Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill

on behalf of Jan Tinetti: I move, That the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I’m delighted to present this bill, with changes, for a second reading after the select committee process. I would like to thank the members of the Education and Workforce Committee for their consideration of this bill. This bill complements the wonderful work that this Government is doing, by prioritising the rebuilding of New Zealand’s education system after nine years of neglect under the last Government. The bill originally sought to amend the Education Act 1989 to enable statements about the diversity of education provision to be included in the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities. The amendments proposed in the bill aimed to align the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities more closely with the New Zealand Curriculum. The statement of National Education and Learning Priorities, or NELP, sets high-level priorities to guide planning for the early childhood and compulsory sectors.

The bill as introduced proposed substantial changes to section 1A of the Act through clause 4(2), (3), and (4). However, the member in charge of the bill wrote to the committee on 19 June 2018 asking to remove these provisions from the bill. Jan Tinetti said she felt that in light of feedback and plans the Government has signalled, any changes to the enduring objectives in section 1A ought to take into account findings from the Government’s Education Conversation | Kōrero Mātauranga.

This Education Conversation is part of this Government’s ambitious work programme for the education portfolio. An enduring, long-term vision for education in Aotearoa New Zealand is at the core of the work programme and will feed into all parts of the work to meet the needs of all learners, no matter who they are or where they come from. The work programme is made up of big reviews of parts of the system, medium-term strategies to map out priorities and actions over the next three or more years, and some key initiatives for things to get under way now.

I’ve spoken to people who have been involved in this conversation, and they are grateful for the opportunity for input—exactly what this bill now does through identifying groups who must be consulted on. It’s important that people have the opportunity to have their say and contribute to the plans that we have going forward in the educational space. I think a really good sign of leadership from our Minister of Education is not telling people what to do, but actually taking people along with him, allowing them to contribute, and having them buy into the priorities going forward.

Jan Tinetti’s letter to the Education and Workforce Committee also requested the removal of clause 4(7), which would have made the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities a disallowable instrument. With such an ambitious and forward-thinking work plan in education, and after listening to submitters, the committee recommended by majority to accept both of Jan Tinetti’s proposals and has removed the relevant subclauses.

Consultation on the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities with the relevant stakeholders is really important. Currently, legislation states that the Minister must, at a minimum, consult with stakeholders in the early childhood and compulsory education sectors. The changes in this bill will ensure that the Minister will consult widely on the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities and identify a wide range of groups the Minister must consult with.

Clause 4(5), inserting new section 1A(4A), sets out the stakeholders the Minister must make reasonable efforts to consult. The select committee recommended by majority a number of changes to the list to include young people and to replace references to “national representative organisations” with “national bodies representing the interests of” specified stakeholders. We recommended by majority inserting subsection (4A)(g) to (i), so that consultation would include national bodies representing the disability community, support staff in schools and early childhood services, Māori education organisations, Pacific education organisations, proprietors of State integrated schools, and national bodies with a particular role regarding the character of designated character schools.

During submissions, the select committee heard from a number of organisations who agreed with the changes to widely consult, as outlined in this bill. Submitters welcomed the direction of consulting with young people in this process, and there was general agreement that it was heartening to see children and young people as the first group the Minister must consult with in the development of the NELP. The Children’s Commissioner, Judge Andrew Becroft, stated that there has been a previous reluctance to hear from children and that future and similar provisions should become the norm. He stated that “Hearing from, and incorporating the views of, children and young people deliver better and more robust decisions … We support the intention to create a more equitable system, that supports children to develop to their full potential,” and that ensures children and young people deliver better and more robust decisions. Other submitters endorsed these sentiments, stating that the voices of young people are essential when developing the law.

As a teacher, I have long known the power of involving children in their learning pathway by having a voice in their own learning. When children have a voice and a choice in their learning, they engage more and learning outcomes are met. In issuing the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities, the select committee recommended by majority inserting clause 4(1AAA) to make it clear in new section 1A(1) that the notice published in the Gazette may either contain the statement in full, or describe the statement in general terms and indicate where the full text can be obtained.

For the commencement in clause 2, the select committee recommended by majority changing the bill’s commencement date. As introduced, the bill would come into force—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member, but it has come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

As I was saying just before the dinner break, talking about the commencement date in clause 2, the select committee recommended by majority changing the bill’s commencement date. As introduced, the bill would come into force three months after it receives the Royal assent. However, they recommended by majority that it come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.

With such in-depth consideration of the bill by the select committee, it is disappointing to see that the Opposition members do not support it. Contrary to their view, this bill has more than minor changes, as evidenced by the enthusiasm of the majority of submitters. This bill recognises the importance of giving a voice to children and young people and agencies in the process of developing the important National Education and Learning Priorities.

I am proud of this bill, and I applaud the member Jan Tinetti for using her vast experience in education to work on strengthening this important area of legislation. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Can I just take a moment today, of all days, to acknowledge several previous Ministers of Education, particularly as it’s the 125th anniversary of women getting the vote. I want to acknowledge that we heard from Anne Tolley earlier today, the first female Minister of Education, and I also acknowledge the Hon Hekia Parata—two outstanding women.

But while I also stand here, I see that Minister Chris Hipkins and his partner, Jade, have given birth to a beautiful baby girl, Isabel. Can I just take a moment in this House to say what brilliant and beautiful timing. I wish her all of the best, and also to Chris and Jade at this incredibly special time. So can I just acknowledge that in the House this evening.

I’ve got several points that I would like to make around this piece of legislation. My first point, which we said at the outset, is that of course we believe in having a strong, united vision for education in New Zealand. I have reached out, as have my colleagues, around our education system to say “If at all possible, can we work together with Government MPs to have as much cross-party agreement as possible?”, because when I get out there in New Zealand, the number of educators and parents who say to me that it is too important in many areas to be a political football. We have seen the swing back between particular administrations around our education system. That is why I have reached out in the area, for instance, of NCEA.

Also, I am deeply hopeful—and I really speak to the Labour and Green and New Zealand First members at this juncture—around that second languages bill that I have had drawn out of the ballot, because I think there’s a huge opportunity to have cross-party agreement—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! We can come back to the second reading now.

Yes, and I will come back to the second reading of Jan Tinetti’s bill, but my point is that no more important part of our law around education could be the National Education and Learning Priorities, or NELPs. So when we saw this piece of legislation, the natural instinct was to say “Can we possibly agree on this?”, but the reason that we have been concerned is that we do think that to be in this House and to be debating that statement, the first thing that you’ve got to do is get your timing right, Madam Assistant Speaker—and I do not mean you in particular; you’ve got excellent timing, but that we get the timing right. We do not think—and, actually, there are some Ministers who agreed with us when we went through this legislative process—that this is the right time to be amending the NELPs, when we have 16 reviews under way in education.

I want to give some really classic examples of that. We are going through a number of reviews, and there are a number of people—without dropping some people in it—who have said to me that they don’t understand how Tomorrow’s Schools fits with the education conversations, or how that fits with the NCEA review, and that is incredibly important when people look at the backdrop of National’s position on this piece of legislation. Our point is that when the Minister and the Government are spending millions and millions of dollars on 16-odd reviews and they haven’t been worked out, how could this Parliament possibly think that now is the time to amend that national education vision statement? It puts the cart before the horse. Submitters made that point, and we think the timing is terrible, at a juncture when National and Labour and the Greens are trying to come together to have some discussions about our education system and where we can agree. So that is the first point: we do not agree with the timing, and we share the concerns of the submitters throughout this process.

The reason we know that Government members agree with us on this issue—the reason that we know this—is that during the consideration of this bill, a very unusual thing occurred. Basically, it was gutted. So the member herself—and I do want to acknowledge Jan Tinetti; she’s a new member of Parliament, and this is more just about acknowledging as a Parliament that this was a very unusual thing to occur—withdrew a lot of the bill, from our perspective.

So, instead of saying “Look, it’s terrible timing and we want to come together and it sort of isn’t really that good faith in terms of the sector but also the Opposition.”, we then have the situation that the bill was gutted and, really, became a set of minor amendments. Previously in this House, I have walked the House through the types of amendments in terms of minor wording changes that have occurred. Now, we have this situation that not only do we think the timing is bad but the substantive content of the bill was gutted by the member, and then also, in our view, it is a little bit of a waste of the Parliament’s time to be making these amendments. As I say, that was acknowledged by many submitters, and it is, as I said before, contrary to the 16-odd reviews that are under way.

I want to spend the remainder of my speech, though, talking about—given that the substantive nature of this bill is around our vision for education, what I can tell you is that I have visited hundreds of schools in my time in this Parliament. I have met with incredible principals and teachers and I have sat down and had a drink with members of Parliament on different sides of this House, and I can say to you that the good news is that there are some very common themes that occur in terms of our education system. So when we get down to business, in my view—hopefully—through the Minister engaging in a meaningful way through the education conversation dialogues or the other reviews that are occurring with the Opposition, then I think there are some common themes that are going to come up. There is reform that needs to happen in terms of our learning support system. There are parents out there who need greater support. They need greater wraparound support.

There is a need—and that’s why I was so gutted with the communities of online learning being, effectively, scrapped through legislation before this House—to continually update our education system around the disruption of technology, and we are very focused on that. In fact, in my short time as Minister of Education, I did put through changes around the digital technologies curriculum. That is an area where there can be cross-party agreement.

There can be cross-party agreement in languages. When you look at the different positions of different political parties—and it does come back, Madam Assistant Speaker, to the content of this bill, because it is around the vision of our education system—there is cross-party agreement. We all want to strengthen Te Reo, but we all don’t want to deny people access to their heritage languages. So, again, that’s another area where there’s cross-party agreement.

Actually, while we did not agree with the process around scrapping national standards, I was the Minister who put the Cabinet paper through and who said, “Let’s move to a system of progress.” But where we differ is around that accountability and ensuring that we have that nationwide benchmark of achievement.

There is agreement around the fact that we have major issues in terms of teacher shortages and that we need to do more to incentivise people to come into teaching. That is a conversation. It is a conversation about class sizes. It is a conversation about workload. It is a conversation about pay, and can I acknowledge all of those people who have been involved in the collective bargaining and negotiations around our workforce.

There is, in my view, the possibility for huge agreement, but the problem with this legislation is that it goes ahead of those processes. It says, “We know better than the Opposition. We are not prepared to engage in good faith. We’re going to put forward a piece of legislation that initially would substantially change, really, the vision and priorities of our education system.” That’s what the Government member decided to do, with the support of Chris Hipkins, and, unfortunately, we thought that was the process we were then going into, and then the bill was gutted in the select committee.

From our perspective, what is needed more than anything is not this bill—because it is a little bit of a waste of Parliament’s time and it has disrupted our equilibrium in terms of relationships, because it put the cart before the horse—but actually to sit down, to talk through those issues, to acknowledge that there is agreement in a number of areas, and to stop the continuous conversations. Yes, we want to have the conversations. Yes, there is a role for the reviews. Yes, there is a role for a conversation about our national vision and learning and priorities. But in terms of this bill, this has got ahead of those conversations, and it has disrupted the good faith of this Parliament on such an important issue as the future of our education system, and that is why National opposes this bill.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is wonderful to get a call today, of all days, and it is a wonderful day to be a member of Parliament in Aotearoa New Zealand. We stand on the shoulders of giants, and earlier on we’ve had many, many events where we’ve actually thanked people like Kate Sheppard and others, who, 125 years ago, made sure that women in this country can vote and that we, as MPs, can be in this House.

The Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill is a really important one. The reason why we need this legislation is because NELPs, which is the short term for National Education and Learning Priorities, is not at the moment closely aligned with the New Zealand Curriculum. This particular legislation is going to rectify that. It is going to ensure that our curriculum, the New Zealand Curriculum, is something that is informed.

In response to the Hon Nikki Kaye when she said that we should not do this, and that the timing is not right, I disagree. The timing is absolutely right. We are looking at the education system in total. One of the things that has come back from the Education and Workforce Committee is the fact that we should ensure that Kōrero Mātauranga | Education Conversations—which was launched by the Minister of Education, the Hon Chris Hipkins, earlier on in May of this year, with a summit in Christchurch and then another one in Auckland—informs this work. We know that, to date, over 15,000 people have filled out the online version from the Ministry of Education, so these are a lot of voices, and that is one of the main things that this legislation will do.

It will ensure that our students, our learners, are put back in the centre. One of the things that we’ve done is not only just hold those two summits, but when I looked at the numbers, there were not enough voices from Pacific communities from the online surveys and from the folks that attended those two summits. What I did was I went out to get those voices, because when we look at the current population of schoolchildren today, 10 percent are Pacific, but we know that in the next 20 to 30 years, that number is going to double—so it’s going to be 20 percent. So the voices of our students are absolutely important.

I’d also like to acknowledge the author of this legislation, Jan Tinetti, who is sponsoring this bill—a person who has a lot of expertise in education and learning, someone who has taught in schools for many, many years, and for many of those years she was also a principal. We on this side of the House are really fortunate to have her as one of our members.

In developing this bill, Jan Tinetti has made sure that there are significant contributions to ensuring that our Government’s renewal of learning and education in Aotearoa New Zealand is absolutely addressed. If I can just go back to the reason why it is absolutely important to have the voices of our students, the learners, right in the centre, I would like to quote from one of the over 2,000 people that I connected with when I hosted conversations right across Aotearoa in the last couple of months. This is from a student—and I quote—“You can see in the best school, but if your cultural background, values, and family are not able to be identified, then that will impact on your learning. This leads to pressure to be part of a different, Pākehā identity in order to be able to feel like you’re part of the school community. It’s better to be part of the walls, because you don’t feel safe enough to make mistakes and to be who you are. You just focus on moulding yourself to become part of the norm.”

I cannot tell you just how many of these kinds of voices we heard as we went around. I began in South Auckland. I went to west Auckland, Hamilton, Porirua, Lower Hutt, Ōāmaru, and Dunedin, where we had students, young people, who told us things along these lines. If I can reword one of the conversations that a young 15-year-old who came and attended said, she said things along these lines: “When I attend school, my vision of a better education school system of the future is one where I, as a person, am valued and my culture and identity is valued, not just within the one week where we mark the language of the culture I bring to the school, I want to be valued as a student and as a person every single day that I attend school, in my culture, in my language, and in my identity.”

These kinds of voices from our students are why it’s important to have legislation like this—to ensure that our students, our learners, are at the centre. We know that quality teaching and learning and effective connections with Pacific parents and families and communities have the strongest impact on improving the educational outcomes of our students.

I would like now to refer to one of the quotes from our parents when we were connecting, asking them what would the education system of the future look like to them and what do they value. This was from a parent—and I quote—“We understand health, well-being, and safety from a Pacific point of view. However, the education system does not. It starts with the family—that is the core of everything. It doesn’t just start when the child turns up at school.”

In response to the Hon Nikki Kaye when she was saying that language, culture, and identity is important, I absolutely agree. It is absolutely important for so many of our students, not just Pacific students. In wearing my ministerial hat as the Minister for Ethnic Communities, I am now having conversations with ethnic community parents, with students, with community leaders, and with educators, and I’m hearing similar feedback from our ethnic communities. They would like their language to be in the schools. They would like their culture to be valued in the school.

One of the things that was unfortunate for me as I was convening some of these conversations was that I saw—I couldn’t describe it in any way other than racial bias in one of these groups. One of the parents that was there was telling us her experience while at school. This is a person who was born and raised in New Zealand. She doesn’t speak her own language—her mother tongue—but she said, that aside, she still wanted to be valued in that culture. However, what I saw in this little group discussion was a person from the mainstream culture trying to shut this parent down and to say, “Your opinion, your culture, and your language is not important enough in Aotearoa New Zealand. Get with the programme. Learn English. That is the most important language.” I’m sad to say that that particular contribution was from a teacher.

So there is a lot that we need to do to ensure that our students, our parents, and our teachers when they are in our schools are in a safe place. This is from one of our students—and I quote—“Stop institutional racism and bias. We as Pacific are successful. Value us and our children.” Ensuring that this legislation, the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill, goes forward is really important, because we must absolutely put our students and our learners right at the centre.

One of the things that this bill will do is—right now, the Minister of Education could consult with a couple of teachers and a family or two. That would be sufficient under the current law. But we say that that is not good enough. It is not good enough to only consult with a few people; we must consult much wider. So this legislation will ensure that we reach out to teachers, to principals, to schools, to Māori organisations, to Pacific organisations—education—to proprietors of State integrated schools. This legislation will ensure, as I say—which is my main point—that our students, our children, our learners are right at the centre.

I too would like to acknowledge our Minister of Education, the Hon Chris Hipkins, and his partner, Jade, for the new addition to their family, Isabel Eva, today of all days, as we celebrate 125 years of suffrage. Thank you very much for this time.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for this opportunity to take this call in the second reading of the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill. This bill, as we know, is in the name of Jan Tinetti. This bill has been through the select committee process. The Education and Workforce Committee received around 20 submissions on this bill.

The purpose of this bill when it came before the select committee was to enable statements about the diversity of education provision to be included in the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities. It also stated that this will help align the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities more closely with the New Zealand Curriculum and provide an aspirational vision for the future of young New Zealanders. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Education Act 1989.

The details of this bill changed substantially between the time it came to the select committee and now, when we are debating the second reading of this bill. This is not because of what submitters said. Yes, submitters definitely said that this was getting ahead of what is happening in the background in the education sector. So many reviews are happening, and some submitters definitely said that this bill should be delayed. But it was not because of what the submitters said; it was because the member in charge of this bill decided to withdraw several subclauses in clause 4.

To start with, this was a typical member’s bill, a very small bill with the whole substance being in just one clause—that is, clause 4—but now, what we have is that clause 4 has also shrunk. There were seven subclauses in clause 4, and the member in charge has decided to withdraw four subclauses out of clause 4 in her member’s bill. When we started with this bill—at that point we felt this was just a ballot-filler bill, because there was not anything that we thought was significant in this bill. Now, it’s become even smaller.

I also want to highlight that the Education and Workforce Committee, that I chair, is a very busy select committee. We are sitting on Wednesdays from 9 or quarter past 9 until half past 12 or 1—sometimes even after 1. We have been meeting in recess weeks. Some days, we have been meeting after question time, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., so it’s a very busy select committee. I feel that this bill was not fair for the time that the select committee spent on this bill. I’m saying this because after we closed submissions, and after we heard from all submitters, the member wrote a letter to the select committee asking to withdraw these four subclauses from clause 4. So that wasted the time of all the submitters. That wasted the time of the select committee, because we had to take into consideration all the submissions that we received on all subclauses of clause 4.

Now, going forward—as I said, to start with, we felt that this was a ballot-filler bill, with due respect to Jan Tinetti—I think that this is just going to waste our House’s time, going through the second reading, going through the committee of the whole House, and then going through the third reading. I believe that the member should have actually withdrawn the whole bill.

When the Associate Minister of Education the Hon Jenny Salesa was speaking, she said that this is an important bill, but I can’t see what reason she gave in her contribution to emphasise the importance of this bill. She also disputed the timing that we are saying is not right for this bill, and that is exactly the reason that was actually given by the member when she wrote to the select committee to withdraw some of the subclauses. She said, yes, because there are so many reviews happening—so that’s why she wants to withdraw those subclauses—which the Hon Jenny Salesa actually disputed, and I don’t understand why she disputed that.

She also spoke about summits in Auckland and Christchurch, and she said, “Yeah, we are getting really good feedback from young people and Pacific communities and other communities.” when they’re talking to young people and families and schools. But this bill is not informed by those summits that happened in Auckland and Christchurch, because we know that this bill was in the ballot before these summits. This bill was drawn before these summits, and the select committee has been dealing with this bill for a while now.

I also want to highlight that other things that are withdrawn from the bill are withdrawn because the member thinks that the timing is not right. So I’m thinking, now, what is left in this bill—why this component of this bill cannot wait until the whole review process and the process that the member is waiting for, and getting that signal from the Minister can wait. So I think that the whole bill could have waited. The member should have withdrawn the whole bill to save the time of the House.

Just to go into a bit more detail, the subclauses that are withdrawn are in clause 4—these are subclauses (2), (3), (4), and (7). So that means we are left, in clause 4, with subclauses (1), (5), and (6). Subclause (5) adds a new subsection, new section 1A(4A), into the principal Act. This is to set out the stakeholders the Minister must make a reasonable effort to consult with. Consultation is already there for the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities. So the whole clause is redundant because consultation is already there—the consultation requirement is already there in the Act. I do not understand what the member wants to achieve by keeping that in there.

Yes, she wants to create a list—she wants to add stakeholders that the Minister must consult. I believe that that is getting a bit too prescriptive, because when we get so prescriptive, we have to make sure that we are covering all areas. But education, in my view, is a sector that is evolving really fast. Actually, it should evolve fast because of the technological advancement. With technological advancement, in my view, the education sector should be an early adopter of technology. With that, of course, the stakeholders will change too. So does this mean that we will have to keep adding to the list of stakeholders which are going to be in this legislation? That is going to create more work for the future, and I believe that it should not be that prescriptive.

Yes, on one side we are saying that the Minister should make a reasonable effort; on the other side we want to actually prescribe the list. I do not understand what the intention is behind prescribing this list.

As I said, this bill has already taken reasonable time of the select committee. I believe that the member should reconsider proceeding with the bill and actually should really consider withdrawing the whole bill and saving the time of this House.

Another clause in this bill—just to highlight what’s left in this bill—is about the commencement date. This is really interesting, because when the bill came to us in the select committee, clause 2 said that the commencement date is “3 months after the date on which it receives the Royal Assent.” Now, after it has come back from the select committee for this second reading, the recommendation from the select committee—that is, by the majority, because Government members hold the majority on the select committee—

💬 Hon Member: Yeah!

So the recommendation is—yeah, a very interesting recommendation. This shows the level of intelligence. So this was to come into force three months after the Royal assent is received. The recommendation by majority is that it should come into effect as soon as the law is passed, through this bill. I’m just trying to understand what we are trying to pass through this bill, because there is nothing left in this bill after the member in charge has decided to withdraw most of the subclauses which were going to make significant changes in section 1A of the Education Act.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Great bill.

Clearly it shows—yeah, I can see that they are quite embarrassed and they’re trying to cover up their embarrassment through their laughter. That’s OK. I understand—yeah, you’re really embarrassed.

To add to their embarrassment, I want to say that they should look at the Order Paper, because this is just a time-filler bill blocking some sensible bills coming up for debate in the House because those bills are from National members, and you can see how substantial those bills are. They are meaningful bills—bills that, actually, people care about—and those are the kinds of bills we want to spend time debating in the House. So yes, I can see that members are really embarrassed, but with due respect, as I said before to Jan Tinetti, she should really consider—seriously consider—withdrawing the whole bill. For these reasons, we oppose this bill. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure for me to take this call on the second reading of the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill. And this is the face of an embarrassed MP—yes!

First of all, I’d like to congratulate my colleague Jan Tinetti for having her bill drawn and bringing this legislation to the House. I’d also like to echo the sentiments from our previous speaker, the Hon Jenny Salesa, with regards to Jan’s longstanding and staunch advocacy in the area of education. It seems very fitting on Suffrage Day that I take a moment to actually say thank you to my friend Jan Tinetti, who I only first met when I became an MP myself, and we had the sheer luck of having offices next to each other. I’ve learnt a tremendous amount of education-related information from Jan, so I’d like to say thanks to her.

It seems very clear—the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, Parmjeet Parmar, keeps telling us that she’s trying to understand. Well, she’s the chair, so one would actually think she might understand, but I’ll explain. We heard from quite a few speakers previously, and the Hon Nikki Kaye also mentioned it, that the member in charge of the bill, Jan Tinetti, considered the Government’s very ambitious and forward-thinking plan—a bit different from just reviews—in education. She heard the feedback from the submitters, and then she wrote to our select committee on 19 June and she asked if it would be prudent, maybe, to remove some of those—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Do not have conversations across the House while someone is making a speech.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Yeah.

—perhaps some of these proposed substantial provisions are removed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): That includes you, Mr McAnulty—it definitely includes you. Thank you. Can we just settle, please? Thank you.

My turn?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Marja Lubeck.

So she wrote to the committee. The committee considered it. Jan Tinetti didn’t tell us to remove it. The committee considered the merits of her request, and we considered it was a very reasonable request. So yes, I agree, this bill changed significantly from when it first came to the House and when we had our first reading speeches. But one can’t say that this bill is completely gutted, like the Hon Nikki Kaye said, and it’s not been a waste of time, like the chair of our committee has said. That is because what the other side of the House is missing is that there is a crucial component of this bill that is preserved, and that is the wide consultation requirements. These are not just a list of some extra people that the Minister has to talk to; this is a very significant and important part of this bill. So I’d like to go back to the beginning and talk about what this bill does, perhaps to aid the understanding of the other side of the House.

This bill amends the Education Act 1989, and it requires the Minister of Education to consult very widely on the statement of the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPS)—and, for obvious reasons, I will refer to that from now on as the NELPs. Currently, what the Minister does is he or she consults with a couple of teachers that they like, or maybe some of the family, and under the current law as it is, that would be completely sufficient as consultation. Now, we don’t believe that is good enough. It is really important that children get a say on the education that they receive, and this bill will do that with some really explicit requirements that children and young people are consulted in forming the statement of the NELPs. So, in line with many of the other investments that this Government is making in education, this bill puts children back at the centre of learning, and it involves them in the process of creating any changes to the statement on the NELPs.

So what will wide consultation on the NELPs do? Well, it will actually give an opportunity for children, young people, parents, whānau, and employers to express their views on priorities for education. Existing requirements when developing the NELPs, as they are now, mean that the Minister must consult with those in early childhood education and the education sector that he or she thinks should be consulted. What this bill does is it amends section 1A, in clause 4, and it sets out a much wider range of stakeholders for consultation.

Now, it’s important to note also that this bill, as it originally came to us, only included six stakeholders. I think it was paragraphs (a) to (g) in subsection (4A)—is that six? Was it paragraphs (a) to (f)? Anyway, it had six stakeholder groups to consult with. But we listened to the select committee submissions, and their feedback really was very clear that we needed to expand on that list. So, as a result, for those of you that have the bill in front of you, you can see that subsection (4A) of section 1A in the amended clause 4 includes “(a) children and young people;” right at the top, but it also has another 11 named national bodies.

This is another thing that I would like to clarify that perhaps may help our chair. She said that she thought that the wording was too prescriptive. Well, in fact, we had the officials tell us that the original wording needed to change so as to not be too prescriptive. So the wording “representative organisations” was changed to “bodies representing the interests”. I guess that point was missed.

The bill as it was originally drafted has been amended by majority and it has reflected that feedback that we received during the submissions.

It has been mentioned already that we received 20 submissions in total on the original bill. This is the thing: yes, we have an incredibly busy and hard-working Education and Workforce Committee, but it is not much of a big deal to hear some of those—not all of the 20 wanted to be heard—submissions during gaps that we had while we heard other submitters on other bills. What it did mean is that I had to have a very clear head on which education bill it was—whether it was the Education Amendment Bill, the Education Amendment Bill (No 2), the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill, or the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill—but that is actually a very efficient way for us, as a select committee, to do our business.

So it’s also important to point out that of the 20 submitters, 17 supported the intent and direction. Some of the submitters did ask us for further changes, and I guess the changes reflect that feedback.

I’d like to make some comments on some of the submitters. We had the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, who expressed his strong support for the requirement to consult with children. So, once again, this is a change that the Opposition says hasn’t really got any effect. Judge Andrew Becroft, the Children’s Commissioner, told the select committee that everything in the amendment bill is consistent with what we have seen come out of the consultation document. On the consultation of children, he stated that this bill is much more holistic and—I quote—“in fact, it’s bang on.”

The Office of the Children’s Commissioner provided us with some verbatim feedback from their engagement with children and young people on the NELPs. It actually shows how important it is to get the children’s voices heard. We want to make sure that they reach their full potential, and we need to consider that achievement means different things to different people. So when the Children’s Commissioner asked children what achievement means to them, they had comments like “It means gaining knowledge about myself, others, and the world around me.” This was from a 13-year-old student. Another student said, “Knowing that you’re more than capable to achieve the highest of your abilities.” Another student, who was 14 years old, described achievement as “Working to the best of my ability and also being confident about whether my life is going the right way.” Now, the comments show that children have a range of views on what achievement means to them, and the objectives in the system should be to provide learning experiences that support children and young people with the opportunity to reach their potential.

We had other submitters who pointed out how important it is to get more stakeholders heard in the consultation process. The IHC commented that they “strongly support the proposed [change] … to include a list of who must be consulted by the Minister”. They quoted New Zealand’s obligations under article 4 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and, as a result of hearing them, we did include an extra stakeholder, being “national bodies representing the interests of the disability community;”.

The National Council of Women of New Zealand, Te Kaunihera Wahine o Aotearoa, submitted that they support ensuring that consultation is full and authentic—so, once again, complete agreement and support.

So I am really confused, you know the National Party says there’s nothing controversial about this bill—it’s really nothing controversial—but it says, “Let’s vote against it.” To me, it’s like everything else that they do: they vote against something because they just don’t want to support the good work that this Government is doing. It is sad, because it’s the children who will benefit from this legislation. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Kia orana, Madam Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It’s always intriguing when a speaker manages to confuse herself in a debate, and I trust she will therefore not be at all surprised that she certainly confused the rest of us.

I hope you’ll indulge me for just a moment. As others have done, I would like to say what a significant—indeed, momentous—day it has been for our nation, and how proud I was to be able to attend the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians’ celebration of the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage in New Zealand with so many MPs this morning. We had those wonderful speeches from Dame Ann Hercus and Dame Jenny Shipley. I’m so thrilled to see all of the female MPs in the House tonight wearing the beautiful camellia brooches that were produced by my very dear friend Robyn Watchorn of Whakatāne. I’ve known Robyn for many years. She’s a very talented artist, and I’m so thrilled that she was able to commemorate this very momentous occasion in our history in such a lovely way. Madam Assistant Speaker, as I say, a great day for the whole country, and now, of course, I need to turn my attention to the bill, which I’m sure you were about to require me to do.

So I would like to start with a positive, and that is that on members’ days, I think it’s always nice to acknowledge those members who have not only been fortunate to have had a bill drawn but, in this case, Jan Tinetti has seen her bill passed at first reading, considered by the select committee, and reported back to the House. So it would seem pretty much inevitable that this bill will pass through to its conclusion, and I congratulate her for that. But, even though it is her big moment, this is not a big bill. In fact, on such an important, significant day for the country, it’s hard to imagine anything more trivial than this bill coming before the House.

This time last year, I was following in the footsteps of the Hon Anne Tolley and the Hon Hekia Parata when I had the privilege of being the Associate Minister to the Hon Nikki Kaye, and what a great portfolio education is. What a huge challenge it is, and there are some very significant issues facing all sectors of education in this country. I would welcome a debate in this House on any of those challenges and would look to work as constructively as I could to try to ensure that we find ways of recruiting more teachers, find ways of improving their pay and conditions, and find ways of dealing with the very real challenges that so many tell me about in my electorate, of children with special needs and behavioural difficulties who are a real demand upon the time and the energy of those wonderful teachers, who give so much to those children. This bill deals with none of those things.

Perhaps, as I’ve mentioned other Ministers, could I too add my congratulations to the Hon Chris Hipkins and his partner, Jade, on the birth of their daughter—I think I heard her name is Isabel. What a lovely thing that is. Coincidentally, today I’ve had the great pleasure of welcoming a great-niece into the world. Dara Grace Macindoe was born just a few hours before Isabel, and isn’t it wonderful that two fine young ladies have been born on the day that we celebrate the 125th anniversary of our country’s suffrage? How sensible of them both to choose to be females on this particular day, and I do congratulate their parents. I know that at least one set of grandparents and a very proud great-grandmother are watching right at this moment, and they’ll be delighted to hear that Dara is being mentioned.

Again, we talk about an education system that our young children are going to grow up in, and we would hope that this bill would add something to that education, but it won’t. We’ve heard that the Education and Workforce Committee has considered this bill, and they heard from many submitters who said that it’s totally unnecessary. It’s not a bill that matches the excitement and significance of this special day in our history, and yet I note that at the time that it passed its first reading in February, the member in charge of the bill, Jan Tinetti, said, “the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill [which has] passed its first reading in Parliament on Thursday … would start to return mana to the teaching profession.” Well, it won’t make the slightest difference to the mana of the teaching profession. I am absolutely confident that the teachers in my electorate up in Hamilton will have no idea that the House is considering this bill and certainly won’t notice when it’s passed. It will not make the slightest difference to the job they do or to the education they provide to their tamariki, to all of our children.

Theirs is a calling, and I’m sure that we can all remember teachers who made a lasting impression on us for the good, and I thank those who influenced me. [Interruption] I was a teacher—I doubt whether I made a lasting, or at least positive, impression on anyone, Mr Penk, but thank you. I hope that in a small way I encouraged a few people to value their education, and I do thank—in all seriousness—the teachers around the country. I have to say that I thought, for most of her contribution, Marja Lubeck was making a valiant effort to suggest that this bill has some substance and purpose, and I commend her for managing to get through her 10 minutes, but I have to say to her that this is a stocking filler, and I’m sure we’ve all been with children who get incredibly excited on Christmas morning when they see all the presents that are wrapped and maybe pull them out of the stocking. They are so excited, and then we’ll all have seen the odd occasion when they unwrap the wrapping and then the present is of chronic disappointment.

💬 Chris Penk: “This is a pair of socks!”

One of Mr Penk’s pairs of socks, as he has mentioned. Well, Mr Penk, I don’t even think that this is a pair of socks, because at least they would serve a purpose. This—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Let’s come back to the bill.

I thought I was talking about the bill, Madam Assistant Speaker. This bill was introduced when the new Government was desperately scrambling to find legislation, and, in fact, you’ll recall that last year they were desperately filibustering on bills that they’d inherited from the previous Government, and now suddenly this came out and we find that they’re filibustering on a measure such as this. Labour, when they were in Opposition, used to rail against stocking fillers of this nature on members’ days, so what a shame when, as Dr Parmar mentioned a few minutes ago, we have some really significant members’ bills in the names of National members in the ballot waiting to be considered that we can’t be getting on and looking at those measures, which will make a real difference to New Zealand.

Purportedly, this bill amends the Education Act of 1989, supposedly to align the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs) more closely with the national curriculum. But there was no need to add any additional statements to the NELPs. This bill also enshrines union consultation in those mission statements and any changes made to them. Well, that’s not necessary, because that consultation is already required under existing legislation as well. So this really is utterly redundant.

The bill is poorly timed because, as we know, the Government has reviews for Africa under way at the moment, including several that may result in some quite significant recommendations to affect the conversation around education, but this bill is not one of those. In fact, as has been pointed out, Jan Tinetti got the bill so wrong that she had to write to the Education and Workforce Committee to request that they remove clauses 4(2), (3), (4), and (7). That’s extraordinary. I’ve been here for nearly 10 years, and I don’t remember that happening before, and it was because she didn’t want to get ahead of one of those many reviews and the working groups. As a result, not only was the bill of very little consequence; its timing couldn’t have been worse.

I do want to pick up on a couple of other comments that the chair of the committee made just a few moments ago, in closing. The National Education and Learning Priorities were originally designed to ensure that members of Parliament, officials, and others in the education sector share a common understanding of the objectives of education in New Zealand. The few changes proposed have been weakened throughout the select committee process, to the point that they will no longer have any perceptible impact on education in New Zealand. For instance, replacing “good” with “positive”, and adding “to become lifelong learners” will have absolutely no effect, while removing “educational achievement is a core objective” will only diminish the value of the NELPs.

The bill replaces a number of sentences with words that are of almost exactly the same meaning, or it simply reverses the order of some words in phrases and clauses. For example, it replaces this point: “The inclusion within society of different groups and persons with different personal characteristics” with this: “To instil an appreciation of the importance of an inclusive society where all people are valued and are supported to participate in ways that honour and value diversity:”.

💬 Chris Penk: It’s the same.

Well, it is the same, Mr Penk. You are quite right. There is no substance to these changes.

If members of this Labour-led Government think that this is a bill that is restoring mana to the teaching profession, then I have to say they have very low standards and expectations. As I’ve said, I’ll be astonished if a single teacher, not only in my electorate but around the country, even notices that this is happening. They will not mention it to us. They’re certainly not going to be grateful to us, and yet they would love us to be focusing on those challenges that are really important to them. So I hope that subsequent bills, if we have to deal with other bills from the other side, will at least deal with—

💬 Dan Bidois: Lost opportunity.

—some important things, not the wasted opportunity, as Mr Bidois has said.

So may I close by again wishing everybody a very happy Suffrage Day. Again, my congratulations and warm welcome to the world to Isabel Hipkins—if that’s her surname—and to Dara Grace Macindoe. I’m thrilled to be able to acknowledge their arrival and this very important day.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I also would like to follow on from my colleagues in acknowledging this special day, that being 125 years of women’s suffrage. I myself am wearing this white camellia, which was gifted to all female MPs currently in this Parliament. I’m No. 146, for the record, as others have been citing their numbers. I want to use this opportunity that the conversation around suffrage opens up for us to reflect on the past 125 years with regard to democracy and representation and agency, which are really the core things at the heart of this piece of legislation, this member’s bill proposed by the incredible Jan Tinetti, who I’m privileged, I feel, to call a colleague, given that she has very deep and very long personal experience in the education sector. I would note that with a number of stakeholders that I’ve been engaged with over the past year in my time as education spokesperson for the Greens, she has been cited as somebody with incredible mana in this space, someone who is incredibly well respected for her track record and for her advocacy.

So as we reflect on the past 125 years, I think it’s important also to figure out how we design our future intentionally, and what that to me looks like not is not just kind of wading along and perhaps continuing to unconsciously perpetuate the issues and the flaws that we’ve seen in systems past. What this piece of legislation does is put stakeholders and education at the heart of decisions around the National Education and Learning Priorities. The way that it does that, in particular, which I’ll get to later as I run through the process that we went through in the select committee—the select committee process, I’ll note, was a whole bunch of fun in the Education and Workforce Committee, as it always is. I love our select committee and our polarised, intensive discussions.

Reading through the departmental report—which, of course, we went through line by line with officials throughout that process—I’d note that 17 submissions were in support. One was unclear but suggested changes to the system regarding learning support, which, notably, we did indeed pick up in the majority report. One submission didn’t quite appear to address the issues in the bill, but there was only one submission that was opposed.

One of the notable submissions was, of course, that of the Children’s Commissioner, Judge Andrew Becroft. In response to, actually, a number of the points raised by the Opposition with regard to their fears or concerns that this may be superseded by the conversation and the reviews that we’re having in the education space, Judge Andrew Becroft said that he believes that the scope of this bill was wide enough to accommodate any changes post those education conversations or reviews. Indeed, officials, in the departmental report, did not recommend delay, because changes could be incorporated subsequent to those reviews and the education conversations report back.

So to speak to some of the debate points as raised—particularly by members of the Opposition, including the select committee chair, Parmjeet Parmar—noting that this was a waste of time both for the select committee and indeed for the House this evening, I’d just say that, actually, this is about the democratic process. The whole point of this going before the select committee and us hearing from submitters was to engage in the broader conversation about who indeed should be involved as stakeholders in ongoing development and evolution of the education system. So too, Ms Parmar said, the sector is evolving really fast. To that point I would simply state that, surely, it then makes the most sense to be actually engaging with people who are at the coalface, who are—to borrow a term from the vernacular of the Opposition—the consumers of this good or service that is education.

So then to speak to the points raised by Tim Macindoe, who stated that “This is not a big bill. It’s trivial.” and that indeed it was hard to imagine anything more trivial because it had no substance, I would just really like to point to what we do have here and to the list of people who the Minister of Education will now be required to consult with. It’s extensive, and it’s important that it is cohesive and it’s important that it touches on the lives of all of the people who do consume education. The Minister of Education must consult with children and, now—as a result of the majority report back from the select committee—young people too. The reason that we have included the terminology “and young people;” is because we want to ensure that we’re not just consulting with those in early learning or in the start of the compulsory sector but all the way through to senior secondary students.

So, too, we’ll be consulting with “national bodies representing the interests of teachers”. You know, teachers—those teachers who the Opposition are now declaring that they care so deeply about. Well, members of the Opposition, members of the National Party, if you would love to hear the voices of the teachers, then surely you would love to support this bill. So, too, the Minister of Education will be required to hear from principals, from governing bodies of schools, from early childhood services, from parents—who the Opposition, I note, often invoke in this House with regards to legislation on education.

But perhaps most importantly, with regard to the process that we’ve been through throughout the Education and Workforce Committee’s scrutiny on this bill, is the inclusion now of a number of other stakeholders. I personally think, in my capacity as the Greens’ spokesperson on education, following in the footsteps of an almighty stalwart like Catherine Delahunty in the space of learning support, that the disability community will now have to be consulted with and support staff in schools, those in Māori education organisations and Pacific education organisations, and—as the National Party I’m sure would love to hear—proprietors of State integrated schools and those of designated character schools.

So this was not by any means a waste of time. What we’ve ended up with is a bill that has evolved throughout the select committee process and, indeed, is much better off for it because we have incorporated the voices of those who have submitted.

I note, in my final 2½-odd minutes, that none of this is happening in a vacuum. This is happening in the context of the changes that we are making to the broader education system—perhaps most notably the increases in funding, as we’ve seen in the Budget passed earlier this year. For myself personally, the things that get me really excited are the new funding for learning support to ensure that early intervention help is available for another 8,000 kids in this country, and, so too, the new funding to support another 1,000 children with high and complex needs.

On the point of the broader reviews that are currently being undertaken, which I’m sure the speaker from the Opposition following me will herald as the sky falling in, the most important and largest one there is the Education Conversation, in which we are undertaking a new plan for the next 30 years—the next three decades—of education in this country. I would say to that point that for all of the criticism that is being thrown by the National Party, we’re extending an olive branch here, as members of the Government. We want you involved in this plan to develop the education system for the next 30 years—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! You are straying from the subject.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I appreciate that, Madam Assistant Speaker. So in summation, on this day celebrating 125 years of women’s suffrage, when we have the opportunity to consider the second reading of this member’s bill, the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill, in the name of my colleague Jan Tinetti, we have the opportunity to choose to intentionally design the education system, moving forward. This is not a piece of legislation that is happening in isolation. It is something which I am incredibly proud to support as a member of the Green Party and a member of this Parliament. Kia ora.

Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. I would like to also start my speech by acknowledging the 125th anniversary of Suffrage Day here in New Zealand and the time when women won the vote. I think it’s an important moment in our country’s history and an incredibly proud one, and one that I’m incredibly proud of today.

I also have been reflecting, as this debate’s been going on, on some of the women principals in my electorate of Pakuranga, who do a fantastic job educating our students and our learners. I thought I’d acknowledge one from our primary school, Carol Dickinson from Riverina Primary School, who is the new principal there—she does a fantastic job—Linda Harvie at Farm Cove Intermediate School, and Louise Addison at Edgewater College, who was appointed earlier this year. These are three fantastic educationalists in the Pakuranga electorate, and I’m privileged to be able to work alongside them and the work that they do.

Let me get to the bill that we’re debating here tonight, which is the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill. We’ve heard lots of speeches from the Government side about how important this bill is. I think one of the really interesting comments from Chlöe Swarbrick and the Green Party was that this bill has evolved through select committee stage. Well, I’ve got news for her. It’s actually devolved, because if people listening at home wanted to take a moment to have a look at the bill, they’d realise how much of the bill has actually been crossed out by the member in charge of the bill. It used to have new section 1A(4), (5), (6), and (7), in clause 4, and they’ve just gone—just gone. Just cross them out. We’ve just taken them out because the unions turned up and said, “Well, this bill shouldn’t be going ahead.”, and she listened partially. She listened to half of what they said, which was “Get rid of the bill.” Well, she just crossed out most of it and put a little bit less in there. But, actually, the message that they were giving to her—and I thought it was actually the best message I’ve heard from the unions in my whole year in Parliament—is “Get rid of this bill.” The message is still there for the other side of the House: take the opportunity and get rid of this embarrassment of a piece of legislation, which does nothing.

I’d like to bring to the House a different point from what my colleagues have been saying. We have been criticising the member in charge of this bill, and I do acknowledge Jan Tinetti. It is a fortunate thing to have a bill brought before Parliament and to be able to progress it through. I’ve got one myself, and I’m enjoying being part of that process. However, I would like to just make a point in that Jan Tinetti should be acknowledged for all the hard work that she has done on this bill, because we know that there are reviews for Africa going on in the education sector trying to discuss what the vision should be, and what we should be aiming to do over the next 30 years. Actually, if you read what’s been crossed out, she’s done a good job of trying to make a first attempt—she’s done a good job making a first attempt. She’s even tried to define what the education learning priorities for the country should be: “to provide learning experiences that support children and young people to reach their potential and a system that aims to achieve equitable outcomes for all;”, and that’s actually not very different from what we had in the legislation and what’s currently in the law, but she has given it a crack.

So the point I’m trying to make is she should be given far more credit for the work that she’s done on the first reading and in drafting this piece of legislation, and she’s doing the work of multiple reviews. But we’ve got reviews going out there now to try and define that and to define how that should be implemented, and all of the other bits which have been crossed out: “resilience, determination, confidence,”—all of these great words as part of the education learning system which she has come up with and which she put in the bill, but which now have been crossed out and which, sadly, will not be going any further. But these are the issues that we should be debating here tonight.

I just come back to the point—it was made earlier by one of my colleagues, and I think it was the Hon Tim Macindoe, who was an Associate Minister of Education and a very good one. The point he was making was that when we go out and visit schools—when I go and visit schools in my electorate in Pakuranga—we don’t get people coming up to us and saying, “Oh, you need to change that National Education and Learning Priorities part of the Education Act. That’s our number one priority.” or “You need to make sure that bodies representing the interests of—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Not me.

Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker. “That’s the number one priority.” or “You need to make sure there’s a long list”—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): No. Not me.

“That’s our”—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Not me.

I didn’t say “you”, sorry.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): You did.

They don’t come up and say, “Well, we need to make sure that we include a long list of bodies which are listed as being in the consultation”. They don’t say that. They say, “We do need to invest in our teacher-aides. We do need to invest in ensuring that we have good quality teachers. We do need to invest in making sure there’s adequate learning support available for the children who require it.” Those are the issues which are raised when we visit schools and when we talk to principals and when we talk to teachers, and we talk to parents. They don’t come up to us, and I haven’t got a long line of people out my office door, saying, “You’ve got to change the National Education Learning Priorities.” That’s not what we get coming and lining up at our door, but here we are in Parliament debating legislation which makes inconsequential changes to the National Education and Learning Priorities.

Let me get to some of this. So “The Minister must make reasonable efforts”. We’ve heard Minister Jenny Salesa come up and say—and I think Chlöe Swarbrick made the same point—that this will require the Minister to consult. Well, I’ve got news for the other side of the House: the bill, as it stands, says “the Minister must make reasonable efforts to consult.” There’s a big difference between “must consult” and “must make reasonable efforts to consult.”, because we know what will happen is the Minister will just keep doing what the Minister keeps on doing. So will the Government members take responsibility for their words and amend this even further, cross some more words out, and make it so that the Minister must consult, because that’s what they’ve stood up in the House—that’s what they’re telling New Zealanders. No doubt that’s what they’re going up and down the country and saying: “We’ve got this one piece of legislation which is going to make a huge difference. It’s going to mean the Minister must consult.” Well, it’s not what the bill says. So I’d like the next member who stands up on the Government’s side to clarify what they’re saying and get the record straight on this issue.

💬 Marja Lubeck: Such conspiracy!

Well, I’m taking this issue so seriously because it’s a serious matter that the Government is wasting the House’s time with, rather than getting on and fixing the real issues which the House’s time should be used to do. This bill makes so many inconsequential changes.

Then we heard from Chlöe Swarbrick that this involves parents, and she said that with some sort of disdain, which I thought was very unfortunate. But it says here in the bill, in new section 1A(4A) in clause 4, that “national bodies representing the interests of parents;” must be consulted. It doesn’t say “consult with parents”; it just says “national bodies representing the interests of parents;”.

💬 Dan Bidois: Like unions.

So is that—are unions? Can the members on the other side, as Dan Bidois very appropriately asks—does that mean unions? Because I think that’s something—or is there a union for that? That’s a question that I’d like the members on the other side to answer, because this bill does not clarify, does not make it clear, that parents will be consulted.

It doesn’t mean that parents have a requirement to be consulted. It just says “national bodies representing the interests of parents”, and I think that’s great. I think it’s good. There are bodies which represent parents, and I think they do a great job. But why can’t parents also be consulted? If we’re going to have a big, long list of everyone who’s going to be consulted, why can’t parents also be on that list?

I think the members on the other side of the House need to clarify whether they’re going to make a change—whether they actually back parents as being part of the education of their children, and the significant role that parents up and down our country play in the role of parenting but also in educating children, supporting their schools, and supporting the good work that teachers do in supporting children’s learning. So members on the other side of the House are misrepresenting the very bill which has so little in to be misrepresented. There’s so little in this bill to be misrepresented, but they’ve managed to find enough to misrepresent here in the House tonight.

One of the last changes that this bill makes—it says, in new section 1A(5A) in clause 4, “A minor change under subsection (5) is limited to a technical, short, and uncontroversial amendment that does not change or extend the policy of the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities.” Well, that summarises the entirety of this bill. It’s a minor change, it’s technical, it’s short, it’s uncontroversial—well, it is controversial, because it’s a waste of this House’s time—and it does not change or extend the policy of the National Education and Learning Priorities, because they ripped out the guts of the bill, they got rid of it, and now we’re here wasting our time when we could be actually solving some of the real issues facing the education system in New Zealand. Thank you.

I understand this is a split call.

Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill. I’d like to pick up on a point right away that the member Simeon Brown mentioned. He said this bill is inconsequential. If it’s inconsequential, then why won’t the member support the bill? It is important in education that we work hard to find consensus across the parties, and I am disappointed that the Opposition members won’t support this bill.

Before I get on to the contents of the bill, I would also like to acknowledge the 125-year anniversary of women’s suffrage. One of the heroes of that movement was, obviously, Kate Sheppard, and Kate Sheppard fought for equal opportunity. That was one of her key points that she was focusing on, and this bill is about equal opportunity. It’s about putting the learner back at the heart of the learning. It’s about the New Zealand Curriculum.

Now, we have a world-class curriculum. When our curriculum came out in the early 2000s, it was lauded across the world, but in the past few years, under the previous regime, the curriculum was narrowed and teachers were forced to teach literacy, numeracy—they couldn’t teach the full breadth of the curriculum. But this bill puts the curriculum back at the heart of education, and I’m going to give an example. I’m going to give an example for the members. Before I entered Parliament, I was a music teacher. Back in 2012, the previous regime was going to remove the specialist subjects from intermediate schools. As a music teacher, someone wanting to teach in the full breadth of the curriculum—the previous regime wanted to get rid of those subjects. That’s one of the key reasons why I entered Parliament—because I believe in having a diverse curriculum.

This bill aligns the NELPs—the National Education and Learning Priorities—with the New Zealand Curriculum. It aligns them. The amendment will put children back at the centre of the learning, involving them in the process of creating or significantly changing the statement of the National Education and Learning Priorities. Now, what do the children want? The children, from my experience, want a diverse curriculum. They don’t want an education system based purely on literacy and numeracy. So, therefore, with the students back at the centre, with students involved with the Minister in creating the NELPs, we will have the kind of curriculum that will work for our young people.

The bill requires the Minister of Education to consult widely—we’ve heard that before, and it’s an important point—with children, young people, and teachers on significant changes to the statement of the NELPs.

Just a couple of other key points I’d like to pick up on here—

💬 Simeon Brown: We haven’t even had one yet.

You need to listen, young man—listen. I’d like to focus on the aspect of music in the curriculum. Music—a subject that the previous Government was going to remove from the curriculum back in 2012. When I was teaching music, I wasn’t just teaching guitar, drums, keyboard. I was developing key aspects of the curriculum: confidence, creativity, cooperation, discipline, and working in with others.

So the heart of this bill is about enabling teachers to teach the full breadth of the curriculum. It’s around the National Education and Learning Priorities being aligned to the curriculum. The curriculum is a diverse document—it’s a diverse document—and it’s important that these are related to that.

I would like to finish with a flourish for the members opposite. I’d like to acknowledge some of our wonderful principals, and in particular—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, it’s not a general debate speech.

Yes, yes, I know—because these principals—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, the principles are in the bill, surely.

Yes, that’s right. The Minister of Education will be liaising with the principals, enabling the principals to teach the full breadth of the curriculum. That’s, basically, what this bill does.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you to the previous speaker for that entertaining five minutes. [Interruption] It was entertaining—come on. It was entertaining.

💬 Simeon Brown: A Strange speech.

It was a strange contribution—that’s right.

Undoubtedly, we started with a bit of substance in this particular member’s bill, but we’ve ended up with a very, very weakened process—so weakened that it’s a little bit hard to figure out if there’s any substance left. Previous speakers on this side have outlined substantial clauses that have midway through the process, during the select committee process, been wiped out, taken away—gone, zip, “gone-burger”.

Now all that we’re left with is a couple of—in fact, let me just read out some of the wording, and the viewers tonight and everyone on all sides of the House can decide for themselves. So we have included—“young people;” has been put in as a stakeholder. That’s not a bad contribution, I have to say. The Children’s Commissioner spoke quite long and vigorously on that regard. But “national representative organisations” have been replaced with “national bodies representing the interests of” specified stakeholders—not a lot of substance there. Replacing the word “good” with “positive”, adding “to become lifelong learners” after a very long sentence—these sorts of things are going to have no substantial effect.

They’ve removed “educational achievement” as a core objective. How is that going to help anyone in the educational system?

The bill replaces this following sentence: “to focus on helping each child and young person to attain educational achievement to the best of his or her potential;” with this: “to provide learning experiences that support children and young people to reach their potential and a system that aims to achieve equitable outcomes for all;”. It’s just another way of saying what was already said. I’m struggling to figure out how any substance has been left in this bill, and I’ve sat through the entire process.

One more point: “the inclusion within society of different groups and persons with different personal characteristics:” has been replaced with “To instil an appreciation of the importance of an inclusive society where all people are valued and are supported to participate in ways that honour and value diversity:”. We’ve just said before “within society of different groups and persons and persons with different personal”—this doesn’t add up. It doesn’t make sense. It’s fluffing around with terminology.

I think what’s incredibly important here, too, is that there’s been a lot made from the other side of the House about inclusion of stakeholders and there’s been listing of all these important people groups—and isn’t that fantastic; isn’t that wonderful—yet they’ve failed to mention that all these stakeholders that have apparently been so wonderfully included already have to be consulted with. It’s already in law. It is law that they be consulted with. So there is no extra inclusion. We’re listing the people that already have to be consulted. Let me get my head round that—I actually can’t.

Now, let’s go to a couple of submissions in the short time that we have left. Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA)—right? We had a couple of really big unions come in, and PPTA were very, very clear on one thing: let’s not do this bill right now. They could not have been any clearer: let’s not do this bill right now. And guess what happened? The sponsor of the bill wiped out three-quarters of the bill straight after they left the room. So she clearly wanted to work with their strong suggestion of delaying the bill because of what they saw as poor timing, given all the other changes that are happening to the education sector. She clearly wanted to listen to that particular union, but I have a theory, and that is that what she probably wanted to do was ditch the bill altogether, but, given that that’s already happened once with the protecting teacher title bill, I’m not sure they could afford to ditch another bill in its entirety again.

There’s already been one failure; they can’t afford to have two. So we’re hanging in there by little threads. We’re hanging in there by the skin of our teeth, with just little bits left to make sure that we can at least pass something.

It’s a great pleasure to rise and to speak in endorsement and support of the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill on behalf of this coalition Government. I would like to just start by endorsing some of the comments that were made earlier by some of the previous speakers on the momentous occasion that we do have today on the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage. It is momentous that this country has led the world in this and it’s something we should and do take great pride in, and we see it, actually, here every day in this Parliament with the fabulous women parliamentarians on both sides of the House contributing strongly.

Of course, one of the other things that New Zealand takes great pride in is leading the world in education, and, as Jamie Strange pointed out in his fine contribution earlier, New Zealand has been seen as an exemplar in some of the curricula changes it made early this century. So we need to keep developing that and that’s why this Government has an ambitious plan in front of us in education reforms—several bills—and this bill has to been seen as part of a wider suite of changes.

I would like to commend the Education and Workforce Committee. We have a really strong select committee, particularly on our side of the House. It’s a little bit of a dream team, actually. I would commend the member bringing the bill forward here, Jan Tinetti. She has an incredible background in education as a principal of a decile 1 school, and she is shepherding this bill through and she is also a strong contributor. Jamie Strange is a schoolteacher and music teacher. Jo Luxton, from the early childhood sector—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: We’ve now had two minutes. I’d really like you to come to the bill, rather than go through the caucus.

Well, I’m just trying to emphasise the depth of experience that’s brought into bringing this bill forward.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’d quite like you to emphasise the bill.

The Opposition on this bill are a little bit deluded and ideological, and we do have a rather eclectic chairwoman as well in Dr Parmar.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is actually quite a simple bill. It should be easy to speak to.

But we are here to talk about the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill, or the NELP bill, which commits the Minister of Education to consult more widely with all stakeholders. The present, very narrow definition in the current legislation allows for hand-picked—maybe friendly—voices to be heard. This bill makes it much broader, and there is a far broader list of stakeholders that we have to consult. Children—imagine that, children—who are the people that this most affects. Parents, teachers, principals, early childhood, disabilities, support staff—

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

—you may laugh over that side, but these are very important contributors to this sector—Māori, Pasifika, State and State integrated schools, and special character schools.

The 20 submitters were broadly supportive of this bill. The most prominent that has been mentioned is the Children’s Commissioner, Judge Andrew Becroft, and he made this comment: “Hearing … and incorporating the views of, children and young people deliver better and more robust decisions.”—it could not be clearer than that from such a highly respected and experienced advocate for children. We also heard from the speech and language therapist Dr Hennig, and she said that “family and child voices are essential for developing effective … policy and law,”. The NZEI: “We welcome this because it gives students [a] voice and agency in the process, and recognises the critical contribution the knowledge and expertise of the teaching profession [and] will make … the priority-setting process [more robust].”

So why did we have to do this? Well, we’ve got to step back and take a look at the bigger picture, because what actually has been happening if we look at the international comparisons of New Zealand education—and remember what I said at the start: we pride ourselves in leading the world. We should do; we should accept nothing less. But in our Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) rankings, by world standards—the gold standard in how we measure our education system—we have been slipping. So we need to bring a suite of reforms forward, and this consultation process that we are bringing here in the NELP bill absolutely fits that criterion.

It is part of our wider, 30-year strategic overhaul of the education system, and it does address those who are falling behind: Māori, Pasifika, boys—I know. I was on the board of the Lawrence Area School, and one the things that we had as a priority in our area school was boys. Boys were slipping behind in their education priorities. On women’s Suffrage Day, we also need to consider the males in our society and the boys coming through, who often go on to become slightly dysfunctional if they fall through the cracks, and can cause wider difficulties in our society.

There are also rural things like connectivity—all that sort of thing that we need to be able to take into account. The area school, as I say, that I represent, and those that are in our community of learning—there were many challenges that were specific to rural areas, and we will have to be consulted under the terms of this bill.

So New Zealand First absolutely endorses this bill. We will do what we can to help progress the other reforms that are coming forward as part of this package. It is a priority for us and we are very proud, of course, of the Hon Tracey Martin and the contribution that she’s making in this area. We also congratulate Minister Hipkins on the arrival of his new child. That is a momentous day for him, of course.

So, in conclusion, we are focused on the wider picture, but this is an important component of this—the National Education and Learning Priorities programme. So teachers will have a voice and principals will have a greater voice. Of course, this goes on the back of the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Act that we brought forward last night—the great Act in which we allowed teachers to have a voice on their own professional council. Now we are giving them a voice in terms of the curricula and making it so that we need to consult them under this NELP bill.

We also have to be more future-focused, and I think, with the wider consultation that we will be doing under this NELP bill, that that will make it a more rigorous and robust process, which will give us better outcomes and bring us back up through those international rankings, where we should be—those PISA rankings where we are slipping behind. This will be a key component of that. We have to take all stakeholders with us. National standards were failing us on an international scale. That was becoming very apparent.

So with that, I will commend this bill in the second reading to the House. I will—

💬 Hon Members: One minute.

Ha, ha! Well, the crowd do want more, and I know why they do, because there is such a lot of soundness, wisdom, and it is a popular measure. It is disappointing that the Opposition have not seen fit to get in behind our teachers and our educators in supporting this. It is very petty—very petty—and actually shameful that you have not got on board and supported a sensible group of measures to improve the well-being of our young people, improve our education system, and, therefore, improve our society.

I know that this is not a committee of the whole House stage, so I cannot get up and continue after the bell, so I will have to truncate my contribution. With that, I will commend this bill in its second reading to the House. [Interruption]

OK. Let’s just settle down, OK. I know it is members’ day, but let’s just settle down.

Well, it’s going to be very difficult to live up to the high standard of that contribution by Mark Patterson—that performance which, clearly, didn’t involve the reading of the bill or, seemingly, any attention paid at the Education and Workforce Committee, which examined this bill.

Before I go on to speak about what has adequately been described as a petty bill, I do want to acknowledge Jan Tinetti, whose name this bill is in. I want to acknowledge the role she played as a principal at Merivale School in Tauranga, because in that role, of course, she was doing important things for New Zealand’s children and for the education system. In fact, it is for that reason that I am particularly disappointed by this bill, because it would be my hope that someone with that education experience and that front-line opportunity would be aware of some of the very significant challenges we do, in fact, have in our schools. They would be aware of the one in 10 children still leaving school with no qualifications at all, the one in four Māori school-leavers who leave without NCEA level 2, the people who have come to me to say that their access to resources for children with high health needs is inadequate, or the people talking about the inadequate support for those with additional learning needs. But, no, this bill doesn’t address that.

Before I move on to talk about the substance of what is in this bill, can I also just take a moment to acknowledge this, the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage. It is humbling for me to be here as the 149th female member of the New Zealand Parliament. I have to say that until this morning, when I was gifted this brooch and had the opportunity to shake the hands of Dame Jenny Shipley and Dame Ann Hercus, I had not quite comprehended just how few women have had the opportunity I have tonight to speak in this House. That is a great opportunity and one that I take seriously. In fact, I think every 10-minute contribution in this House should be taken seriously, because when we are in this Parliament, we are given the ability to talk about issues of great importance to the country.

Unfortunately, this bill is not one of those. When it was introduced, Jan Tinetti was clear in her first reading speech about what its goal was. It was “to align the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities more closely with the New Zealand Curriculum, and provide an aspirational vision for the future of young New Zealanders.” Well, I’m sorry for Jan Tinetti, but all of the clauses relating to those goals have been gutted from this bill. They are gone. The reason they are gone, I am told, is because, in fact, this bill is—it’s a new term, something I haven’t learnt as a parliamentarian yet, but which I have learnt today—what is called a ballot-stuffer or a stocking filler. It’s a bill, in fact, designed to take the time of this House in debate that doesn’t further the objectives of the education system or further the interests of New Zealanders. It’s a bill simply designed to take the time of this House so that National Party members’ bills, which would progress those goals, are not advanced through the Parliament. I think that is to the shame of members opposite that they would fill this House’s time with a bill like that.

So what does—

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: Oh, you’ve forgotten your ones.

—the bill actually do? It’s been clear in the debate tonight, Mr Faafoi, that the members on your side not only haven’t read the bill as it’s been presented to the House but weren’t listening at select committee when Jan Tinetti said, in a letter, “I want to remove all of the provisions that suggest a rewrite of the NELP.” She wrote us a letter and she said, “Actually, that whole suggestion I had about rewriting the words I have decided is actually a really bad idea, because we had said as a Government that we were going to consult in good faith about what those provisions should be.” So she said, “Let’s get rid of all of that.” She also said, “Let’s get rid of the bit where I said that, in fact, the National Education and Learning Priorities statement should be a disallowable instrument. No, I’m not going to do that any more.”

In fact, all that remains in this bill, after the extensive time at select committee, after the first reading debate, is a list of organisations that must be consulted when a future National Education and Learning Priorities (NELP) statement is developed. As members on this side have pointed out, that might be interesting if there were currently no consultation requirements, but the Act currently has the same consultation requirements as the Minister of Education is required to take for the tertiary education strategy—something that members opposite don’t seem to have taken any issue with. In fact, it allows the Minister incredibly broad scope to consult with who he or she believes is fit and should be consulted with. So it’s almost a statement of a lack of confidence in Minister Hipkins—that one of his own members tries to progress a bill that makes it very clear explicitly who he must consult with, as if they would not be consulted otherwise.

Let’s actually examine who the bodies are that are to be consulted. In addition to children and young people, we have a whole list of “bodies representing the interests of”—and we’ve got everyone. We’ve got teachers, we’ve got principals, we’ve got governing bodies of schools, we’ve got early childhood services, we’ve got parents, we’ve got the disability community, we’ve got support staff, and we’ve got Māori education organisations, Pacific education organisations, State integrated schools, and designated character schools. But what is not in that list is the need to consult with actual parents—the parents who actually volunteer on the school boards, who are actually members of the parent teacher associations, and who are the people who send their children to school each day.

I’ll tell you what I think they would say if they were consulted. What they would say is, “It is not going to advance New Zealand’s education system to lengthen the consultation list in the education bill.” They would say, “That is not what I want Parliament to focus its time on.” They would say, “I don’t think, Jan Tinetti, that the thing that is most important is that the Minister has a prescriptive list of who he consults with.” What parents would say is, “Get on with improving the fact that our education system still fails to deliver for far too many children.” The debates we have had in this House that most fulsomely deal with that issue are debates where the members opposite are revoking the very innovation we have had in the education system—revoking the partnership schools that have been helpful.

So we turn to this bill and we ask ourselves what the effect will be. What Mark Patterson said—and I cannot wait until it is election campaign 2020 and I can remind voters that what New Zealand First believes is that the way to help bring New Zealand up the achievement tables internationally, the way to improve the well-being of New Zealand children, is to have a list of organisations that need to be consulted with when a NELP is promulgated. That is what Mark Patterson and the New Zealand First Party believe is needed to improve the quality of our education system. It would be farcical if it weren’t true, but it is true, and that is what we have just heard 10 minutes of debate about—the wonderful impact on well-being and achievement we will get from a prescriptive consultation list. That is, I think, incredibly disappointing, because right here and now, the world is experiencing a digital revolution. We have a changing world of work. We have children with more behavioural and learning needs than ever before, and what members opposite think the House should spend its time on is an education bill designed to change the consultation requirements.

I want to take a brief moment to examine what was to be in this bill, but which we decided at select committee should be removed, or, rather, what the Minister, I think, decided should be removed and which the member then agreed should be removed. The proposed changes, I think, give us an indication of what this bill was trying to achieve but will no longer be able to achieve. There was a particular word that Jan Tinetti wanted removed, and that word was “excellence”.

The sentence she didn’t like was the sentence in section 1A(3) that read “(a) to focus on helping each child and young person to attain educational excellence to the best of his or her potential;”. She said that that sentence, with that horrible word “excellence”, should be removed and replaced with a sentence that says “(a) to provide learning experiences that support children … to reach potential and a system that aims to achieve equitable outcomes for all;”.

So I would suggest that when these groups are consulted, as this bill suggests, what they will be being consulted on is whether in our education system in the future, we should get rid of excellence and focus on equitable. I think that this would have been a more constructive debate in the House if Jan Tinetti had told us what she really thinks, and the only way we’re really going to find out what members opposite really think is when their 14 reviews that they have under way in education report back.

So it is a small mercy that this bill doesn’t force upon the Education Act 1989 a complete change in the purpose of education yet, but it is farcical for members opposite to pretend that this will do anything at all to lift educational achievement, to change the life of a single child, or to improve the achievement of a single school, or that it aligns in any way with the issues that matter to everyday parents and New Zealanders who use our schools and use our education system. It is not a bill befitting of the time of this House, and I am disappointed to have had to address it.

Good evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an absolute privilege to stand here, and I know it’s because in 1893, when Kate Sheppard and the sisterhood fought for the right of women to vote in this country, it was so that we would be here, and we’re here to contribute. So it is a privilege to contribute in the second reading of the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill.

I want to acknowledge the teachers that I grew up with, before I get to this bill. This bill is really simple, but I want to commend my teachers. First of all, I started in Tonga at the Hofoa Government Primary School, then at Onehunga Primary School, then at Manukau Intermediate School—which is now Royal Oak Intermediate School—then at Onehunga High School, and then, further, at the University of Auckland.

One of the things that I love about my high school, Onehunga High School, is it talks about courage: the courage to stand to make a difference. I want to acknowledge Jan Tinetti for her courage in bringing her insight and her experience in the education field to contribute to this Parliament and New Zealand. Whakatāukī—when I was sitting here, listening to members being confused about this bill, what came to me was a Māori whakatāukī. The whakatāukī that came to me was ko te ahurei o te tamaiti, arahia ō tātou mahi—let the uniqueness of the child guide our work—and that’s what this bill is all about.

Basically, the bill requires the Minister of Education to consult widely on the statement of the National Education and Learning Priorities. So to consult widely on uniqueness, it means that the Minister must consult widely.

It’ll be disrespectful if I don’t respond to Simeon Brown’s accusation that we were consulting our union mates, but I want to read out the submission from the Children’s Commissioner, who I think everybody here understands speaks for most of the children. Simeon Brown mentioned something about unions and mentioned something about consulting them. I just want to remind the House of only two submitters. Out of the 21 submissions, I’m only going to talk about two which I think fully represent some views that I hold.

The Children’s Commissioner, Judge Andrew Becroft, stated that “There has been a previous reluctance to hear from children, and that future and similar provisions would become the norm.”—should become the norm. He further stated that “Hearing from, and incorporating the views of, children and young people deliver better and more robust decisions.”, and they support the intention to create a more equitable system.

The National Council of Women—it is fitting that I refer to the National Council of Women on this day, the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage. I need to read the first part of their submission because it talks about the membership, mainly mothers, who are parents and who are bringing up our nation. So just to clarify to members across the bench here—and if you could just bear with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I need to read it because when I was sitting here, I was thinking that they’re talking about not consulting parents, but this group, well, I believe, represent a lot of parents. The paragraph—if you can bear with me—reads: “The National Council of Women of New Zealand, Te Kaunihera Wahine o Aotearoa … is an umbrella group representing 245 organisations affiliated at either national level or to one of [their] 19 branches. In addition, about 350 people are individual members. Collectively, our reach is over 350,000 with many of our membership organisations representing all genders. [National Council of Women of New Zealand’s] vision is a gender equal New Zealand and research shows we will be better off socially and economically if we are gender equal.”

So what that says is that because of the uniqueness of our children, we need to consult widely. So the Minister needs to consult widely, and that’s the submission of the National Council of Women. Later in the submission, they then state that the National Council of Women “supports ensuring that consultation is full and authentic. Members have often expressed their support for better consultation or their disappointment at the lack of authentic consultation,”. So that’s the key word there: “authentic”—authentic consultation.

So, really, can I remind the House that what this bill does is, well, simply, for me—and I want to acknowledge the schools that I’ve been to because, for me, it’s simple. It’s simple. What the bill will do is require the Minister to consult widely, including with the National Council of Women—which is only one of the 21 submitters—on the statement of national education priorities.

When I am a visitor to the Education and Workforce Committee, often, when I sit there, they talk about Māori and Pacific underachieving, or Māori and Pacific this and Māori and Pacific that. Well, what this bill is trying to say is that, actually, we don’t need anyone to interpret the views of Māori and we don’t need anyone to interpret the views of Pacific if we go to the people and consult widely—that’s what we need to do.

And one thing, while I’m on that subject, is that often we hear the words “Māori” and “Pacific” in one sentence. I want to encourage members to use “Māori”, which recognises their place in this country as the indigenous people of Aotearoa. Pacific people are migrants to New Zealand, just like Kate Sheppard was when she arrived here at 20 as a migrant to New Zealand. So if we are going to speak about the people of this country, please, I want to encourage every member in their speeches here in the House to talk about two separate groups of people. “Māori” is about the people here that have gone through a lot—no need to go through history—in terms of colonisation. Pacific people travelled and came from the Pacific to here as migrants, and, somehow, we just clump them together, clump them together, and call them one people.

This bill will ensure that the Minister consults with Pacific education organisations, and it is specific because what it does is it is authentic—the word “authentic” that the National Council of Women refers to. It needs to be authentic. It needs to be the voices of those people that have their children in our education system that may not necessarily be doing as well as others in this country.

I want to go back again to today in the House, and it was a passionate debate, acknowledging the women that spoke today: from the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern—the sisterhood in this House—through to Nikki Kaye and her speech. It really personified the sisterhood in this House—and yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker. I liked your speech because it showed the sisterhood in this House. The foresight of Kate Sheppard and the National Council of Women, and all the women that were involved on this day, 125 years ago, was that we would be here in this House, and that the walls of this House would hear the voices. I am grateful that I am here. I am grateful, and I want to thank the women for their leadership that has enabled myself to be here. I am No. 137, and some people would say to me, “Did you ever think”—did Anahila ever think that she would be a member of Parliament? And I would say, in the spirit of Kate Sheppard, “Yes.” It was the intention of Kate Sheppard’s leadership that women are in this House.

💬 Greg O’Connor: Destiny.

Destiny—destiny, according to my friend here, Greg O’Connor. It was their destiny for us to be in this House, and whether the members across the House think that this is something that is minute, that this is something that is small—I don’t think so. I think having the Minister consult specifically those that need to be consulted is something that Kate Sheppard would agree with, if I might say so myself. She would agree with that.

To all the women that spoke in this House, I want to acknowledge your journey to this House. I want to acknowledge that, and I want to acknowledge all the passionate speeches that were made, and I even acknowledge David Seymour, when he talked about his mum and the women in his family—I want to acknowledge that. It is about courage. It is about courage to stand here and to share your stories. To the men out there, I want to acknowledge your future courage in terms of supporting the women coming through. We in this House will have 50 percent women on all parties, being able to share their views on this bill. I commend this bill to the House. Malo.

The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Education and Workforce Committee by majority be agreed to.