has farreaching implications for professional independence, regulatory coherence, workforce confidence, and public trust, particularly at a time when the education system is already under considerable strain.

This lack of clarity is especially concerning in a Te Tiriti o Waitangi context. Honouring Te Tiriti requires education governance arrangements that are stable, principled, and capable of sustaining long-term partnership, trust, and shared responsibility beyond electoral cycles. Independent professional bodies play an important role in carrying Tiriti commitments forward consistently over time, embedding Mātauranga Māori, and supporting enduring relationships with iwi, hapū, and Māori educators. Any proposal to fundamentally alter those arrangements should therefore be grounded in a clear articulation of need, robust evidence, and careful consideration of the potential impacts on Māori learners, Kaiako, and Crown–Māori relationships.

For these reasons, New Zealand Kindergartens does not believe the proposed transfer of Teaching Council functions is necessary, proportionate, or justified on the basis of the information provided in the Bill, and considers that the objectives of improving quality, confidence, and consistency can be achieved through more targeted and evidence-based alternatives.

Nature of the Proposed Change

The Bill proposes shifting responsibility for establishing and maintaining:

• teacher registration criteria,
• qualification and practising certificate standards, and
• the teachers’ code of conduct

from the Teaching Council to the Secretary for Education.

This is not a technical or administrative adjustment. It is a significant structural change that relocates professional standard-setting from an independent statutory body into the executive arm of government.

Risks to Independence and Public Trust

It is difficult to justify why teaching, a profession central to the wellbeing and future of children, should have less professional independence than other regulated professions in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Professional regulation relies on independence to maintain credibility and public trust. In Aotearoa New Zealand, other regulated professions including medicine, nursing, law, psychology, architecture and social work, retain independent statutory bodies responsible for setting professional standards, ethical frameworks, and competence requirements. These bodies operate at arm’s length from government specifically to protect professional judgement from political, fiscal, or short-term workforce pressures.

These professions have continued to face workforce shortages, funding constraints, and significant policy reform without transferring professional standard-setting functions into government ministries. Independence has been preserved because public trust depends on confidence that professional standards are determined by expertise, evidence, and ethics, not by the priorities of the government of the day.

Teaching shares these same characteristics. Kaiako work with Tamariki during their most formative years, exercising professional judgement that directly affects learning, wellbeing, identity, and long-term life outcomes. This is particularly critical in early childhood education, where the quality and stability of teaching have lifelong impacts.

When professional standards are set by a body directly accountable to a Minister, there is a real and reasonable perception that those standards may be influenced by short-term political, fiscal, or workforce pressures. This risks politicising professional regulation and undermining confidence among teachers, employers, and the public. Once independence is compromised, public trust is difficult to restore.

Fragmentation and Regulatory Incoherence

Under the Bill, the Teaching Council would retain responsibility for discipline, competence processes, and programme approval, while losing authority over the standards and criteria that underpin those processes.

This fragmentation weakens regulatory coherence and creates ambiguity about accountability. Effective professional regulation depends on clear alignment between standards, certification, and disciplinary thresholds, not a split between policy-setting and implementation across different agencies.

This approach appears inconsistent with the Government’s stated focus on improving regulatory clarity, coherence, and effectiveness, as reflected in recent regulatory reform initiatives, including the Early Childhood Education Regulatory Review. That review emphasised the importance of clearly defined roles, reduced duplication, and a more coherent regulatory system.

By separating professional standard-setting from the body responsible for professional discipline and competence, the Bill risks creating exactly the kind of fragmented and overlapping regulatory environment that recent reforms have sought to address. Rather than simplifying the system, this change may introduce new complexity, confusion, and inefficiency for practitioners, providers, and the public.

Funding and Resourcing Concerns

The Teaching Council is funded primarily through teacher levies and fees, reinforcing its direct accountability to the profession, and providing a clear, dedicated funding stream for its regulatory functions.

It is unclear how the Ministry of Education would resource these additional professional regulation functions, particularly in a constrained fiscal environment. Under-resourced professional regulation risks delays in registration and certification, inconsistent application of standards, and system bottlenecks that ultimately affect teacher supply and classroom stability.

There is also a broader contextual concern. The education sector already experiences considerable inconsistency in practice across the Ministry of Education’s current regional structure. Despite multiple organisational restructures and ongoing change, these inconsistencies have persisted and continue to create uncertainty, inefficiency, and frustrations.

Against this backdrop, transferring highly specialised professional regulatory functions into the Ministry risks compounding existing challenges, rather than resolving them. Without clear resourcing, capability, and consistency, there is a real risk that professional regulation would become unevenly applied, further increasing uncertainty and pressure on a sector that is already experiencing significant strain.

Impact on Workforce Supply and System Stability

Aotearoa New Zealand is already facing significant teacher shortages across early childhood, primary, and secondary education. These shortages exist within an increasingly competitive international labour market for qualified Kaiako, particularly with Australia, where remuneration, conditions, and professional support are often perceived as more attractive.

In this context, professional confidence, clarity, and stability matter. Changes that increase bureaucracy, duplication, or uncertainty around professional regulation risk discouraging entry into the profession, accelerating attrition, and undermining retention of experienced practitioners. For teachers weighing whether to remain in, return to, or leave the profession, including those considering overseas opportunities, uncertainty about professional standards, pathways, and support can be a decisive factor.

Any reform should therefore be assessed not only for its regulatory intent, but also for its likely impact on workforce sustainability in a highly competitive environment. Changes that weaken professional confidence or reduce the perceived status and stability of teaching risk exacerbating existing shortages rather than addressing them.

Distinguishing ITE Quality From Graduate Readiness

Concerns about newly qualified teachers should not be conflated with the quality of initial teacher education itself. To date, there is limited publicly available evidence demonstrating systemic failure in ITE programmes that would justify transferring professional standardsetting functions away from the Teaching Council.

Much of the commentary about newly qualified teachers appears to be anecdotal or based on individual experiences within particular settings, rather than grounded in comprehensive, sector-wide evaluation. While such experiences should not be dismissed, they do not in themselves constitute a robust evidence base for large-scale structural reform of professional regulation.

Like other professions, teaching includes a structured induction and mentoring phase. Provisional certification exists precisely because graduates are expected to develop professional competence over time, as they move from supported practice into independent professional judgement. This is a deliberate and internationally recognised feature of professional preparation, not a flaw in ITE quality.

If there are genuine concerns about graduate readiness, these are more appropriately addressed through evidence-based review, stronger induction and mentoring, and adequate resourcing for the settings and professionals that support beginning teachers.

Relocating standard-setting functions to a government ministry does not directly address these concerns, and risks misdiagnosing the problem by treating a developmental phase of professional growth as an issue of programme quality.

Duplication and Compliance Burden

Splitting professional functions across the Ministry of Education and the Teaching Council risks duplication of oversight, increased compliance costs, and confusion for providers and practitioners.

Experience within Aotearoa New Zealand demonstrates that regulatory systems involving multiple agencies with overlapping responsibilities can increase administrative burden without improving quality. The Early Childhood Education Regulatory Review identified duplication, inconsistent interpretation of standards, and compliance fatigue as key consequences of fragmented regulatory arrangements – issues the Government has since sought to address through clearer roles and consolidation.

International experience reinforces this lesson. In England, repeated changes to teacher regulation, including shifting responsibilities between government departments and arm’slength bodies, have been widely criticised for increasing bureaucracy, destabilising professional confidence, and creating compliance-heavy systems that diverted attention away from workforce development and teaching quality. These experiences have led to ongoing calls for clearer separation between policy direction and independent professional regulation.

Additional layers of approval or review do not inherently improve quality. They often divert time, expertise, and resources away from teaching, learning, and professional development, particularly in a workforce already under significant pressure.

Teaching as a Profession

Other regulated professions in Aotearoa New Zealand, including law, medicine, nursing, architecture, psychology, and social work retain independent professional bodies responsible for setting standards and ethical frameworks.

Teaching is no less complex or consequential. Kaiako hold a unique and enduring responsibility: educating and nurturing Tamariki across their most formative years, beginning with early childhood education and continuing through schooling. The quality, continuity, and stability of this professional workforce are critical to children’s learning, wellbeing, and long-term life outcomes.

High-quality early childhood education lays the foundation for all future learning. It is in these early years that children develop the social, emotional, cognitive, and cultural capabilities that underpin success at school and beyond. This requires a stable, wellsupported, and highly professional teaching workforce, grounded in strong ethical standards and professional identity that endure across political cycles.

Independent professional regulation plays a central role in sustaining such a workforce. It provides continuity, professional confidence, and a clear sense of collective responsibility that supports recruitment, retention, and long-term commitment to the profession.

When professional standards are set and stewarded by the profession itself, they are more likely to command trust, uphold quality, and support Kaiako to see teaching as a respected and viable lifelong career.

If teaching alone were brought under direct ministerial control for professional standardsetting, it would represent a significant departure from established professional norms. It would risk weakening the professional status of teaching at a time when Aotearoa New Zealand urgently needs to attract, develop, and retain a highly skilled, enduring workforce capable of delivering quality education for Tamariki from early learning through to adulthood.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi Considerations

A Te Tiriti o Waitangi–led education system is essential to honouring the past, addressing ongoing inequities, and shaping a future in which Tamariki Māori can thrive as Māori. This requires more than policy statements; it requires enduring structures, relationships, and decision-making processes grounded in partnership, trust, and shared responsibility.

Independent professional bodies are better positioned to sustain long-term relationships with iwi, hapū, and Māori educators. Operating at arm’s length from government, they provide continuity across electoral cycles, and create space for genuine partnership, codesign, and the embedding of culturally grounded approaches to professional standards. These relationships are built over time through kanohi ki te kanohi engagement, reciprocity, and mutual accountability, not through short-term policy direction.

The Teaching Council has made important progress in embedding Mātauranga Māori, kaupapa Māori perspectives, and Te Tiriti commitments within professional standards and practice. These gains reflect years of relationship-building and trust. Centralising professional regulation within a government department risks disrupting this progress, by subjecting Tiriti-based commitments to changing political priorities and administrative imperatives.

Honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi requires education governance arrangements that are stable, principled, and future-focused. An enduring, independent professional body supports this by enabling the profession to carry Tiriti responsibilities forward consistently over time, strengthening cultural safety, professional confidence, and outcomes for Māori learners. Weakening that independence risks undermining both the intent and the integrity of a Te Tiriti–led education system.

Constructive Alternatives

The objectives of improving teacher quality, consistency, and public confidence can be achieved without transferring professional standard-setting functions from the Teaching Council to the Secretary for Education. More proportionate and effective alternatives include:

1. Strengthening the Teaching Council’s capability and resourcing – if there are genuine concerns about timeliness, consistency, or quality assurance, these should be addressed through targeted resourcing, capability development, and clear performance expectations, not by removing core functions.
2. Clarifying the problem before restructuring the system – any reform should begin with a clear, evidence-based articulation of the specific problems to be solved. This would allow solutions to be tailored and proportionate, rather than implementing broad structural change in the absence of a defined issue.
3. Formalising collaboration rather than transferring authority – the Minister and Ministry of Education could strengthen oversight and confidence through structured collaboration with the Teaching Council – for example, through formal consultation requirements, shared review processes, or observer participation, without compromising professional independence.
4. Commissioning an independent review of ITE and early-career support – if concerns relate to graduate preparedness or consistency across providers, an independent review involving the profession, providers, and employers would provide a more credible foundation for reform than unilateral structural change.
5. Strengthening induction and mentoring for beginning teachers – concerns about readiness to teach are more effectively addressed by investing in high-quality induction, mentoring, and support during provisional certification, rather than altering ITE standard-setting arrangements.
6. Developing a coherent Teacher Education Workforce Strategy – professional standards, teacher supply, induction, and retention should be addressed as an integrated system. A workforce strategy developed in partnership with the profession would better support long-term quality and sustainability than shifting regulatory functions.
7. Retaining independent professional regulation while improving accountability – independence and accountability are not mutually exclusive. Transparency, regular performance reporting, and periodic external review can strengthen public confidence without placing professional regulation under direct ministerial control.

These alternatives would preserve professional independence while addressing legitimate concerns and reducing the risk of unintended consequences for the teaching workforce and learners.

Conclusion

New Zealand Kindergartens strongly opposes the transfer of professional standard-setting and ethical functions from the Teaching Council to the Secretary for Education.

Independent professional regulation is essential to maintaining trust, quality, and the status of teaching in Aotearoa New Zealand. The proposed changes risk weakening, rather than strengthening, the education system and should be reconsidered.