Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m looking forward to the debate on this bill. I want to congratulate the member Jan Tinetti for bringing the bill to the House, and say that I’m very excited about the outbreak of bipartisanship that I now expect on this particular legislation, because I am sure the National Party will be revisiting their minority view on this bill as a result of the comments they made on a bill that we were debating earlier on today. I thought I might focus on that in particular, because the National Party, in their minority view on this bill—and I found this quite fascinating to read.

Perhaps by way of context, earlier this morning I heard four, five, six speeches that I sat through in here debating the difference between the words “may” and “must”—“may” or “must”. It required a good half hour of debate in the House to debate just that thing on the part of the National Party. They thought this was very, very important and very significant, so they took a whole half hour to debate the difference between the words “may” and “must”. Then they talked about how vitally important it was that these small amendments were considered in great detail—so much so that we spent an hour voting on those amendments.

So now when we come to this particular bill, it’s interesting to see, in their minority view, this particular comment: “This bill proposes several insignificant changes to the NELP.”—the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELP)—“Replacing ‘good’ with ‘positive’ and adding ‘to become lifelong learners’ will have no effect,”. That’s interesting, because that’s their minority view this afternoon, and yet this morning they were arguing exactly the opposite. They were arguing that when it comes to consultation, the difference between “may” and “must” was something that the House should spend an extensive amount of time talking about.

Now, why is that important? It’s because when you look at the specific clauses of the bill, the most significant part of the bill now, as reported back from the Education and Workforce Committee, is that it makes very explicit in the law who the Minister must make reasonable efforts to consult when setting the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities.

Now, I think this is a good thing. It’s about saying that, actually, there’s no question of “may”; this is a question of “must”. Now, the National Party this morning thought this was an incredibly important distinction to make. In fact, Tim Macindoe—I’m looking forward to his contribution, because he spent at least two or three calls talking about the importance between “may” and “must” this morning, and now he’s going to vote against a bill that actually makes the change that he was arguing for this morning. So I’m looking forward to hearing Tim Macindoe explain, in great detail, the road to Damascus conversion he had over lunchtime, where he now no longer thinks that there is a particularly important distinction between “may consult” and “must consult”, because this morning “may consult” and “must consult” were the most important issues that the New Zealand Parliament should debate for quite an extended period of time.

But let’s actually look at who the Minister—and I’m the Minister concerned—would now be required to consult in setting the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities. First on the list—very important—are children and young people. I actually think this is a very sensible decision. When I am, as Minister of Education, setting out what is important in education, National Education and Learning Priorities, I think it’s important that children and young people who are going to be affected by those decisions should be consulted and should have a voice. That’s something the Children’s Commissioner has argued for consistently, and I think that’s highly justified.

Second on the list—in new section 1A(4A)(b), inserted by clause 4—are “bodies representing the interests of teachers;”. Now, I think that that’s true. Now, who might those bodies be? We call them teachers, teacher unions, the Education Council—or the Teaching Council, as it’s now known—but the National Party like to call them our union mates when they are not being nice to the unions, but when they are being nice to the unions, they say completely the opposite to that. It seems to alternate on a minute-by-minute basis at the moment with regard to the National Party. They can’t quite decide whether they want to be friends of the unions and opposing the Government, or whether they think that they are our union mates. So that’s interesting. But I think teachers should have a clear say in the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities, and I think the Minister—and me, as the Minister—should be required to consult with them.

Bodies representing the interests of principals should be consulted. They are third on the list, and I absolutely agree that principals should be consulted. I think that our principals are where you get a huge body of expertise not just about teaching and learning but about how the education system is actually operating, and principals are right at the forefront of the relationship between schools and families and the wider community. This is what principals deal with all day, every day—that huge network of relationships that goes into the education system. So, yes, they have got a really vital and important view, and that should be heard when the Government is setting National Education and Learning Priorities.

Bodies representing the interests of governing bodies of schools—so these are boards of trustees, boards of proprietors and so on—I think that they should absolutely be consulted, bearing in mind that they are largely made up of parents. Parents are a huge stakeholder in our schools’ communities, and therefore they should be consulted when we are setting our priorities.

Bodies representing the interests of early childhood services—this is important because the National Education and Learning Priorities statement doesn’t just apply to schooling; it applies to early childhood education as well, and so consultation with early childhood education services is important.

Bodies representing the interests of parents should be consulted. Again, that will often be covered by some of the earlier clauses, because boards of trustees often are one of the main bodies representing the interests of parents in the education system, but there are others. There’s the parent teacher associations and so on, and they should be consulted.

National bodies representing the interests of the disability community—absolutely agree. One of the biggest issues that I’m dealing with as Minister of Education at the moment, and I’m working on it with my good friend and colleague the Associate Minister Tracey Martin, is the issue around learning support, and there are huge and many and varied issues around learning support. I would say it is the biggest issue that gets raised with me by school principals whenever I visit a school, and so I think that consulting with the disability community when we are setting national priorities is more than justified.

New section 1A(4A)(h) is “national bodies representing the interests of support staff in schools and early childhood education services;”. I want to say a word about school support staff. They are among the most poorly paid people in the education system, and they deserve significantly better than they are getting now. I can give them some assurance that it is one of our Government’s highest priorities to deal with the issues that they are facing. So I think that they should be consulted.

Then, national bodies representing the interests of Māori education organisations, Pacific education organisations—they should absolutely be consulted. We know that we have challenges around persistently lower outcomes for Māori and Pasifika learners than for others, and so I think it’s important that when we are setting our national priorities, that voice is heard in that process.

Finally, the proprietors of State and State-integrated schools and the bodies with a particular role with respect to the character of designated character schools—now, of course they should be consulted as well.

So this bill puts something into law that the previous Government refused to put into law, which is some requirements around consultation. This document that we’re talking about, the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities, is not an insignificant document. It is the document that all school boards of trustees are going to have to give regard to when they set their school’s strategic plan. Now, this morning, the National Party argued that school boards of trustees should be “required” to consult around their individual plans, but now they are arguing, in their opposition to this bill—and it’s here in black and white in their minority view—that there shouldn’t be robust consultation requirements around setting the national plan, the plan that affects the entire country. Every young person in the country will be affected by it, but it should just be a “may”—the Minister can do whatever they like.

And I’d like them to explain to the committee why there’s that enormous discrepancy, because it seems to me they had a point this morning around the difference between “may” and “must”. Now, I don’t think it was necessary, in the context of that particular debate, to make that change, because I actually have faith that the boards of trustees will consult their communities, because they’re directly accountable and answerable to them. But as Minister of Education—Ministers of Education are accountable on quite a wide basis, for quite a wide range of things. And I think therefore being quite specific about the fact that when they’re setting the NELP, the National Education and Learning Priorities, they have to consult with those who are going to be affected by it and those who are going to have to implement the commitments in that statement—I think that that’s a very significant change to the law, and I think it’s a very welcome one. And, as the Minister who will be tasked with developing the first NELP, I can say that it’s one that I wholeheartedly endorse and look forward to seeing passed into law.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity. That was a very interesting contribution from the Minister of Education. In my experience, I have not seen a member’s bill that is as tiny as this, with due respect to the member in charge.

Clause 1 in this bill is the title clause, and, of course, when you put a bill in the ballot, you need some kind of title, so there is a title in this bill, which is good. Clause 2 is about the commencement date and, yes, when you have a bill in the ballot, you need some commencement date, and so that qualifies. Clause 3 is about the Act that it is going to amend. So, yes, the member has identified an Act that she wants to amend, and then clause 4 is the actual amendment. As the Minister said, yeah, it’s about changing words like “good” to “positive”. He gave so much emphasis to those words, and for me, good is positive and positive is good. If there is that big a difference, then the other point he used from this morning’s debate was about “must” and “may” and the difference between two words. If these words are so important, then why didn’t the Minister accept that Supplementary Order Paper that was put forward by us, by—

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: What a good question.

Yes. He didn’t want to answer that, but in this bill, it becomes really important—that kind of change of wording.

So this bill, as I said, is the most negligible kind of bill that I have seen as a member’s bill. Yes, we have to dissect it down to that level of wording. As we heard from Hon Chris Hipkins, it is about consultation. So it’s removing that phrase “must include consultation with—”. The new wording is “The Minister must make reasonable efforts to consult—”. Now, when we see these words “reasonable efforts”, to me it’s diluting the importance of consultation, because consultation was already there in the legislation. So when you put “reasonable efforts”, what does that mean? We really want to understand what that means.

For example, if the Minister’s office sends some form of communication to one of these bodies or representative organisations and does not receive a response, would that qualify as being a reasonable effort? Another example: if a Minister sends a communication and receives a reply back with some days and times that work for that body and the Minister is not available on those, would that qualify as being a reasonable effort?

So we really want to understand what “reasonable efforts” means in this. To me, it appears that it’s just diluting the importance of consultation, and then, yes, you can keep listing the number of bodies or organisations. It doesn’t matter, because there is no strict obligation for the Minister to actually consult these organisations and bodies.

Then—interesting, again—are some other words that this bill is to change. This is where “national representative organisations” changes to “national bodies representing the interests”. Then, of course, the Minister went through each and every body that is listed in this bill, because there is nothing else in this bill other than this clause 4, which inserts a new section 1A(4A).

But I was really sitting here and waiting for the Minister to come up to where it says “national bodies representing the interests of Māori education organisations;”, and he said the Māori voice is not heard. Yes, the Māori voice is definitely not heard, and I fully understand that because this morning we were standing here screaming loudly that Māori leaders are saying that partnership schools should be retained. So if I use this as an example for this bill, where this bill says that national bodies representing the interests of Māori education organisations will be taken care of, then this example of senior Māori educators coming forward and saying that we want to protect the interests of 1,500 Māori students that are in partnership schools—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! That bill is not under debate right now.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The Minister spent half of his time in the first five minutes talking about this morning’s debate, and you did not object to the Minister. I am using this as an example, in a similar manner to the way that the Minister used this morning’s debate as an example in this debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The difference between the Minister’s discussion and yours is that he was talking specifically to this bill. You are introducing material from the bill that we debated at committee stage this morning.

Sorry, Madam Chair, but with due respect, I don’t agree, because I’m talking about national bodies representing the interests of Māori education organisations, which is very much part of this bill, and I’m using that as an example.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That is appropriate; the reference to partnership schools is not.

But, Madam Chair, that’s an example that I’m using because Māori educators have represented their interests.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I will allow the member to continue. I’d just ask the member, in the interests of remaining within the context of this bill, just to consider her arguments. Thank you.

I am, Madam Chair. So that is an example I have used where, yes, we have to hear what the Māori voice is, as the Minister said, but this morning we heard that the Māori voice was completely neglected. So will that example that we had qualify as national bodies representing the interests of Māori education organisations? That is another question that I have for the member in charge of this bill.

So, yes, there are several questions. We want to understand what “interests” means and to what extent that interest goes. So this example that I gave: would that qualify under this legislation as the interest of Māori education providers, and what does “reasonable efforts” mean? Because, to me, it looks like it’s diluting the importance of consultation.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for an opportunity to take a call on the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill in the name of member Jan Tinetti. I’d first like to acknowledge Jan Tinetti, an experienced and passionate educator and someone who brings to this House many years of experience in the education field. I’d also like to acknowledge the previous speaker, Parmjeet Parmar, who is the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, of which I am a member, and we shepherded this bill and we heard a number of submissions on this bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. I hate to interrupt you. We’re having problems with ensuring that there are people sitting behind their file boxes. I hate to be the file box police, but this is the second time—

💬 Chris Bishop: Oh, go on!

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Shall I? No, I’d prefer not to. I’d prefer for members to take responsibility for their own—

💬 Kiritapu Allan: My apologies.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Continue.

I’d like to pick up on new section 1A(4A), inserted by clause 4(5), and just follow on from what a couple of the previous speakers have mentioned about consultation. Now, I also agree that it’s very important that the Minister does—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I apologise, Mr Strange. Could the Opposition whip please deal with that matter. Mr Stuart Smith, perhaps you could help me out here, thank you. Mr Strange, continue.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I’d just like to explore some of the key aspects around consultation. So new section 1A(4A)(a) talks about “The Minister must make reasonable efforts to consult—(a) children and young people;”.

Why is this important? The reason I believe this is important is that when we have young people taking ownership of their education system, I believe we get much better outcomes. We have a higher level of engagement because they are involved in forming their education system. It’s about putting an aspect of trust and respect in the views of our children and young people. When I used to be a teacher, I would often ask the students for feedback. I would say, “How are we doing?”, “Are you learning?”, “What can I improve?” This is an example of that, and it’s an example of the Minister connecting with the young people.

So we’ve, basically, got the full breadth of the spectrum. We’ve got the Minister seen as being at sort of the top of the education system, and then we’ve got the students, who are right there at the chalk face, and that engagement covers the whole spectrum. I think that’s really exciting to see.

The next one, paragraph (b), talks about “national bodies representing the interests of teachers;”. Now, teachers are naturally collaborative people, and teachers like to collaborate. They like to work together, and teachers would welcome the opportunity, I believe, to engage with their Minister.

Another part here, we talk about engaging with parents. So in paragraph (f) there: the Minister must engage with “bodies representing the interests of parents;”. I’d like to ask the member: what would that body look like in terms of parents? As a parent of four children myself, I believe many parents would be interested in engaging with the Minister about the education of their children. Certainly, many parents have views around education, and there are certain things they would like to see either added or removed, and so I’m confident that they would welcome that. So I’d just ask the member: what may that body look like in terms of the make-up of that?

In my last few seconds, I’d just really like to sum up the importance of consultation. If we’re going to learn anything from each other, we must consult, we must engage, and we must collaborate, and I support this bill to the committee for that reason.

I call the Hon Peeni Henare.

Excellent, Madam Chair. Tēnā koe. Tuatahi māku e te Tūru, ka tukuna atu ngā mihi ki tōku tuahine, ki a Willow-Jean kua hoki mai e mau nei i te kākahu taratara o ngā maharatanga tonu ki tōna pāpā.

Kāti ki a tātou e te Whare, tēnā koe.

[Thank you. Firstly, Madam Chair, I extend greetings to my sister Willow-Jean, who has returned, albeit wearing the cloak of bereavement for and remembrance of her father.

And now to us, the House, greetings.]

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. It’s fantastic to have this opportunity to make a contribution. I do want to touch on a couple of points that have already been made, and I want to keep my contribution rather specific to the consultation part, which is covered under new section 1A(4A)(i) in clause 4, in particular. It talks about the “national bodies representing the interests of Māori education organisations;”, and it’s important. The part that I want to explore a little bit in there is around organisations, because we have heard rhetoric about the voice of Māori educational leadership speaking out against some of the policies of this particular Government, but in recognition that, actually, more Māori students attend mainstream schools and more Māori students are engaged in the educational sector right across the entire spectrum, from early childcare all the way to the tertiary sector—so exploring what a Māori organisation looks like and how we might be able to engage with them to make sure that those voices are heard in this particular bill.

I think that is important, because, as the point was made in some of the submissions about needing to ensure that a child’s voice is at the centre of this type of legislation and the rhetoric around it and the contributions made to it, just as important are families’ voices too. Well, we know too that given the statistics we are all too well aware of in this House regarding Māori educational achievement and Māori educational participation, I do think it is important that we do have Māori consultation. So the question I have for the member in the chair is simply exploring consultation for Māori organisations: how broad is that, what are we looking at, is it simply a tribal-based thing, are we looking at educational organisations—is it a combination of both?

That’s important, because we’ve heard regularly over the past couple of days, actually, how Māori leadership—according to the other side of the House—is embodied in the voice of one person. I’d argue in this particular instance that it is broader than that, and I do ask the member then: what do those organisations look like and how will they be engaged to ensure that those voices come to the fore as consultation as described in this particular bill is achieved? That’s an important part.

Of course, the same applies to much of the other areas of consultation, not specifically to Māori alone, and I take the point that, in this particular bill, it is clearly identified. As the Minister for Youth, of course, one of the other aspects that we’re quite keen to build a movement around is, of course, the disability sector. We want to make sure, of course, in the same vein as I did for the Māori sector in this particular bill, that it is the same for the disability sector, because if there’s one thing I’ve noticed—and it’s not just in policy documents but certainly in strategies and visions over many, many years for education and in a multitude of other areas—it is that the rhetoric’s good. The disability sector is indeed an important part of our community that we need to be hearing from and that we need to be engaging with, but I’m curious as to how. I’m also curious as to, well, how can we make sure that the consultation—regardless of the sector that’s being engaged with—actually translates further into meaningful contribution in the principles and the leadership of the educational sector that we’re trying to build. I do want to commend the member Jan Tinetti for this approach because it is that inclusivity that’s actually going to make an educational sector far more responsive to the learners, to the families, and to the wider community.

So a couple of questions there, just to recap, are around the consultation. What kinds of organisations are we talking about here? Are we simply placing the onus upon one particular part of Māori education, which was the example I gave, but I also make the same point with regard to the disability sector. Then, the second part, of course, is: then what? Consultation is fantastic and I think we can get some meaningful feedback, but how will that feedback actually feed right into the principles that I know the member is intending to achieve with this particular bill?

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, and, because it is still the language week for Niue, faakalofa atu. First of all, I’d like to congratulate my colleague Jan Tinetti on bringing this piece of legislation to the House. She is obviously the very first one of our “class of ’17” to sit in the chair there, and I admire her very much. I’ve learnt very much from her. She’s a very staunch advocate for the education sector and is our subject matter expert on our committee.

I’d like to talk a little bit about the points that the Minister of Education made. He outlined for us all of the different stakeholders that this bill drafts up, and it is important in that process to think about the fact that when we started to first look at this bill, we only had six stakeholders listed to consult with. But our select committee heard several submissions—there were, roughly, about 20, I believe, that came in to talk to us—and the feedback from those submitters clearly indicated that we needed to expand on that list of six stakeholders. So, as a result, the clause amended is clause 4. For anyone who’s looking at the bill at this moment, it’s new section 1A(4A) in clause 4, which includes “children and young people;” and another 11 named national bodies. The Minister, as he has previously outlined, must—and here is the importance of the “must” versus the “may”—talk with those that the statement will impact, and that’s children, teachers, and schools.

So I have a question for the member in the chair, in this regard: why is it so important to actually stipulate the groups who must be consulted with? So if I can have a little bit more context on that, it would be helpful.

I talked about the 20 submissions we received, and 13 of those 20 particularly submitted on the consultation requirements. We heard the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, who were giving us some verbatim feedback from children, and that particular submission showed very clearly how important it is to get the children’s voices heard in the process of making sure that they can be the best they can be.

In that regard, it surprised me to hear the member Parmjeet Parmar, who is the chair of our Education and Workforce Committee, make some mentions in that regard, because at the end of the day, it is the children that will benefit from this particular legislation, and it seems strange to me that when we’re making decisions around education which are about children, the National Party doesn’t want children to have a voice in those decisions. You would think that it is rather important that they do get to have a voice.

The Children’s Commissioner was followed by the IHC, and they spoke to us about the importance—as Peeni Henare has also talked to us about—of the inclusion of the rights of persons with disabilities. So that was another added stakeholder in that particular clause. The IHC requested that any statement that is developed is done in consultation with and actively involves people with disabilities, including children with disabilities. That’s to be done through their respective organisations, and that is reflected in the changed wording in this particular bill.

We also heard from the National Council of Women, and they actually told us that their members often expressed disappointment at the lack of consultation, and also a lack of authentic consultation. Actually, that is in line with a lot of the concern that we saw from people in general when the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs) were first introduced, and we know that submissions were made to the then Education and Science Committee. So that is something else that we are making changes to.

I guess I want to end by saying that putting the children back at the centre of learning is absolutely in line with this Government’s commitment to improving the well-being of New Zealanders and their families. It’s also consistent with the words of our brilliant leader, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, to make New Zealand the best place in the world to be a child. So it’s consistent with our commitments in that regard. It’s hugely important that we put authentic consultation in the requirement for the NELPs, and I’d like to again congratulate my colleague Jan Tinetti on bringing this wonderful piece of legislation to the House. Thank you.

E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I would like to rise to add the Green Party’s voice in support of this Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill, or the NELPs legislation. I just want to echo the sentiments that were put forward by my colleague Marja Lubeck, who also joins me on the Education and Workforce Committee and who advised the House of the number of submitters who we heard from, who all helped to inform a really robust process by which we have actually improved this piece of legislation and added new stakeholders who must be consulted with in the process of the Minister of Education coming up with these National Education and Learning Priorities.

I also want to extend my thanks to the incredible Jan Tinetti for putting this bill in the members’ ballot. She is somebody who is consistently brought up to me by organisations across the education sector as a member of Parliament who has immense understanding of the sector, given her incredible life experience in leading the way and providing that space for kids.

This legislation, as has been noted, is improved by way of the select committee process. It obviously puts at the very centre of it children’s voices. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner made an incredible submission to this point in particular, highlighting how critically important it is that kids’ voices are central to decisions made about them, because so frequently they are ignored. I myself, as the baby of this House—it’s a technical term—would like to state that I do think that there is some incredible, “un-adulted” wisdom in the views that children so frequently put forward, as indeed do young people.

We have, as has been noted, added new stakeholders to this amendment bill by virtue of the submissions that we heard asking for those voices to be heard as well, for that expansion. I think it’s incredibly important to note that, in particular, the Minister will be consulting with national bodies representing the interests of the disability community. This is of particular interest to the Greens, who, obviously, in our Green-Labour confidence and supply agreement as negotiated to help form the Government, helped to secure that resource for children with learning support needs. I’m very proud to be working, obviously, with the Minister of Education, Chris Hipkins, and the Associate Minister, Tracey Martin, in delivering that work programme.

So too we will see national bodies representing the interests of support staff, something critically important; so too those representing the interests of Māori education organisations and those of Pacific education organisations. Also important to note, given the changes that are obviously under way in this Government’s education work programme, national bodies representing the interests of proprietors of State integrated schools and those in respect of the designated character schools.

So I commend this bill on behalf of the Green Party to the House and would like to say, once again, thank you to my incredible colleague Jan Tinetti and to the Education and Workforce Committee for our work on this piece of legislation, which I think will be an incredible improvement, putting children’s voices at the centre of the National Education and Learning Priorities. Kia ora.

Thank you to the members so far who have made a contribution in this debate. I just thought it was probably timely to actually answer some of the questions that have been put here this afternoon. First of all, I’d like to address Dr Parmar’s contribution when she talked about how this bill is a minor changing of words. Actually, this bill is making some pretty big changes in that we are identifying groups that must be consulted with, with the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs). Now, the reason for that—and my colleague Marja Lubeck asked why it is so important to consult. The reason for that is that this gives the education sector—it also gives children and young people and teachers and those that work within it, and parents—surety that their voices will be heard in this particular setting of the National Education and Learning Priorities. This is the national statement in education. This is a really, really important piece of work. To say that this is making minor changes is actually taking away from the importance of this particular piece of work. This ensures that the Minister will consult with these people.

Now, Dr Parmar also talked about the consultation with the groups in interest, or “can consult”—I’ll just read the proper words there: “The Minister must make reasonable efforts to consult”. I would advise Dr Parmar that she must read this amendment in consultation with the principal Act, because this is adding to the principal Act, the Education Act. It’s not diluting; it’s actually adding to. So it’s not taking away from anything there.

My colleague Jamie Strange and my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare both talked about what consultation looks like with certain organisations. One reason why this particular bill has not identified specific groups of people is that there has got to be a certain amount of fluidity around that consultation at the particular time that the NELPs are being created, that the national statement is being put out there. So when you’re talking about the national priorities, the Minister wants to have the opportunity to then look with the sector at who the most appropriate groups are to actually consult with within those groups. The parent groups, for example, will be decided upon at the time in line with that national statement. So that’s the reason why that has not completely identified exactly who those groups are. Also, if we’d put those particular groups in specifically and named them now, there would be other groups who had not presented to select committee who might think that they were being left out of the conversation. So it’s important that we make that broad and, at the time, the Minister can then consult with those in the sector who are the most appropriate for that national statement.

One point I want to pick up on is the point that the Hon Peeni Henare made around the disability sector. This is a really interesting point, because in the disability sector, I’ve had many, many people contact me to say how grateful they are that they are being identified in this particular bill. In fact, after the second reading, I had a young person contact me who has a disorder on the autism spectrum, who said that it brought him to tears because, in his knowledge, this was one of the first times in the education sector that there was a “must consult with the disability sector” in the work that we’re doing.

So, again, I think it needs to be broad for the sake of what the Minister comes up with for the national statement at the time, but I’m delighted that we have identified those particular groups to consult with.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, for this opportunity. I’d like to acknowledge Jan Tinetti for working on this bill and bringing it to the House. I’d also like to acknowledge and thank the Education and Workforce Committee for hearing all of the submissions that have been put through.

I would like to talk about new section 4A, in clause 4, where it states that the Minister must consult with “national bodies representing the interests of Pacific education organisations;”. My question to the member in the chair, Jan Tinetti, is: as you’re consulting with these Pacific organisations, would you also consider organisations who are Pacific, serving Pacific children and Pacific students, who may not be members of a national body? For instance, we have had quite a few thousand Samoans, Tongans, and other ethnic groups who have moved to regional areas in Aotearoa recently, in the last one to five years or so. They are providing some educational services, but they are, as far as I know—we have been out there, both myself and the honourable Minister for Pacific Peoples consulting in these areas in the last few months, and we have not found all of them to be members of national bodies. So, as you are finalising this bill, that is my question to you, the member in the chair: could we ensure that we are going to be inclusive of those Pacific organisations?

I, like many members who have spoken on this bill before me, would like to commend you as well as all of those who have made submissions, including the Children’s Commissioner, who stated that it is so important to ensure that we consult with and listen to our children. You know, one of the things that I was actually quite surprised by as I went consulting on education, actually, with Pacific as well as ethnic communities, was that parents actually brought their children. I was quite surprised not only that we had children as young as four and five—some as young as 10—come and actually give us what their opinions are of education right now as they experience it but also that they were brave enough, at the end of these consultations, to get up in front of, in some cases, a few hundred of us and tell us exactly what they would like to see in the education system today.

Also, one of the questions was: what would you like to do if you were the boss of education? How would you ensure that the education system you experience when you go to school is an education fit for you as a child? I tell you, some of those conversations that we heard from these children were just breathtaking. We heard from an 11-year-old child in Porirua who told us exactly what it would be like if she was the Minister. Another child, who was 10, told us exactly what she would like to do if she was the Secretary for Education. So hearing from the voices of our children is absolutely important. I know that you, Madam Chair, being a teacher and having been a principal for so many years, know exactly what I’m talking about, because children are very honest and they do give you their honest opinion about things.

I would like to quote one of the things that the Children’s Commissioner, Judge Andrew Becroft, said at the hearing. He said, “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 our children and young people deliver better and more robust decisions.” Other submitters were really in agreement with Judge Becroft.

Another group that I’m so glad to see that the Minister must consult with is national bodies with a particular role in respect of the character of designated character schools. We know that we have hundreds and hundreds of designated character schools right throughout Aotearoa, so it is absolutely important that we hear from them—that we hear from them directly what it is that they provide, what it is that they would like the Minister of Education to address as we firm up and finalise the National Education and Learning Priorities, moving forward. Thank you so much for this opportunity.

E Te Māngai o te Whare tēnā koe. Tuarua tēnā hoki koe e te whaea e, Jan, mō tō pire kei mua i te aroaro o tātou katoa i tēnei ahiahi. E mihi nui ana, e mihi aroha ana ki a koe mō tō whai whakaaro kia uru mai tēnei ki roto i tēnei pire, āe hei tāpiri atu ki te pire matua mō te taha o te mātauranga. E mōhio ana ahau ki tētahi whakataukī e mōhiotia whānuitia ana, arā ‘Ko te manu e kai ana i te miro, nōna te ngahere; engari ko te manu e kai ana i te mātauranga, nōna te ao.’ Ka huri ahau ki te reo Pākehā.

[Thank you, Madam Chair. Secondly, thank you, Jan, for your bill which is before us all this afternoon. I congratulate and thank you for having the presence of mind to bring this to this bill, yes, this amendment to the main bill on education. I am reminded of a well-known proverb which says, “The bird which partakes of the miro, the forest is his domain, but the bird which consumes education, his domain is the world.” I shall now speak in English.]

Firstly, I just wanted to acknowledge the member Jan Tinetti—I think I called her a whaea, which will make her feel a little bit old—for bringing this member’s bill to the House. This is my first time speaking on it—I didn’t get the opportunity in the first stage—so I want to acknowledge her for having the thought to bring this, to strengthen the system and the processes. She made the point in responding to some of the points made from the other side about what the importance is of this document. As she said, it sets the high-level priorities to guide planning for early childhood and compulsory education sectors.

The Minister, earlier, spoke about some of the debate that was had at the Education and Workforce Committee. I wish I was there to hear some of that. But the summary that he gave us, and what I pick up from the report that’s come back from the select committee, was the debate over “must” and “may”. It just still staggers me, the belief that the other side just still don’t want to consult and work with our communities to develop such important documents—they’re just anti-consultation—to develop something that is so important.

What I in particular was interested in, and I actually have a question for the member, is around Māori education. Given your experience as a principal in Tauranga, what does the member see as the importance of Māori education and for Māori organisations representing Māori education to have input into this process? So that really is my question, because it goes to what the importance is of that, and in terms of the importance of this document that we’re looking at.

I also want to support what the Minister the Hon Jenny Salesa said in terms of this now requiring us to consult with special character schools or bodies that represent those schools. In my rohe, in my area in Northland, proudly, my hapū, Waikare, has the only special character school north of Auckland to date. However, those of our charter schools are in the process of changing. Now, that school is different to many others in the area. They run on a different kaupapa, so their input is likely to be different to that of others. So it’s important that it comes through organisations representing those particular schools. So I’m pleased to see that in there, but my question really is around, from your experience, what is the importance—sorry, not for the Chair; it is for the member whose name the bill is in to answer that question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a second call on this bill. I’d just like to ask the Opposition members about consultation. Why do the Opposition members not believe in consultation? That’s the question I’d like to pose to them, and I look forward to hearing their response. I would have thought the Opposition members would be supporting this bill, because, in my opinion, any form of consultation would improve our education system.

If I think back to 2012, under the previous Government—linked to the aspect of consultation, which is in new section 1A(4A), amended by clause 4. The previous Government talked about removing the specialist subjects from intermediate schools, and there was no consultation. So I’ll leave my point at that, but the question is—I am curious as to why the Opposition don’t support the aspect of consultation.

I’d like to highlight just one or two of the submissions that came in. The first one was from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. It talks about new section 1A(5A). New section 1A(5A) talks about—“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.” The submission that came in from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner said, “We support the insertion of subsection (5A) to define minor changes that do not require consultation, because it further protects the democratic process and strengthens the assurance of public consultation on material changes to any statement of National Education and Learning Priorities that is in force.” Then they “propose the insertion of a provision whereby the intention to make minor changes is notified on an internet site maintained by the Ministry of Education. Were the Committee to agree to this proposal,”—they carry on.

My question is to the member, and it’s around the minor changes—so whether the member has given some thought to the submission around the minor changes, around some sort of internet website maintained by the Ministry of Education where minor changes can be notified. That’s about communication, and it’s about people in the education sector having that clear communication when minor changes have taken place. There was a submission from the National Council of Women of New Zealand which also spoke about minor changes, sort of in a similar vein. I think it’d be interesting to hear from the member her views around that.

One other submission I’d just like to pick up on and sort of raise a point around, was from the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA). The PPTA said, “The amendments proposed in this bill make the enduring objectives more consistent with the language and tone of the New Zealand Curriculum, the current foundational curriculum policy statement and national curriculum statement established under part 60A section 1.” If we have a look at some of those enduring objectives of the New Zealand curriculum, I’d be interested to hear from the member her view around the New Zealand curriculum and how this bill relates to those enduring objectives in the New Zealand curriculum, and her vision around that.

I’d just like to, in my last minute here, refer back to new section 1A(4A), again, around the consultation, because I spoke about it previously but I didn’t talk about new paragraph (e). In paragraph (e), it talks about where the Minister must consult with bodies representing the interests of early childhood services. And that’s a new point that I haven’t really heard of much in this debate: the importance of early education—the importance of the first five years of a child’s life. Many people in this Chamber have had children go through our education system, and I’m sure we’d all agree that the first five years are incredibly important, because how someone starts out is a big determination to how they will continue. If our young people start well in those first five years, then there’s much better chance for them to do well in the rest of their life. So I’m very encouraged that this aspect is included in this bill, because what that does is it values our early childhood sector, it values those working in the sector, and it says the Minister must consult with them around some of the specific challenges within that sector.

So I’ll leave my contribution there, but I’d just like to ask the member if she could answer some of those questions I raised before. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, thank you. I’ll just start with the questions of the previous member, Jamie Strange. The first one—it wasn’t his first one, but the first one I will address—is about the enduring objectives. If you look at the front of the bill as it stands now, we’ve actually removed the reference to the enduring objectives of the national curriculum, the reason being that there’s some fantastic work being done by the Government at the moment on the Kōrero Mātauranga, which is the Education Conversation, and I really feel that that work needs to actually be included in those objectives, so that has been removed at this point in time. So I won’t need to talk much about that at this point in time. The minor changes, and I note the submission from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, but any amendments, any—by virtue of definition—minor amendments will be uncontroversial. So I don’t personally see that need for that, because they’re going to be small, minor, and technical, so there is no need for that recommendation to proceed.

I was asked about Pacific education organisations by the Hon Jenny Salesa. This bill talks about consulting with the national bodies that are representing, so that’s where this bill points towards at this stage. My colleague Willow-Jean Prime asked about the importance of Māori education and consulting with the groups involved in Māori education. As an ex-principal involved in a school that had a very strong Rumaki unit and also up to, at one stage, about a 95 percent Māori role across the total school, I see that importance is absolutely critical. For too long, in many education settings, we actually haven’t heard the authentic voice of Māori, and we really need to hear that authentic voice and them guiding and teaching us about the best way to progress Māori achievement, and what Māori achievement looks like, because it doesn’t necessarily look like what we see from a Eurocentric viewpoint. So we need to take that Māori lens, and we need to listen, and we need to really listen. We need to become the learners in those situations when we hear those particular groups and consult with those groups.

Before I call the member, I just want to encourage members—this is a small bill with some technicalities in it, however we’ve heard lots of argument around the specifics of clause 4. I’m looking for some new argument and for a little less repetition of the arguments we’ve already heard.

Madam Chair, thank you. I’m happy to take a call on this part of the debate, and I just want to start off by commending the member who’s currently in the chair for putting forward this bill. I want to touch on a couple of the key changes recommended by the Education and Workforce Committee around clause 4. But just by way of context, I just want to touch on why this is actually a really important bill, and this is responding to some of the criticism that has been levelled that it’s a very minor bill; that its changes are apparently so insignificant that we shouldn’t be using House time on them.

I just want to draw the committee’s attention to the importance of the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs) and where they actually fit within the system. I think that helps us to understand why the bill’s important and what the operative bits of this clause actually achieve. The National Education and Learning Priorities—what they do is they set out the Government’s medium-term priorities for the sector, specifically the compulsory sector and the early childhood education centre, and that isn’t just words on a page that sort of exist in a vacuum somewhere. If you’ve been on a school board of trustees, like I have—I chaired my local school board of trustees for a number of years—you have to prepare a strategic plan, and that strategic plan has to be aligned to the NELPs. If you are an early childhood education centre, you have to demonstrate how what you are doing aligns to the NELPs. So this is actually really, really important stuff, and what the bill is doing is ensuring that we are building up the NELPs in such a way that it actually understands the needs and the issues within the sector so that when those institutions actually come to apply, it’s meaningful and it makes sense, and it actually contributes to greater learning and achievement in those institutions. So it is really, really important.

If we turn to the specifics of the bill and the select committee—and just acknowledging the work of the select committee on this bill—there are actually some reasonably significant changes that were made at select committee level. What I note in respect of clause 4 is that the member did write to the select committee to seek some of those changes, particularly around subclauses (2), (3) and (4) of clause 4. What Jan Tinetti has requested specifically is the removal of clause 4(7), which would make the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities a disallowable instrument. But what she’s also done is write to the committee in respect of clause 4 and note that the Government has a significant body of work under way in respect of the national level Education Conversation that’s going on at the moment, and she’s indicated changes and suggested removing parts of the clause there to ensure that we’re not precipitating any work which may happen in that area. To me, that was, really, a sensible move.

The nature of members’ bills like this one is that they don’t necessarily have to change the world, but all of us as members can make useful and sensible changes to legislation that advance things that are important to us as members and important to the communities that we represent. The changes that have been made in this area do that, and I just want to go to clause 4(5) and new section 1A(4A). This is the section which I think is really, really important within this bill, because it talks about the stakeholders who we’re actually going to consult with.

This is one of the really big things we’ve got to get right in education. It is one of the critiques we have, on this side of the House, about the way that education was managed over the previous nine years. A lot of the key stakeholders, the people within the sector—the teachers, the learners, the academics who apply their profession and their expertise to understanding and improving the understanding of the sector—were often locked out of policy development. This is actually about us saying within the bill: let’s talk to the people who know the sector and let’s talk to the people who are affected by the sector. So it’s really important, particularly within the context of this bill, that we’re actually talking to the learners; that we’re involving children and young people.

I was involved in local government before this role and one of my biggest epiphanies was, actually, the value of listening to children and young people when you are developing policy. When you are doing that, you pick up on things that you otherwise do not pick up on. It’s something about the “nothing to us without us”. So I really commend the member on that.

One question I do have for the member is just to give the committee a little bit more explanation around the change from national representative organisations to national bodies representing the interests of specified stakeholders. I’d appreciate some clarification on that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I’m going to call Mark Patterson. I’m just going to encourage you—there has been a lot of repetition in this debate this afternoon. If I hear the same arguments I will actually ask the member to resume his seat.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do take that advice on board. If I could start with what I’m sure has been some repetition, could I congratulate the member Jan Tinetti on bringing this bill before the committee. I have the privilege of serving on the Education and Workforce Committee with Jan, and her experience as a highly respected educator within that committee is invaluable. We’re seeing that come forward in this bill, because she knows full well the importance of consultation with the broader sector.

Of course, we’re seeing within the clauses of this bill teachers, principals, schools themselves, boards, early childhood, disability, Māori and Pasifika needing to be consulted, and they will be consulted more on changes to education, under this bill.

One measure hadn’t been specified, and I’d just like to ask the member—as a member of a board of an area school—will rural and area schools that do have specific needs maybe be one of the groupings that will be included in this consultation? I think that’s something that needs real consideration within this bill, because we do in area schools have different needs. We do face isolation. We don’t necessarily have the resources that bigger schools do have. So I would ask that maybe if you could bring an answer forward for that in your response.

New Zealand First has been a big supporter of this bill. Tracey Martin, the Associate Minister—I know she has played a role in pushing this forward. She really believes strongly in a stronger education system, in a strong public education system, and she has played a role, I know, behind the scenes helping to guide this through with Minister Hipkins. So, once again, it shows this Government taking education seriously, moving it in a different direction, back away from privatisation, as we’ve seen in other Governments, trying to do that, and back into building a strong public education system. So I think that this bill goes a long way to doing that. You can’t make the changes that we are making without consultation, and this bill will see this happen. Of course, there are a raft of other measures that we’ve put forward in this education space.

So without further ado, I would like some fleshing out around the area schools, because I do think that that is important certainly to me, and New Zealand First is a party that does look to represent regional New Zealand’s interest, and we’d like to see maybe where the thinking is going around that, the area schools in particular. Without further ado, I will commend the member on the bill and look forward to that response. Thank you.

Tuatahi ka nui te mihi ki a koe e te tuahine mō tēnei pire. Kia ū, kia māia, kia kaha, koinā te mahi—ko koe he tino pukunui; ki a mātou ngā tāngata e kore kōrero i ngā wāhi katoa, so kei a koe e te tuahine, thank you.

[Firstly, I congratulate the sister on this bill. Be firm, be steadfast, be staunch—that is what is needed; you are very greedy to those of us who don’t often get the opportunity to speak, so to you, sister, thank you.]

Thank you for bringing this very important bill before the House. I guess I had probably three key questions—I probably won’t use all my time, Madam Chair—just three, kind of, key questions that I was really interested in your feedback on.

Looking through the report, in particular I went to the minority view and noticed there were a couple of comments in the minority view that I found interesting. One that I guess I did have some further questions around—at the bottom there they mentioned that “The bill is poorly timed as we are currently carrying out an education conversation in a range of other reviews in the education sector.” So I guess the broader question that I have there is the consultation requirements in the specific amendments that you’ve set out in this member’s bill—just how does that fit in with the broader educational reforms that are currently under way? I’m sure you would have thought through that, but I was wondering if you could just elaborate on that a little bit.

I pick up on my colleague Michael Wood earlier. He made that statement and I turned around and I gave him a little look, because I was going to commence my remarks also with that proverb: nothing for us without us. You know, in my time prior to this House, in my former profession, that was the catchcry of community upon community, that Government would do things to them without engaging with them. It became the catalyst for many years—well, many generations, some would say—of becoming disconnected from a system that was constantly doing things to them.

But consultation can have many different faces and many different forms. I guess my second question that I had for you in particular is: how is the consultation that you’ve proposed here likely to occur? You’ve set out very clearly the communities that the Government must engage with, and I do commend you, and comments from my colleagues have widely traversed the benefit of the mandatory requirements to consult with that broad consortium of population groups. But, yes, the devil is always in the detail, so they say. So I would be really interested to hear your thoughts on what you envisage the form of consultation might look like.

The third question I had with regard to, I guess, that same point as well is that sometimes consultation can happen rather swiftly and under a curtain somewhere off to the corner, and it can be said that, you know, some official went out somewhere and they asked somebody and that consultation occurred. So I guess my question, on behalf of—again, having sat through many a hearing and far too many litigation forums prior to now, debating and trying to get some resolution around the mode of consultation, and really what you’re envisaging for the transparency around the way in which the Government might consult with these communities that you’ve proposed they will be.

So just those three questions there on my behalf, Jan, but I do really—the member, Jan. Ha, ha!

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! You must actually use the member’s full proper name.

That’s why I was laughing at myself, Madam Chair, because I wasn’t—usually you say the honourable somebody, but I wasn’t quite sure what the criteria was. But I do—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): So could you refer to the member by her proper name, please. Thank you.

Sorry, yes, the member Jan Tinetti. So, yeah—look I do want to commend you because you’ve spotted a gap in our current legislative environment, and you have absolutely filled that gap. So thank you very much, Jan Tinetti.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to go back to a couple of points. Firstly, thank you to the people that have just asked some questions. To the member Mark Patterson, area schools fall within section 1A(4A)(d), set out in clause 4. The bill allows for consultation with the governing bodies of all schools, so that’s where they come into there. But the bill also doesn’t prevent consultation with individual schools, so if that is part of the work plan at the time and that is particular, then there may be that opportunity to have consultation with the individual schools—and, believe me, area schools are an area that I’m very passionate about too.

Also, there was a question around how this work fits in with the Kōrero Mātauranga, or the Education Conversation. This bill is very much in line with it. When this bill was going through the select committee process, the Children’s Commissioner, who has an oversight of that particular work, stated that he would proceed with the bill because the wording is wide enough to accommodate any changes, and, certainly, this can be developed and also, then, inform the new work that’s coming through. So there’s not any clash there. That’s because we did the work around looking at those enduring objectives and taking those out of this particular bill at the time.

What might consultation look like? Again, that can be very fluid at this point because it will depend on what the statement looks like—the statement that is developed at that point in time—and so it would be a shame if we narrowed it down too far that we didn’t allow good consultation to occur. Certainly, consultation—I heard there that at times there’s a fear that consultation might be secretive or done under the cover of darkness. The whole intent of identifying groups of who the Minister must consult with is so that that doesn’t happen. We are giving people surety that they will be part of that consultation, that it will be open and frank consultation with those particular groups, that it isn’t just at the whim of any Minister, and this particular bill is identifying who the groups are that the Minister must consult with so it is not done in a secretive way.