Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3)

I present a legislative statement on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3).

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon JAN TINETTI: I move, That the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time.

This bill makes a number of amendments to the Education and Training Act 2020. Most significantly, it creates an enabling legislative and governance framework for wānanga. I want to thank the members of the Education and Workforce Committee for their careful consideration of this bill and for their suggestions to strengthen this bill. I also want to thank all those who took the time to make submissions and share their thoughts and suggestions on the proposals. The committee received 1,124 written submissions and heard 55 oral submissions, and it is clear from the submissions made that people care very strongly about the education system and the outcomes it is delivering for learners, families, and the broader community. I want to draw particular attention to the significance of this bill for wānanga. Their oral submissions were considered and I know the changes in this bill have been a long time coming for them. I know the committee carefully considered their oral and written submissions.

The committee has proposed changes to the bill that mainly refine and clarify the original provisions, and I am pleased to report that the committee’s amendments were agreed to by a majority of members. My colleague, the Hon Kelvin Davis, Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education) will speak to the changes proposed for the wānanga governance framework in detail, and I want to take this House through the other changes proposed by the committee.

One of the proposals in the bill which generated a lot of interest throughout the select committee process is to modernise and expand the language of criteria that school boards use to co-opt or appoint members to a board. Co-option is an optional tool that boards can use to supplement their elected membership. When boards choose to co-opt or appoint a person they have to be guided by the cooption criteria as far as is reasonably practical. We know from self-reported data that only about 5 percent of all board members in 2020 were co-opted members. The bill proposes to ensure that the genders, sexualities, sexes, and disabilities of their students and school community must also be taken into account as part of the co-option or appointment decision. I want to recognise that this is a sensitive issue and that many submitters did not support this proposal. I want to take some time to now speak to some of the key issues raised.

A key issue raised by submitters is that this proposal would take away from schools’ and their communities’ choice about who sits on their school boards. Some people preferred that instead of adding new criteria, all of the existing criteria should be replaced with a general requirement that when co-opting or appointing members, boards need to consider the diversity of their students and school community. I want to reiterate that co-option is an optional tool to help boards get a good balance of skills and perspective around the board table. The choice to co-op rests with the board or in the case of State integrated schools, the proprietors of the school. The changes provide helpful prompts to the school board to ensure that they are thinking about the diverse perspectives of their school community that will support great educational outcomes for the learners within their school. Submitters were concerned that this proposal could lead to schools having to collect sensitive information about the genders, sexualities, and disabilities of their students and school community members for the purpose of co-option. None of the existing co-option and appointment criteria require or expect boards or anyone else to collect and store information. In practice, co-option is often progressed informally, based on the relationships and networks between whānau in the school community, such as the board reaching out to someone they know in that community who has property development or management experience—as the case has been, and I’ve been in that case before—who can help with an upcoming property redevelopment project for the school. I believe that these new criteria, along with the existing criteria, will support boards to think about and reach out to their LGBTIQA+ and disabled school communities for any additional support they need to create a school culture that supports all of their diverse learners.

Some people suggested that the bill should include definitions for terms like “genders” and “sexualities”. Currently, definitions are not included for any of the existing co-option and appointment criteria. To be consistent with this approach, the bill does not propose to define the terms in the new criteria. I also do not consider that further specifying what the terms “genders” and “sexualities” mean would be appropriate, responsive, or at least enduring. Society’s understanding about gender and sexuality is evolving, and the broad terms used in this bill will ensure that the criteria can be inclusive of the diverse range of perspectives that people hold within these communities.

The committee made two minor changes to this proposal to clarify the language in the bill. For consistency, the committee made a change to ensure that the co-option and appointment criteria relating to ethnic and socio-economic diversity and the genders, sexualities, and sexes apply to both the student body of the school and the school’s community as defined in the Act. The new criterion relating to disability already included a reference to the school’s disabled community. The committee also made a change to separate the existing criterion of the ethnic and socio-economic diversity into two criteria. This is to respond to a point a submitter raised that ethnicity and socio-economic status are not always linked.

I want now to turn to the other changes that the select committee proposed. For the proposal to allow the Ministry of Education to access data from Statistics New Zealand relating to early childhood education services. The committee has recommended a change to the drafting to clarify that the disclosed data can only be at the level of an early childhood service and cannot include personal information within the meaning of the Privacy Act 2020. The only exception is for an early childhood service that is operated by an individual, such as a sole trader, where the data would be considered personal information. These service providers must consent to the publication or disclosure of their information before it can be disclosed. For police vetting, the committee made a change to include a requirement that when undertaking the risk assessment based on police vets, early childhood education services and schools must take into account any guidelines on risk assessments issued by the Ministry of Education.

The university and wānanga remuneration reporting: the committee recommended that a university or wānanga will also report the compensation and other benefits of an employee or former employee, including the chief executive, if the total remuneration is $100,000 or above.

And finally, for the proposal to broaden the regulation-making powers in the Act in respect of school opening hours, the committee received advice from the Regulations Review Committee with suggestions to make the policy intent clearer. The Education and Workforce Committee has recommended a small change to this proposal to insert standard text into the Act specifying that a notice issued by the Minister of Education to set school opening hours as secondary legislation.

I am certain that this bill will support a more enduring and responsive education system, benefiting learners and whānau across New Zealand. I am pleased to commend the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3) to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak to the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3) and to advise that we will be opposing this bill, even though there are a lot of things—in fact, the majority of the things in it we support, but there are a couple of points that we oppose for different reasons.

So the bill has a number of parts to it: the school board election process; the child protection for early childhood education changes; some changes in the tertiary area, specifically a new framework for wānanga; and also the annual report requirements for universities, and some other bits and pieces. But the key messages are really that we don’t support the changes in the criteria for the appointment of school boards. We believe that it’s absolutely important that the school boards reflect the community in which they serve, but the most important thing for school boards is that they have the expertise to effectively run schools so that they can lift the outcomes of Kiwi kids so that they can get excellent and world-class education. That must be first and foremost in the school board’s mind.

The current law already allows that as far as reasonably practicable, every school board should reflect the character, gender, and the ethnic and social diversity of the school community. Our differing view in the summation of this bill was that the make-up of the school boards should be skills-based and reflect their community and that should be set out in legislation, however, attempting to list every possible characteristic, as this bill tries, is not appropriate, and, in fact, can be limiting and problematic.

So the legislation, we believe, should simply state that as far as is reasonably practicable, every board should reflect the diversity of their students and school community. So we will be, in the committee of the whole House, putting up a Supplementary Order Paper to seek to change this to simply “as far as reasonably practicable, every board should reflect the diversity of their students and school community.”

The other area that we have some concerns about—and I’ll start by saying that we absolutely agree with the changes to enable wānanga to elect to be Crown or non-Crown entities, but we believe there were two further parts to this where it should have gone further, and that was around the protection of the term “wānanga”, and also the names for Crown or non-Crown entities. As it stands, they will be called “A wānanga”, “B wānanga”, or “C wānanga”. Quite frankly, I think for the point of a few more weeks of consultation, the wānanga would have come together themselves and come up with alternative terms. It just feels wrong to be saying “A wānanga”, “B wānanga”, and “C wānanga”.

I think, perhaps, a lot of people won’t know of the very proud history of our three incredibly important wānanga, and the reason why this Crown or non-Crown entity categorisation is really important. Most of our tertiary institutions—particularly our polytechnics—came from things like technical colleges, so they were born out of Crown entities. But the wānanga most definitely weren’t, and they have incredibly proud histories of how they developed.

The first wānanga was in 1981, Te Wānanga o Raukawa, and they arose from their very strong iwi base, who wanted to ensure that tikanga and te reo Māori were protected. So they have that very strong iwi history to them.

Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, which I had the privilege of working alongside as a partner for over two decades, they have a different history again. They are pan-iwi, but they started from one single, very passionate, focused man, my respected friend Rongo Wetere, who mortgaged his own dairy farm to be able to start up the wānanga in Te Awamutu because he was concerned at the number of young Māori that were being excluded from their schools, and that wānanga now is an extremely large entity. At one stage, they had over 30,000 equivalent full-time students and were the biggest tertiary entity in this country. I think they’ve settled at around about 19,000 or 20,000, but still a very large tertiary institution that is run by my friend Nepia Winiata.

Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi has another proud history to it that it was started by the wellrespected Sir Hirini Moko Mead, who decided in the late 1980s that they should establish a whare wānanga, and for five or six years he was passionate and the group around him were passionate about pushing this concept. They opened in Whakatāne with a very modest campus in 1992—just a couple of transportable classrooms—but I can tell you that campus is no longer modest. It’s a beautiful campus in Whakatāne, which I have had the privilege of being welcomed into, and that wānanga is extremely well run by, again, my friend and colleague Wiremu Doherty.

So that’s why this is such an important amendment for the wānanga. They didn’t start from a Crown entity; they started from the passion and the vision of their iwi or individuals who knew the importance of education, and I feel that we haven’t done enough in this legislation to recognise that.

Now, again, people mightn’t understand that the term “polytechnic” and “university” are protected terms, but we haven’t been able to protect the term “wānanga”. Now, it’s complex. It’s a difficult thing to do, because “wānanga” is a very distinctly Māori term. There isn’t an English equivalent of it. It’s about open discussion and people gathering together and bringing different thoughts and opinions and experiences together. So it’s very specific to Māori, and so it is used as a verb as well as to describe these three tertiary institutions.

But because it’s difficult doesn’t mean we should have shied away from it, because I believe this legislation will be more the poorer for not having that consultation, for not allowing Māori to decide how they wanted that protection of the term “wānanga” to play out. So that concerns us that for the sake of a few weeks of extra consultation—and it would have been something that Māori would have worked together over both getting terms for a Crown or non-Crown entity, rather than being called “A wānanga”, “B wānanga”, or “C wānanga”, and also come up with a methodology in which we could give the term “wānanga” the protection that it deserves alongside universities and polytechnics. So they are the reasons why we oppose this bill. They are things that perhaps could be fixed as we go through the process, but our key concern is around those two matters.

I suppose the other concern is that the bill doesn’t address any of the major issues facing the education system in New Zealand that’s failing to provide world-class education for our Kiwi kids. It seems to be bizarre to be in the House discussing an education bill that doesn’t even mention that we are declining in world terms, in fact, around our maths and our English and how we are getting young people prepared for work. It doesn’t say anything about the fact that half of the students are not able to get to the right level for reading, writing, and maths, and that fewer students are leaving school with NCEA level 2, which the OECD says is the minimum required to be able to meaningfully engage with the labour market.

So with all those sort of catastrophic things that are occurring in our education space at the moment, it seems slightly bizarre to be worrying about the terminology of the make-up of school boards, when, in fact, we want school boards to be the best people there possible, to run the best possible schools, to give our students the best possible education and opportunities in life, and yet it’s completely silent on how to get kids back to school, how to ensure that our schools are giving worldclass education.

So we are opposing this bill, but, as I said, there are an awful lot of things in it that we support, but we think it could be a much better bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3). It was a pleasure to be a part of the Education and Workforce Committee when this bill was considered. I want to thank all members of the committee and all the submitters that came to the committee—I think, actually, reflecting the tone of the last member’s speech: that on most issues we worked really well together and there was quite a significant part of common ground in relation to what we sought to be achieved by this bill.

Now, although this is an amendment bill, it does cover a number of different areas, and it would be literally impossible to cover all of those areas, because there are so many distinct areas, in the short time that we have available. The Minister of Education has covered off, I believe, very well, the issue of representation of boards, and so I won’t seek to repeat that, but I affirm the comments that she’s made.

I would just like to touch on some of the main parts of this bill, which I do think are important, and that’s the new governance framework in relation to wānanga. There was, as I said, a lot of agreement between members of the committee on this issue, and I think the main difference was how we went about achieving that.

We were very impressed and very grateful to the wānanga that submitted to us on this bill. I have to say, it was probably one of the most impactful submissions that I’ve seen in my time in Parliament on a select committee. They spoke very eloquently, and the entire committee was very impressed by their advocacy.

They had been very supportive of this bill. The reason that we were unable to move forward with the protected term matter in relation to “wānanga” that all of us saw on the committee saw as an issue, is because there is a little bit of work that needs to be done because there are some entities that use the word “wānanga”. It is a Māori word with a specific term, and it has been used by other entities, and so protecting that term is not as straightforward as you might think.

That doesn’t mean that we didn’t see that there was a large issue with the fact that we had protected terms for “polytechnics” and for “universities”, but not for “wānanga”; we saw that as an inequity, and for that reason we made a very strong recommendation on our select committee report and recommended as a matter of priority that the Government undertake full consultation of policy work with the aim of legally protecting the term “wānanga”.

So it was something that we saw as important. We were unable to, in the time that was available, do that consultation, and that was also at the direction of the wānanga who said they would prefer the governance arrangements to be in place, and they didn’t want this bill to be delayed. So that’s, that’s the reason for that, but it is something that, as I said, the committee as a whole was very supportive of.

The other thing I just want to touch on briefly is the use of the terms “category A wānanga” and “category B wānanga”. Those are placeholder terms which allow for more appropriate terms to be put in place by Order in Council at a later date. The reason that we did that was because of the strong advocacy that we heard from the wānanga when they came to talk to us. We were unable to find agreement after their submission on the exact terms to be used, and it is a big decision, so it was decided that this term would be used. It has, in fact, I think, been used in another similar situation: naming of Te Pūkenga—as I understand, an Order in Council to put into the legislation a more appropriate term.

Those are the two issues that I wanted to highlight in what is a very important bill. There’s also some important matters which haven’t been traversed that much on police vetting for non-child workers, and there are guidelines to strengthen having the people possibly in contact or near children to make sure they go through an appropriate police vets. So that’s another important aspect of this bill. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Following on from my colleague Penny Simmonds, who with my colleague Erica Stanford both sat on the Education and Workforce Committee for this Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3). As has been declared and disclosed, the National Party opposes this bill for a number of reasons. I think the most important and pressing reason is that it’s noted that this is a debate under urgency, and as is the case “under urgency” means that there is often a truncated process and that due process does not occur in terms of that level of engagement with our New Zealand public.

I turn to the gallery and I acknowledge members from Te Whare Wānanga o Raukawa, who are present here—Robin Hape with others—who have come and travelled down for this important debate. Kia ora.

I have noted I didn’t sit on the select committee and that I’ve been called in as a member of the National Party to address this House under urgency on this debate. Therefore, the knowledge that I have is somewhat limited, not being a member of that committee, but it’s not limited in terms of where we have legislation trying to define Māori concepts and Māori ways in existence of who we are, what we are, and our level of engagement. And therefore, I understand that this bill is attempting to confine and limit what the concept of wānanga is.

I’m aware from having read the select committee report that this bill was referred to the select committee on 28 March this year. Submissions were called for with a closing date of 1 May 2023, and my colleague Penny Simmonds has indicated to me and also to the House that extensive submissions in that truncated short time were heard from the representatives from the three whare wānanga throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. There were written submissions from 1,124 interested groups. Oral evidence was heard from 55 of those submitters.

As I’ve often referenced in the House, I speak premised from associations of my lifetime and experience. And although I don’t come from an educationalist background, my background is around child welfare and protection. An element of this bill that addresses child protection is around the improvement of safety for children at schools and early childhood education centres.

National supports the intent of the bill insofar as every child should be safe whilst attending school, every parent deserves to know, as guardians, and every caregiver that their child will be safe and that everything is done to ensure a child’s safety whilst under the ambit of that protection and umbrella at school. So the National Party does support changes to automatically change the eligibility criteria of school boards so that everyone convicted of an offence, as is outlined in Schedule 2 of the bill, is automatically ineligible to serve on a board unless exempted by the Secretary of Education. So as spokesperson for children and Oranga Tamariki, that background in terms of child welfare, safety, and protection, I’ve always advocated as being front and foremost of mind for me. So it’s important to declare the National Party intent is in support of this element of the bill.

As I’ve indicated, the differing view is around that in terms of the composition and make-up of school boards, that should be premised on skills based and competency, and to reflect the community that the representation of those members of the board come from. So the National Party takes the view that it’s not deemed significant or relevant within this bill to identify the diversity of the school in that community that they come from. That is for the community and for the board members to do so, not for this Government in the very paternalistic approach and stance that it takes.

The members also believe that the bill should have been delayed in order for the whare wānanga and those persons who come from that wānanga and also the concept in terms of mātauranga Māori—what that is and for those persons to agree on alternative terms for Crown entity wānanga and non-Crown entity wānanga. These are intellectual property issues. Should this Government again be dictating what the construct of that is? That is for our people, te ao Māori, and those working in this specialist area to define, not for legislation to confine. And that’s what the National Party stance and view is that this legislation is doing.

It’s also noted, in the differing view within the select committee report, that the proposed Order in Council mechanism that would be used to replace the placeholder terms of wānanga is not being protected under this bill. So my contribution is somewhat limited in terms of time, at this point in time, but I’ve referenced that again I speak from a premised association and relationship. I’ve mentioned that my service has been around child welfare protection and the law. I do not come from an educational background or that sector, but the relationships that I have, and I refer to Te Whare Wānanga o Raukawa and Matua—and Professor—Whatarangi Winiata, in terms of having led and been a guiding light still with the establishment of Te Whare Wānanga o Raukawa; and many of my whānau from Whanganui travel through still on a regular and daily basis to attend for their learnings and the contributions that we take home from Ōtaki Raukawa back to where we come from.

So in terms of relationships, again the association and correlation, Professor Whatarangi Winiata, in terms of his learnings, he shared with me at one stage that as a young man, when he was a university student here at Victoria University, he learnt from my koro Hori Hipango in his earlier days. And I refer to the words that Matua Whatarangi referenced and said that in his student days, back in the 1960s, he would travel through to Te Pūtiki, Whanganui to wānanga with my koro in terms of the reo and in terms of as a young man learning from one of the kaumātua.

So the concept of wānanga isn’t something that should be legally defined and constrained within such a short period of time, when we’ve had the representatives from the three whare wānanga through our Aotearoa make submissions. The point of concern is that this is something that is the intellectual property and construct and concept that comes from te ao Māori, should it be confined and defined at short notice within this legislation.

So that is the contribution that I make at this point in time. This is the second reading, I believe. The bill will come back to the House. The National Party has indicated that it will be presenting a Supplementary Order Paper for improvement of this legislation that is being rushed through in such a short time. And on the basis of the contributions that have been made, the National Party does not support this legislation as it attempts to construct and define something that really should be left to those who know better than the Government.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3). As the Minister of Education said, this bill makes a number of amendments in education. It contains policies and minor and technical amendments to existing provisions in the Education and Training Act 2020. These changes progress the education work programme, and contribute to the continuous improvement of education.

The bill focuses on three main things: establishing a governance framework for wānaga, changes to school board ineligibility criteria, and changes to school board election processes. As the Minister stated, we heard from a range of submitters: 1,124 in total, 55 oral submitters. I had the privilege of chairing the Education and Workforce Committee meetings while our capable chair was away and I was in charge of the meeting while submitters expressed their strong views—some strongly in favour of the bill and some obviously in opposition to some parts of the bill—but one thing is that the leaders of wānanga submitted to us and they clearly and loudly recommended that the bill passes.

As a Government, our job is to hear from people and that we are acting on recommendations that they strongly make. Now, when I hear speakers on the other side of the House saying that we are not listening to people and leaders of wānanga, it kind of confuses me. But I’d like to make a point that we appreciate very conflicting views—people who strongly opposed some parts of the bill and vice versa—but the point is this bill is going to amend the education system itself. It’s a part of the continuous work that’s being done by the Minister to improve our education system.

I’d like to commend the committee for their hard work. We didn’t agree on things, but nonetheless, we had respectful discussions around the table, and I’d like to thank people that who took the time to submit to our committee. As a result of the submissions, the committee made a range of recommendations and amendments. As a result, the bill came out at the rest of the day looking better than it was at the beginning of our deliberations. Finally, it’s a good bill. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of ACT to the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3). I like to also thank all the submitters—almost 1,200 submitters—who often submitted with a lot of passion and personal contributions. There were many parts to the bill, covering all sorts of areas of the education system. And there were a number of the parts of the bill that ACT initially did oppose that have been clarified and improved.

Looking at just a couple of parts of the bill that have been already mentioned, the eligibility criteria of school board members all sounds good—if you are convicted of a specified offence, you’re ineligible to serve on a school board unless an exemption has been approved. That sounds pretty reasonable. There is a potential for abuse of that clause, I think, and we sort of have to ask whether we believe in rehabilitation or not, but for the safety of the kids we certainly agree with that addition.

The early childhood education equity index data, which will enable the ministry to collect accurate information to make further recommendations, sounds a great idea. Police vets for non-teaching employees and contractors—that just really makes sense; nothing can be more important than the safety of our kids. Certainly it’s paramount, and as long as common sense is used with that.

There has been clarification around the accountability with changes to the wānanga, and it’s been explained a bit further this morning already. Well, the structures and funding—both have been strengthened and are a bit more transparent. We think that all education facilities should be under the same umbrella and accountable to the taxpayers who fund them, and we do still think that a number of the changes aren’t necessary.

I listened to the wānanga submitters, and fully understand the reasons they gave for the changes that they supported, and I think the advent of the wānanga was very well explained by Penny Simmonds earlier on. But the success of the wānanga is undeniable, and if it ain’t broke, why fix it? They are a great entity and you just wonder whether all of these changes are necessary.

Listening to a number of the submitters did also make me feel a little bit sad: the idea that young people are identified first by their race and then as individual people capable of doing what they want and being who they want to be sort of seems to come a distant second. I just think that’s wrong. In my 22 years of classroom teaching, coaching school sport, taking school orchestras, the idea of treating students differently because of their race never crossed my mind. And my 14 years of being a police officer, with many of those years working in youth aid, dealing with all sorts of young people and their whānau—the idea of treating those kids differently I find abhorrent, and that may be laughable to those people across the other side. Culture is, of course, always important, but it always has been, and it’s not just suddenly been invented by this Government, and separatism, we don’t believe, is the way forward; it’ll only end in more divisiveness.

But the reason we cannot support the bill is the proposed change to the school board election process, and the clause that reads, “updating the criteria for co-opting and appointing board members to reflect today’s school communities, by adding the genders, sexualities and sexes of the school’s students and of the school community, and disabled students at the school and the school’s disability community.” Once again, we have the desire of this Government for more control over how a school is governed, and it’s just not right. The lack of trust in principals and boards of trustees is a common thread in most of this Government’s thinking. ACT trusts principals and boards because they are the ones that know their community, know the people they’re dealing with. Submitters overwhelmingly rejected this proposed change, and their concerns must be listened to. That’s what happens in a democracy. The inclusion of this clause is unnecessary virtue-signalling and it’s one we cannot support.

The bill has some parts that are good, some that are unnecessary, and some that are controversial—certainly not scared of the controversial ones. There are many other things in education we should be working on, and this is more about ideologies and agendas where we should be thinking about the kids we teach. This isn’t best for our kids and we cannot support the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I come to this bill, the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3), to express the support of the Green Party of Aotearoa, not as the education spokesperson but having been—

Hon Member: To school?

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: —the education spokesperson—and to school—last term, I know that this is a dense sector. There is a lot to be considered at every level, from early childhood right up to the end of high school and tertiary. There are unions, there are teachers, principals, and young people and their families, all with a great stake in the way that we run our education system. I do want to commend the Education and Workforce Committee, who heard submissions on this bill. I know that that would have been hard work, there would have been a lot to consider, and it sounds like they have done that work and they listened carefully to what came. But I also know that, in terms of making any system fair, there is a need sometimes to lift the voices and interests of those who are more systemically marginalised to give effect to what we want in terms of substantive equality.

I think that that’s where the division has occurred in this House today: the idea that the majority rules or that at some point we will stop and we will recognise that there are groups that have been underrepresented and that underrepresentation actually makes our decisions weaker. Any governance body’s decisions will be weaker if that governance body does not have the benefit of the lived experiences, perspectives, and challenges of groups who are not the majority, who are experiencing particular challenges that would not come to the minds of a majority member of that community—a status quo member of that community; someone who’s not facing those challenges. And that’s what comes to mind with the decision to require school boards to be more representative of their communities.

Of course, principals and other board members will want to be fair and just to a disabled young person attending their school, but the idea that they would automatically know what that looks like is just wrong. We know that; we are a House of Representatives. We know that, when people fought for representation of women in here, for example, it wasn’t the case that we thought men were going to deliberately make decisions that were poor for women, but the fact remains that only a woman in New Zealand will know what the challenges look like for us as we access the healthcare system, the roads, the justice system, and, in this case, the education system.

So whether that is to say that a community who has a constituent who is from a migrant background, migrants of colour, will experience the school system differently—Māori will experience the school system differently; girls will experience the school system differently; queer students and their whānau will experience the school system differently; and, of course, so will disabled and chronically ill students and their whānau. To say that we will just take care of that, we’ll just automatically know what that looks like, well, that’s been dispelled, surely, many years ago, in particular for a House such as this, a House of Representatives. That’s why we hear submissions, actually, because we know that we don’t know everything. So, to have a decision-making body, a governing body, be more representative can only mean that its decisions will be far more sustainable, far more cognisant of not only challenges but also the benefits that may come to different groups in different ways. It’s something that should be commended and replicated across New Zealand. So, for that reason, I do commend the bill.

But I do also want to just touch on a couple of other things. I’m surprised that, in the early childhood index data area of this bill, that wasn’t already the case. I think it’s also commendable to say that the ministry will be able to form better policy—again, more sustainable policy; more representative policy—for having more reliable, substantive data in that early childhood sector. We know that early childhood education is of absolute, paramount importance, and it hasn’t always received the type of attention and emphasis that it deserves. I say that both in terms of the pay grade of those who work in that sector but also in terms of, it seems, as this bill highlights, collecting actual data of what’s happening in that sector, what we need to invest in, and the decisions that will come down the line will absolutely be stronger for having that data.

I won’t go on for much longer, having not sat in that select committee process, but I do believe that any time this House comes together to actually share what we know will strengthen governance bodies, will strengthen representative decision-making, and to ensure that we don’t just leave it up to chance that those voices are heard and those interests are protected in public policy, but that we make sure of that, is good lawmaking. So I do commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise as a member of the Education and Workforce Committee that considered the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3). I just want to reflect a little bit about the select committee process. For me, I think what was really unique was the collaboration, the care and consideration that meant that, especially when it came to the part of the bill about the new governance framework for wānanga, it was something that we were confident was what was needed. Te ao Māori, it’s not my world, and I know a little bit about what I don’t know. So I’m very grateful for the very clear guidance, and the collaboration that brought the bill to where it was, and helped us to navigate those two really tricky issues which I really appreciate being brought to the House today from the other side about the term, the name, the concept, to use clunky English words about wānanga and those placeholder terms.

I think we we’ve got clear guidance that that is the work that needs to go into that. The consideration and care that must go into that work, that unfinished business, needs to continue and not be truncated, and that was the whole point. Let’s do this that has been asked of us by wānanga so they can get on with doing the amazing things that they do, enable them, and at the same time enable the very important mahi that has to happen around that consideration.

Actually, from this process will grow wonderful things, because that conversation, for those of us who don’t innately know what wānanga means, is given so much by being able to participate and hear and learn. So it is because of that that I’m grateful for the process that we’ve been through so far, and I commend this bill to the House.

The Hon Michael Woodhouse—a five-minute call.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m paraphrasing, but I’m pretty sure I heard the Minister of Education, when she moved this bill at second reading, something to the effect of “This bill will contribute to great educational outcomes for our children.” That kind of surprised me, because, in my travels, I’m sure—and members can correct me if I’m wrong—I haven’t heard a single pupil, parent, or teacher say to me, “I really wish the criteria for coopting and appointing school board members would be expanded, and I really wish those great wānanga were Crown entities rather than independent. And I really want to know, in brackets of $10,000, how many of their staff are earning $100,000 or more so that they can be aligned with other Crown entities.”

That is not what teachers, parents, and pupils are telling us about the education system, and it does feel like Minister Tinetti is Nero, fiddling once again with the education Act while the educational Rome is burning.

We could be doing so much more to improve the educational outcomes that we all want for the children and the young people, the rangatahi, in our tertiary and secondary and primary facilities. But instead, we focus on identity and structure.

I was very grateful to Penny Simmonds for her contribution in the second reading, who gave an excellent summary of the history and origins of wānanga. That’s continued a pattern this week, where she was in the Education and Workforce Committee yesterday, quizzing Te Pūkenga, who finally—finally—eight months later, furnished their financial report, their annual report, and highlighted what a shambles that merger has been for tertiary education in this country.

Yet, faced with the disaster of the merger of very good polytechs, a lot of them, Southern Institute of Technology, not the least of them—and not the least of which was the reason being that Penny Simmonds was their chief executive for over 20 years. They continue to restructure and rearrange and centralise and increase control and tell boards what to do and how to be appointed rather than the central goal, which is “Let’s improve educational outcomes.”, because that, after all, is the purpose of the Education and Training Act 2020. We have lost an opportunity to focus on the burning bridge—the burning bridge of the woeful educational outcomes under this Government.

It is really important the low-decile NCEA 2 outcome data that was released this week is scandalous. It is so important, because, by my recollection, a previous Minister has highlighted that by 2050, half of young New Zealanders will identify as Māori or Pasifika. Unless the educational outcomes for that growing cohort are made equal to the rest of the population more generally, this country is going to have a real problem. It’s emerging now, and the Government is worried more about the identity of the board members on our schools than the educational outcomes for our schools.

So while there are some things in here that may have been necessary and appropriate, the central point is that this Government cannot resist tinkering around the edges of a system rather than—and the activity that is the substitute for performance, rather than expecting and guiding and influencing better outcomes for our children and our young people in wānanga.

That is a deep, deep disappointment to the National Party. Help is on the way. I think we’re down to 72 days. I look forward to a time when a Government focuses on the things that matter: outcomes, not activity.

Kia orana, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate, with regards to the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3). May I please take the time, firstly, to thank the members of the Education and Workforce Committee and also the submitters and also the officials. The submitters came and provided to the committee many, many views on this bill. I also want to acknowledge iwi and hapū who also came along and provided their views, whether written or oral.

This is a second reading of the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3), which contains new policies and minor technical amendments in the existing provisions. The bill establishes a governance framework for wānanga and also an eligibility criteria on school boards and also election processes. We heard wānanga who came to the select committee, and we listened to their kōrero, and we listened also to their mana and their wairua when they presented to the select committee. As a select commission member, I was very grateful to hear their kōrero and pātai.

I have heard other members across the House mention that the terms of “wānanga A” and “wānanga B”, and I disagree with the point that the member on the other side has made: that the select committee were limiting wānanga. Actually, it was the opposite. It was to hear the kōrero, see the wairua, and really feel it—that they have a strong, strong wairua to include those values in this kaupapa.

I move now to the school board ineligibility criteria. That is listed in terms of if you have committed or you are convicted under Schedule 2 of the Children’s Act 2014, you are ineligible to become a member unless you have a special pass.

For the last two decades, I served school committees and school boards. The chair of that committee and the chair of that school board worked very hard with the members. Even though there were Ministry of Education guidelines and specific rules, I know that the members that I worked with on those school committees and the school board—it was in their strong interest to keep our tamariki safe. This bill does that. This bill enhances what the current rules are and strengthens the school board election processes.

Just to finish, one of the school boards that I served on—it was very important to hear rangatahi voices. We did not have that lever at the time. If we’re going to talk about rangatahi, if we’re going to talk about our young people, we need to have them at the table. This bill will enhance that. I commend this bill to the House.

This bill will make a range of small but very comprehensive changes to the Education and Training Act 2020 to improve our education sector. It’s been great to hear the contributions from other members on this side of the House, particularly those who have worked in the coalface and know how much of a difference this bill will make.

The first change that this bill makes is that it will establish a robust governance framework for wānanga. The wānanga are tertiary institutions that assist in the application of knowledge regarding Māori tradition and tikanga Māori. They have a unique role to play in our tertiary education system, and this bill acknowledges that and will establish a framework to support them in the transmission of Māori knowledge, which is very important for our rangatahi. It is also important to recognise these institutions and to allow Māori education to develop and thrive, and it’s imperative that their mana and rangatiratanga are recognised and respected.

This bill enables existing wānanga to either reconstitute themselves as a Crown entity wānanga or convert to a non-Crown entity wānanga—and the former to have a bespoke purpose, function, and governance arrangement. While the latter will primarily be accountable to iwi, hapū, and other Māori organisations, they will retain some accountability to the Crown. The Education and Workforce Committee has made multiple important additions to this framework, and it now specifies the financial reporting requirements and better defines the responsibilities of each stakeholder in this new framework. So it’s an important bill and I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like my colleagues, I rise to oppose the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3) at the second reading. And we do that with some consideration because there certainly are parts of the bill that we do support. I think it goes without saying that child protection should be one of the number one issues in this country and that there are provisions in this bill that that do seek to enhance, where possible, child protection. Particularly we do support the provision that changes the criteria for school boards regarding convicted offenders. We support any change that will automatically change the eligibility criteria of school boards so that anyone convicted of an offence under Schedule 2 of the Children’s Act is automatically ineligible to serve on a board. That’s very practical, very pragmatic, very sensible decision to have made, and I think any right-thinking New Zealander would absolutely agree with that.

When children go to school, the place where they are learning and the place that often steers the course for them for the rest of their lives, they need to be safe, and, equally, the parents and caregivers of those children should absolutely expect—they really shouldn’t even have to think about it, quite frankly—that their children will be safe in such an environment. But, unfortunately, the majority of the proposed changes in this amendment bill we don’t actually agree with. Hence, we have decided to oppose the bill in its entirety.

Primarily, as has been canvassed already by members on our side of the House, our fundamental opposition is around the criteria for the appointment of school board members regarding sort of picking and choosing different kinds of people that should be selected to board representation. It is important, obviously, that boards reflect the communities that they serve and it’s really important particularly for schools to have boards that have wide-ranging expertise and wide-ranging community backgrounds, because they are effectively running the school and they are listing the outcomes of those kids in that school. And, obviously, anyone should expect that these people are chosen on their merit. Hence, we do oppose the inclusion of starting to look at people for different reasons that don’t necessarily mean they bring a particular merit to a school.

The current law actually already states that as far as reasonably practicable, every school board should reflect the character, gender, ethnic, and social diversity of that school or community. It is interesting—I spoke on a bill earlier and I made the comment that it’s just such a waste of Parliament’s time to bring bills like this to the House when actually this is already enshrined in law.

You have to look back at these things as to how the Education and Workforce Committee considered the legislation that is passing through the House, and, of course, more importantly, look to the submissions made by members of the public. This particular select committee, I understand, considered about 1,100 submissions—

Simeon Brown: We’re listening to the public. We’re listening to the people.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! I’m trying to listen to this member’s speech, so I just ask members who are not giving a speech to hold their fire. Thank you.

NICOLA GRIGG: Well, it’s very topical, Madam Speaker, the debate going on across the House about listening to the people, because in fact the select committee did receive 1,124 submissions and heard evidence from about 55 of those. But, very interestingly, like the members on this side of the House, most of the submitters also opposed the inclusion about board appointment provisions. So we do feel very strongly that we as elected representatives of the people of New Zealand, serving in the House of Representatives, should be passing legislation through this House that is representative of those people and their views and their desires.

As has been covered by colleagues who have spoken before me, it is such a wasted opportunity when we could be bringing in an education and training amendment bill that actually looked to restore the discipline of the student outcomes and student achievement. Indeed, the previous National Government certainly had targets in place for the director-general of education and indeed the Minister—targets around achievement and attainment. That is the most important and crucial role of schools and the education sector in New Zealand. We don’t think we should be using Parliament’s time to pass law like this bill that is about dictating who should be appointed or seconded to school boards. We actually think we should be using Parliament’s time to set about achievement and attainment for the students and the children of New Zealand. So on that, as I have outlined, National will oppose this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ll make a short contribution to wrap up this debate on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3).

Firstly, can I acknowledge my colleagues that are with us today from the wānanga and particularly my former colleagues from Te Wānanga o Aotearoa. I remember very fondly the stories shared with me by Rongo Wetere and Aunty Ma in her time, who talked about the start of Te Wānanga o Aotearoa as the Waipā Kōkiri Arts Centre that established itself in a garage in Te Awamutu. The story started there to be now the third-largest tertiary organisation in the country.

What this bill does is it establishes a governance framework for our wānanga. That is an important part, that they are recognised as a Crown entity, that they are funded appropriately, of course, or the framework enables them to be recognised from a lens of tino rangatiratanga, from a lens of mana, and the contribution that not only that they make to the tauira, the students that they teach, but also the greater economic and social contributions that they make to some of our most vulnerable communities, as well as the contribution that they make to te reo me ōna tikanga in this country of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Secondly, I just want to push back on some of the narrative that’s come back from Opposition in regards to better representative boards in our schools. The point is, absolutely, we can have representation and skill sets too. Just because we are elevating more representative groups in this instance, for our kids that are LGBTI+, from our rainbow community, that they are more included in their school, that they are feeling safer. That doesn’t mean that we compromise the skill set at a governance level.

One of the Opposition members made a suggestion that our Government’s not focused on learning outcomes—we’re focused on boards today. Well, actually leadership does start from the top. If you’ve got a good representative, quality board of trustees in place, then absolutely the school will run better and achievement will be attained also.

I also want to acknowledge that in that representation, when I go back to the point about representation and skill—look what we’ve done for women. As we’ve increased the number of wāhine representatives across governance groups, that doesn’t mean we’ve compromised on skill. It means, actually, we’ve achieved a better outcome for all people involved. When it comes to representation in our schools, that is particularly our children and young people and their achievements.

So, I’ll conclude my speech there. This is a wonderful piece of legislation that amends some critical issues in our education sector. Long may it continue, because as we continue to build an education sector that is representative of everybody, in this instance, whether it be wānanga Māori or whether it be our LGBTIQ+ community, it’s a very, very good thing that raises achievement, outcome, and benefits for all involved.