Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3)

Members, the House is in committee on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3). We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 16—

Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that Parts 1 to 3, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m delighted to be here in the committee of the whole House for this very important bill that we are taking through the House. I do want to say that I’ve got my Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education) in the Chamber, the Hon Kelvin Davis, as well. I know that there are some aspects of this bill that he has been working very hard on, so I may vacate the chair at some point to hand over to him if there are specific questions around that.

But what I am introducing here this morning is Supplementary Order Paper 406 to fix minor drafting errors in the bill. This is presented in the form of a revision-tracked version of the bill that will be used during the committee of the whole House. The Supplementary Order Paper makes a change so that, for the purposes of developing an Order in Council made under clause 9, the annual report of a wānanga on the remuneration of employees and former employees for amounts of $100,000 or above must include a report on the remuneration of the chief executive of the wānanga. This is to make clause 9 consistent with clause 25 of the bill, which makes the same change generally for university and wānanga annual reporting on employee and former employee remunerations.

New section 398K provides for the appointment of members to the council of a wānanga. A minor change has been proposed that allows for the nomination of members as well as appointments. Minor changes have been made to new section 398S for consistency to ensure that the requirements of non-Crown entity wānanga relating to the application of the Public Audit Act can be found in the same section. Consequently, minor changes have also been made to new section 398J and new section 94A.

The rest of the changes in the Supplementary Order Paper are focused on minor technical changes, improving readability, and correcting small drafting errors such as grammar or adding in missing cross references.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for her introduction. I wanted to go straight to Part 2—I think the Minister will be aware I’ve got a Supplementary Order Paper I want to speak to. But before I speak directly to it, I want to ask the Minister some questions around Part 2, clause 38, the co-option of members to a school board. The first question I want to ask the Minister is: why is it that one of the existing provisions around the 50:50 split of male and female has been removed from the Act and disappeared completely, and is replaced with the genders, sexualities, and sexes of the student body? I just want to ask the Minister: first off, what was it that was wrong with sexes and why has it been replaced?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Basically because we’ve got a changing view of the terminology, and that has been pointed out throughout the shepherding of this bill—to understand the diversities within the community and the full diversities within the community. Can I also point out that this particular part does relate to the co-option of board members and we have around about 5 percent of our boards, so we’re not talking about a huge number of our boards, but we are talking about when they are co-opting into those areas to take account of the different diversities and the differing diversities within there. It’s looking at your community and your school community as a whole.

One of the very good submissions on the bill from the group Speak Up for Women made the point that in the previous Education Act between 1989 and 2020—when that previous Education Act was in place, we saw huge steps in the acceptance of the rainbow community in New Zealand. The Human Rights Act 1993 made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, civil unions provided for legal representation of same-sex relationships, and finally the legislation for same-sex marriage. So huge gains between 1989 and 2020; these momentous things all occurred in the 31 years between the Education Act 1989 and the Education and Training Act 2020.

When this Minister’s Government in 2020 introduced the new Education and Training Act, there were no appointment criteria recognising sexualities despite all of those gains. Why it is in the last three years it’s suddenly—the question is: what has happened in the last three years that means wording that was perfectly fine in 2020, after all of those gains of 30 years for the LGBT community, is suddenly out of date and desperately in need of modernising just three years later? I’m talking about in terms of sexualities, where we’re adding it in now, where the Minister in her previous answer just said change of terminologies, and it doesn’t really hold water because this Act was only amended in 2020 after so many gains over so many decades in terms of sexualities. The question is: what has changed in the last three years that we now need to add sexualities in?

Well, was it working? That’s one of the reasons why we have legislation going through the House, to make certain that we are making it stronger. It’s the whole reason why we are here doing this job, so I would disagree with the member’s take on what she has just presented there. Specific criteria are helpful prompts to support boards to think about the diverse perspectives that need to be raised to ensure that they are meeting the needs of the diverse school community that they have. We know that there are disabled and LGBTIQA+ learners present in almost every school, and specifically including these terms in criteria can prompt and support boards to consider the needs of those students and their community that they are representing when they are co-opting members.

So I would like to, once again, say that one of the reasons that we are doing this is because it will make it stronger for those members of the community.

Another good point made by Speak Up for Women is that there is an insinuation by this Minister and this Government that members of the rainbow community are not able to be elected on their own merit—I’m reading from her submission, and that that is offensive and untrue. “All throughout New Zealand, for many years, members of the rainbow community who want to serve have been elected to school boards. The inference that we need special treatment or recognition is another form of othering us and yet again calling us out as different. When many of us have fought for the right to be ordinary. To be boring. To be just like everyone else. To have the same rights as everyone else, nothing more, nothing less. To be chosen on merit, not because of a special identity.” The reason I read that out Minister is because I want to—I’ve got more questions on the back of this, but I wanted you to answer their questions around this, and also that the offence that they’re taking, that they believe they’re able to be elected on their own merits rather than having to have a special category carved out for them.

Look, first of all I would like to say thank you to all submitters who took the time to submit on this bill, and while I respect the process of their submissions, I disagree with that and I’m very disappointed to hear that people think that minority groups or groups that have struggled to make themselves heard do not need to be elevated because they can just stand on their own merit. Ask other people, ask other groups that have struggled to make themselves heard over time how well that’s worked out for them. We need to actually acknowledge our groups in this country, including our LGBTIQA+ group. We need to acknowledge them and have that separate criteria so that they are seen, because if we don’t have them, they will not get seen. That’s not to say that they are not amazing people, but they will not get seen. That is the bottom line.

We have the same here; we have a 50:50 split in our Parliament now of women and men. We got that through deliberately—people deliberately, and parties deliberately going and acknowledging that we needed to do that. We were not seen up until that point. If that member thinks that people can stand on their own merit and get elected, go ask those groups that that hasn’t happened to. Now, we’re not talking about election here; we’re talking about co-option. What we are talking about is that when board members are co-opted, they will give the reflection to those particular groups. Those groups are being seen in the process.

Thank you. That leads to my next question to the Minister of Education around the appointment of these people. The ministry seemed to say, in all of the Education Committee process, that this change requires no collection of information or asking of awkward questions. But in many of the submissions that we heard from—and I also have the belief that this will be a problem—this simply can’t be true that there won’t be awkward questions. A number of people that spoke to us in committee, who are current or former board members, reflected that in many instances they simply didn’t know the sexualities of their board members or if any had a particular gender identity. Some said that they’d made the assumption based on things like partners or spouse’s names, but on reflection they really didn’t know. So others mentioned it wasn’t a topic of discussion. They were focused on what they were there for: to govern the school well for every student. So my question to the Minister is: the ministry is saying there won’t be any awkward questions, how does she think that co-opting members of different sexualities to school boards will happen without asking any awkward questions, or will it just be guess work?

Because I trust the schools.

Erica Stanford: My next question to the Minister is around—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Erica Stanford.

Oh, sorry. Madam Chair? Thank you. My next question is around definitions. The ministry has not defined what they mean by “gender” in the bill, leaving it up to boards simply to guess. For the record, I was hoping that the Minister of Education could put on record—so that it’s in Hansard and we can all see it—the difference between “gender” and “sex”, for the purpose of this bill.

Here, “gender” is referred to as a person’s social and personal identity as male, female, or another gender, or genders that may be non-binary. Both “gender identity” and “gender expression” are included in the definition.

I ask the Minister of Education, once again, how is it that a board will know someone’s gender identity, as opposed to their sex, without asking questions or collecting information? The Minister may want to think about that question and answer it later, because she hasn’t answered it either time that I’ve asked it.

The other question I want to talk to her about is the inclusion in the section of socio-economic diversity. One of the submitters to the bill made a very similar point regarding the reference to socio-economic diversity and says that it’s outdated—giving a quote here—“It appears to simply be a Wellington way of insinuating that poor people may not be able to be elected on merits so they may need to be co-opted.” I read that as a direct quote out of one of the submissions that we got. I’d like the Minister to answer the question of whether or not she thinks people of low socio-economic means are not able to be elected on to a board by their own merits and therefore need to be co-opted and added as a separate category under this bill.

I don’t like doing this, but I’m going to. The member hasn’t had experience of working with a low socio-economic school before—I have.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, here we go.

Hon JAN TINETTI: Thank you. I don’t like doing this.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: First-class Labour arrogance.

Marja Lubeck: It’s experience.

Hon JAN TINETTI: It is experience.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, it’s not. That is ignorance. That is—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Order! This is a robust House.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes, it is.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you, the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I can do without his contribution. So can we just keep this to a respectful, not hectoring time?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Thank you, Madam Chair. What I was going to go and say is that in many experiences that I have had, there have been many people that have had the skills to work on the boards of trustees before, but have not necessarily put their hands up to do that, because they’ve had a lack of confidence in their own ability. This gives them the ability to stand alongside the board, just as it does in many other sectors. We have the same processes in many public sector boards, many private sector boards have the same processes, where they see skills that might exist in people who won’t necessarily have that confidence. This gives those boards the ability to be able to think about those people who might not necessarily have the confidence but do have the abilities and skills and knowledge to be able to be on a board of trustees successfully.

I think this is a really good amendment that we are making here, or a good part of this bill that we are showing here. And I actually do thank you for the ability to be able to get up and talk about this. I’ve had it from experience—I’ve seen many, many people who have had that experience, those skills, and that knowledge, but they do not have the confidence. This gives those boards the ability to be able to have that pathway for them to come on and develop their knowledge, their skills, and their abilities to be able to not only work on this board of trustees or their school’s board of trustees but to be able to take that through to other boards as well. That’s why this is here.

Thank you. I thank the Minister of Education for her answer. It was really interesting that she talked about confidence in terms of their skill and ability, but never actually mentioned the words “socio-economic conditions” of that person.

I guess the next question is: how would a board know? I mean, I guess that the board could seek out people who they didn’t think were confident in their ability, but that’s very different than socio-economic conditions. I guess the question to the Minister is: how would a board know the socio-economic position of someone that they were co-opting to the board? It’s a very similar question to the one that I asked earlier about gender and sexuality, and she couldn’t answer those questions, or wouldn’t.

The next question, then, is around socio-economic conditions of that family. Will they have to provide a statement of financial position? How will it be that a board will know that a particular family is in a low socio-economic group to then co-opt them onto a board? Because all the Minister just said before was their “confidence”. How will that be defined, and also how will the board know, when they’re co-opting, that someone is in that situation? Rather than talking about just confidence, I’m specifically talking here about what it says in the bill, because this is important—it is making a change. It’s talking about the socio-economic diversity of the student body and the community. So that indicates that the board will have to know the socio-economic status of the person that they are co-opting to the board. How would they know that?

I’m sure the member knows how well schools know their community. Schools know their communities inside out. They know the connections within communities. They know more than what people think they know about their school’s communities. Just as I said to an earlier answer—and this actually could cover all of the questions that I’ve been asked so far—I trust schools because I know that they know their communities inside out. Absolutely.

Right, well that leads me to my Supplementary Order Paper, because as the Minister just said, she trusts schools—awesome. In that case, why do we need a long list of things that boards must take into account? My Supplementary Order Paper removes all of them, and says “that every board should reflect the diversity of their students and school community”—trusting schools to know their communities, schools, and students to be able to make their own decisions based on the skills and experience of the people that they are co-opting to that board to make sure that they have a good representation. If the Minister is so hung up on trusting schools, as she should be, then why do we need all of these carve-outs which actually leave out many groups? Because she talks in here about disabilities, but we know that there are many, many things that a student might have that are not officially classified as a disability, therefore not included in this list. It’s not an exhaustive list, so why have a list at all? Because it does lead to unintended consequences where you get people who are left out.

It is much more simple and fair, and if she indeed does just trust schools to know their communities, will she support my Supplementary Order Paper that removes all of those—and all of the problems that they come with—and the lack of definitions, leaving it just up to schools to decide what the differences between gender and sex are; and making the LGBT community, in one of their own submissions, just feel that they are being marginalised in this bill? And the same with people from low socio-economic circumstances, being marginalised because they are poor and not just capable of being on a board.

All of those things that we heard in select committee would be clean and tidy if we had this Supplementary Order Paper which just said “every board should reflect the diversity of their students and school community”: trusting schools to make the right decision for their community. So I put that to the Minister, and I do want to go back and just make sure that she understands that the things that I have been bringing up were from submitters. They were direct quotes from submitters, and I would like to point out the overwhelming majority of submissions on this part of the bill were in opposition.

The new co-option criteria was of significant interest to submitters, and I appreciate the time, as I’ve said earlier, that people gave to make their views known. Many submitters said that the bill should define sexes, gender, and sexuality. Some submitters considered that skill, rather than personal attributes, should be the most significant factors in board membership. The change proposed through the bill is to ensure that population groups underrepresented in school governance, who can feel invisible in the schooling system, have greater opportunity to have a voice in how schools are run. I remind the member of what I said in an earlier reply: you know, we think sometimes that when we group these groups together, they will automatically be seen. Ask those groups, in many other instances, how seen they have felt in other times when they have been seeking representation, and “very invisible” is the answer that they will give through that. The amendment posed by the Opposition would mean that boards may not be prompted to consider the representation of groups listed in the co-option criteria. This is just about prompting. This isn’t about, “You must do this”, or “You must co-opt these groups”. It is about prompting those groups. If we don’t have those prompts there, they might not be seen—

Erica Stanford: I thought you trusted schools.

Hon JAN TINETTI: I absolutely trust schools, but as someone who would love to have those prompts there, I think that this is a really, really good amendment to this. Furthermore, I reject the view that having broader community representation on school boards will result in a reduction in the skills and experience of school boards. I also remind the committee that it is not compulsory for school boards to co-opt members, or, if they wish to do so, it is not compulsory for boards to appoint people from any specific community, including LGBTQIA+ or disability communities. On that basis, I therefore do not support the member’s Supplementary Order Paper.

Just one more final question on this part—well, maybe; I think so. The Minister just said that there are population groups that are underrepresented. I would like to ask her: what evidence can she state, here in the committee today, that LGBTQ people are not well represented on school boards? What specific evidence—not anecdotal evidence, or things she’s heard from her time as a principal, but actual data—has she received? [Interruption] Well, you started this, Minister! What evidence do you have that those certain LGBT population groups are underrepresented that led her to this bill; not anecdotal, but actually data?

I’m really disappointed that the member would actually minimise the views of the rainbow community, because it is the views of the rainbow community that have led to this today. And to say, “That is anecdotal, so we don’t want to know that”—that says a lot about the views over there. We have listened to the views; we have listened to those rainbow students who have felt minimised and marginalised in their schools—

Nicola Grigg: Where’s the data?

Hon JAN TINETTI: There is data; if the member is looking for data, look at the mental health statistics for that particular group. They want to see themselves represented. This is a big part. You cannot be what you cannot see. When you have that representation, you can aspire to those roles, but, also, you have people that are advocating for you, who know your journey that you’re going through; that know the difficulties that you’re going through. We have that data. We want to turn that around—we want to make it a safe and happy place for our students from those communities. I am disappointed that that member—or members from that side of the House—believe that this would not seek that safety and assurance that our young people would see themselves represented within that school and have people that would advocate for them. Very disappointing.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following on, I’m a bit confused. Can you just confirm that you’re saying that there are a group of people that are underrepresented in school boards, but you don’t know who they are?

What I take from the Minister’s previous answer when she eventually got to the point and said she has the data—didn’t actually say what it was—is that she actually doesn’t have data. The reason I’m asking this question is not from me but from our submitters. Our submitters in particular said—and they were LGBT groups themselves. They came to our select committee and said that they felt that the fact they couldn’t get elected on their own merit was offensive and it was untrue, that they are being elected on to school boards, and that they don’t need to be singled out. So their question was, we already know that LGBTQ people are being elected to school boards in numbers and they don’t feel that they need to be singled out.

That was their submission. It’s not me saying this, Minister; it’s a submission that we have which I want to know her view on. And they specifically asked whether or not there was any data to show that their groups were not already represented on school boards so that they would need to be singled out. They felt—it’s not me—that this was unfair. They felt marginalised by this, and they wanted to know whether or not there was any actual data showing that LGBTQI people were not already represented on school boards so that they needed to be singled out. And, as I said in my previous contribution, they said they didn’t want to be called out as being different when they’ve been fighting for so long to be just ordinary and, in their words, boring, just like everyone else. They felt that being singled out in this way was not something that they wanted to do and they didn’t think that it was required.

So the question again, Minister, is: what does the data say in terms of LGBT representation on school boards—what percentages are there, so that this change is required? That is coming from a submitter. I’m interested in her answers to their questions.

In April and June 2021, the Ministry of Education did consult publicly about the changes to the school board elections framework. They gathered the data at that point, around representation. So as part of this, they asked whether the criteria for co-opting and appointing board members should be updated. So the proposal was put that that criteria could be updated so that boards should reflect, as far as reasonably practical, disabled students and the school’s disabled community; the genders, sexualities, and sexes of the school students and of the school community; and Māori students and the school’s Māori community. Overwhelmingly, submissions supported the inclusion of those criteria for the co-option. Can I remind the member, once again, that we are talking about 5 percent of boards who use co-option. This is a prompt to prompt people to think about the different demographics who they represent within their school. It is a prompt. Then they are trusted to make decisions based on the needs of their school. That’s what the co-option process is for. The co-option is there to make sure that those full demographics are being represented. These are prompts only. It is very, very disappointing to hear that people would not think that that was important, to ensure that wider representation within a school board of trustees—very disappointing.

I’d like to turn now to Part 1, “Amendments to principal Act relating to [the] wānanga”. This is a groundbreaking piece of legislation, but I am so disappointed, and particularly for all the people that are here today representing our three wonderful wānanga, that they have had this incredibly important part recognising the history of the wānanga sandwiched into a piece of legislation about early childhood education (ECE) police vetting and sex, sexuality, and gender of board appointments.

It is disrespectful to the three wānanga and it is asking for a compromise from the three wānanga. They deserved better. They deserved to have legislation that was absolutely specifically recognising their proud history and recognising what an important part of legislation that this is. So I acknowledge all those from the wānanga that are here and I also thank those—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Order! With apologies to the member, I am sitting right in the middle of this Chamber and I am now beginning to struggle to hear the member making a contribution. It is every member’s right to be heard.

PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that continues the disrespect of this piece of legislation. We have people here in the gallery today that have given a lifetime of work towards the wānanga. We have people here who were the very inaugural starters—drivers—behind their wānanga. The wānanga should have had legislation specific to them that enabled all parts of what was required to make this important part of legislation work.

Instead, they have been asked to compromise. They have graciously agreed to that compromise for the sake of getting the main part through of Crown, non-Crown entities. But they have had to compromise, and every time I read this, it feels disrespectful that they will be called “category A wānanga”, “category B wānanga”, “category C wānanga”. The legislation should have been specific to this; it should have allowed the ministry to concentrate only on getting all this right, and it should have included appropriate agreed terms—not “category A, category B, category C wānanga”—and it should have got protection of the term “wānanga”. Now, I understand why they have accepted the compromise to get the main part through, but they should never have been asked to accept that compromise. They should never have been asked to be gracious in that.

There are many people who won’t understand where the wānanga came from. Obviously that doesn’t include anyone that’s here in the gallery, but there may be many people watching this that don’t understand. I’ll give the comparison of what was my own institution, the Southern Institute of Technology. It started from a Southland technical college. The wānanga had to start from nothing. They started from iwi and individuals mortgaging their own houses to get the wānanga started. They started by the commitment and the passion of people who wanted to make the wānanga work. So they did that right from the start, and now, again, we have been asking them to compromise.

So I would like the Minister to tell us why they are being asked to compromise and be called “category A, category B, category C wānanga”; they have been asked to compromise on not getting parity with the universities and the polytechnic and getting protection of the term “wānanga”; and why they were not allowed to have this as their own piece of legislation, not sandwiched in against police vetting for ECE and board appointments of schools; why they didn’t allow a single focus on the wānanga to get this right instead of them being asked to compromise again. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member for her crocodile tears. First of all, I would like to acknowledge the three wānanga: Te Wānanga o Raukawa, Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, and Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi. I would like to acknowledge the aspirations of the tūpuna and the iwi behind those wānanga. The member was right with her contribution that the wānanga did have to start up from nothing, but they are by Māori, for Māori institutions.

The short answer to her question is that we worked with the wānanga. This is what they wanted. The kiko, or the substance, of the bill—the framework—is what’s most important, and it will give wānanga time to actually develop those terms so that there can be the appropriate consultation on the terms that they want. But what’s most important is the substance of this part that gives life to the aspirations of the iwi and the tūpuna behind all the wānanga.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I te tuatahi, e mihi atu ki a koutou, ngā wānanga. Nau mai ki te kōhanga reo o te Pāremata. Aue taukiri e. Heoi anō he pai ake ngā piropiro o ō mātou nei mokopuna kei roto i ō rātou nei kōhanga reo. Heoi, taku pātai ki te Minita: e pēhea tēnei ture e aro ana ki ngā rangatiratanga e hiahiatia e ngā wānanga ki roto i tēnā pire? Tēnā pea ka taea e koe te kōrero mai te horopaki katoa me pēhea anō e tautoko ana tēnei ture i ērā i hiahiatia ai e ngā wānanga. Kia ora.

[Firstly, I acknowledge you, the wānanga. Welcome to the early childhood centre of Parliament. Oh my goodness. Anyway, our grandchildren are feeling better now in their early childhood centres. However, my question to the Minister: how will this legislation address the autonomy that the wānanga desire in this bill? Perhaps you could speak about the entire context of how this bill will support those things that the wānanga desire. Thank you.]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Tēnā koe. E mihi kau atu ki te mema mō tana pātai. Koia te tino kiko o tēnei pire. Taku taenga tuatahi atu ki Te Wānanga o Raukawa e rima tau i mua, ko te tino raruraru, tā rātou tino amuamu ko te pōhēhētanga o te Kāwanatanga nō rātou te mana whakahaere. Nā, arā ka kī mai ki a māua ko te Minita Mātauranga o taua taima, a Chris Hipkins, me whakawehewehe te rangatiratanga i te Kāwanatanga; tukuna te rangatiratanga, te mana whakahaere o ngā wānanga.

Nā reira ko tēnei pire te whakatinanatanga o aua moemoeā o Te Wānanga o Raukawa me ngā wānanga atu. Mehemea e hiahia ana rātou ki te whai i te huarahi o te category B Wānanga, mā te rangatiratanga e whakahaere. Mehemea e hiahia ana rātou ki te noho tonu kei raro i te maru o te Kāwanatanga, e pai anō hoki tēnā. Engari he whiringa mō ngā wānanga.

[Thank you. I thank the member for his question. That is the real meat of this bill. When I first arrived at Te Wānanga o Raukawa five years ago, the main problem, their main complaint was about the mistaken belief of the Government that they have the authority of management. So they then said to myself and the Minister of Education of the time, Chris Hipkins, the autonomy should be separated from the Government; transfer the autonomy, the authority of management over the wānanga.

So this bill is the implementation of that dream of Te Wānanga o Raukawa and the other wānanga. If they want to follow the path of a category B Wānanga, it will be up to the autonomy to manage. If they want to stay under the mantle of the Government, that’s also good. But it is a choice for the wānanga.]

Thank you, Madam Chair. He whakaaro tāpiri. He pātai tēnei ki te Minita i te mea i mea atu a Nāhinara he hanaweti noa iho tēnei pire. Heoi kei te tata tō tātou wā ki te poupoutanga o te wā, e tino hiakai tēnei mō tētahi hanaweti. Heoi anō e te Minita, ko tāku pātai: ka taea e koe te kōrero he aha ngā rerekē i waenganui i ngā ara e toru? Me pēhea e tautoko ai i te ia o ngā moemoeā o ia wānanga?

[An additional thought. This is a question for the Minister because National said that this bill is just a sandwich. However, our time is drawing close to high noon, and I’m getting really hungry for a sandwich. However, Minister, my question: could you speak about the differences between the three pathways? How will the gist of the dreams of each wānanga be supported?]

Āe, ko te rerekētanga: kei raro i tētahi o ngā momo wānanga, mā te wānanga e whakahoki ki te Karauna. Kei tētahi atu huarahi, mā ngā wānanga e whakautu ki ngā iwi, ngā iwi nā rātou i whakatinana, i whakaturea ai ngā wānanga. Koia te tino rerekē o ngā huarahi e toru. Ko te huarahi tuatoru ko te status quo. Horekau e pai ki ngā wānanga ko te status quo, engari koirā te rerekē o ngā huarahi. 

[Yes, the difference: under one type of wānanga, the wānanga answers to the Crown. On another track, the wananga answers to the iwi, the iwi that implemented and enacted the wānanga. That is the main difference of the three pathways. The third pathway is the status quo. The wānanga are not amenable to the status quo, but that is the difference of the pathways.] 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m enormously disappointed that the Minister Kelvin Davis has turned this personal and talked about “crocodile tears”. Can I assure him that having worked with Te Wānanga o Aotearoa for over two decades, I saw people like Rongo Wetere, who went through not only financial sacrifice but enormous personal sacrifice both for him and his family as their reputations were torn apart as they tried to establish and grow their wānanga. So there are no crocodile tears here; there is real understanding of the sacrifices that were made.

I’m pleased that the work was done with the wānanga, and there has been no criticism of that. Indeed, that’s what I’m saying; there should have been more time, more focus entirely on working with the wānanga to get all these components of the implementation correct. And so my question to the Minister is that everything that was done was in accordance with what the wānanga wanted. Can you tell me, did the wānanga ask to be called “category A wānanga”, “category B wānanga”, “category C wānanga”?

Thank you. Look, the member has to realise that the path that has been taken is the path that was chosen by the wānanga. There was intensive engagement over probably five years to get to this point and it is the substance of the bill that is the most important. So the initial naming was a “Crown entity” and a “non-Crown entity”, and that wasn’t satisfactory to the wānanga so this is just basically a placeholder so that the time can be taken to get the names right. But there needs to be appropriate consultation, because the whole term “wānanga” is contentious in itself in that universities can call themselves “whare wānanga” but the wānanga can’t call themselves “university” because of the protected term. Also various iwi and hapū and whānau hold wānanga. We don’t want them to think that they would be excluded from using “wānanga”. So there needs to be a discussion in Te Ao Māori about the use of it and the appropriate names. So that that will take some time.

But the substance of this bill is what is most important to the wānanga, and the name can come at an appropriate time in the future when everybody has had the appropriate discussions around the names for the types of wānanga they will be.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the Minister has answered the question himself, that if there had been sole focus in this legislation on the wānanga amendments, then that could have been worked through. Can I just make it very clear that the majority of submissions to this bill were about the sex, sexuality, and gender of seconded board members. That’s what took up the time of the select committee. That was what the focus was on and the Minister is quite right, the focus should be on the consultation with wānanga but it should have been in its own legislation. It should have been totally concentrated on and focused on that, because that was important to get the implementation right and instead they have been asked to compromise. They have graciously agreed to it, but I can almost guarantee that at the start of this process they did not put their hands up and say, “Please call us category A, category B, and category C wānanga.” They should have been given the respect, the time, the concentration, and the focus to get not only the core of the changes here right but the implementation right.

In a perfect world maybe what the member says would be great, but in my perfect world this would have happened 183 years ago.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I note your colleague Minister Jackson was nodding as my colleague Penny Simmonds was making submissions around the issue of timeliness. So, Minister, the Education and Workforce Committee report—I didn’t sit on the select committee, but I have read the report—it states very clearly that: “Section 390 of the Act protects the use of the terms ‘university’, ‘polytechnic’, and ‘institute of technology’ ” and that “All three wānanga told us the term ‘wānanga’ should similarly be a protected term.” The select committee report also clearly states: “However, there has not been adequate consultation and robust policy development for this proposal.”, which is further reinforced by a statement, in relation to Crown entity wānanga and non-Crown entity wānanga, that “There is insufficient time at this stage of the legislative process”.

Minister, it’s noted that when this bill was introduced to the House on 28 March of this year, submissions were called for with a closing date of 1 May 2023. Is it the Minister’s opinion and evidence that 24 working days—24 working days—was sufficient and respectful consultation with the three wānanga represented here in this Whare today?

As I said earlier, this has been probably five years in the making, the discussions with the wānanga. She’s asking whether 20-something days is enough time—look, to be honest, we’ve got to this point and the only thing that is holding this up are the questions that are coming.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 406 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Erica Stanford’s amendment to clause 38 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 402 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3) and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading