Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill

The question is that Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. On behalf of the Hon Erica Stanford, the Minister of Education, whose name this bill is in, the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill makes minor technical amendments to maintain the effectiveness of our regulatory system. It’s an omnibus bill, which makes changes to two education Acts: the Ngarimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion Memorial Scholarship Fund Act 1945, and the Pacific Education Foundation Act 1972. As well as updating these two Acts, the bill makes technical amendments to two sets of regulations that impact the education sector.

The Minister does have an Amendment Paper on the Table that relates to the Pacific Education Foundation Act amendments. The Pacific Education Foundation Act provides for the Pacific Education Foundation, which is a statutory entity established with the purpose to promote and encourage the better education of Pacific peoples in New Zealand, including administering different kinds of support such as financial support and scholarships. This change updates clauses 9, 11, and 15 of the bill, to revert the term labelled “Pacific person” in the defined terms of the Pacific Education Foundation Act, rather than proceed with the previous Government’s proposal to use the term label of “Aotearoa Pacific person”.

The coalition Government will support retaining the current term label of “Pacific person” in the Act rather than the proposed new term of “Aotearoa Pacific person”, so there is an Amendment Paper on the Table which simply makes that very minor change to ensure consistency of language, and I look forward to members across the Chamber supporting that Amendment Paper.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Look, I just want to know, now that we’re considering it all in one question, whether or not, with the section that we have talked about—the Ngarimu VC fund—with the proposed amendments, the Minister in the chair, Simeon Brown, considers that there are any great changes that we can see long term, or whether this is sort of a fairly minor amendment?

The proposed amendment which is on the Table affects clause 9 primarily in terms of—it replaces the definition of “Pacific person” by removing the word “Aotearoa” from before “Pacific person”. Effectively, there is no substantial change in terms of the legislation, but it reverts the terminology to that which is currently used in the principal Act to describe the class of persons eligible for financial assistance under the Act. Effectively, what the previous Government was doing by creating a new term “Aotearoa Pacific person” was creating a new definition which, of course, isn’t used in other legislation. The legislation will be, basically, consistent with other pieces of legislation which refer to “Pacific persons” rather than “Aotearoa Pacific person”.

Of course, there’s a very clear, different definition: “Pacific person means a person who is living in New Zealand and who—(a) is a New Zealand citizen or has been granted permanent residence or has been permitted to enter New Zealand with the intention of gaining permanent residence; and—(b) has indigenous Pacific cultural heritage from a place listed in Schedule 2”. New Schedule 2 is in the bill, of course: “American Samoa; Cook Islands; Federated States of Micronesia; Fiji; French Polynesia; Hawaii; Kiribati; Nauru; Niue; Papua New Guinea; Pitcairn Island; Rabi; Rotuma; Samoa; Solomon Islands; Tokelau; Tonga; Tuvalu; Vanuatu; Wallis and Futuna”. Those are the Pacific cultural heritage, or the places which have been listed in that.

There are a number of other clauses. Clause 11, again, deletes the word “Aotearoa” in section 5(a); clause 15 deletes it from clause 15(1), page 6, line 6. So that very clearly outlines a very minor and technical change to make sure it’s consistent with other pieces of legislation.

Thank you, Mr Chair—

💬 Hon Member: Isn’t it dinner time?

Well, the time has come for me—you looked like you were about to make a speech, Mr Bates. I thought it may have been a closure motion. However, I anticipated that wrongly. So the House is suspended now until 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 6.02 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Kia ora, members, the committee is resumed. This is just a reminder that all parts are being read at the same time.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Apologies, I do still have questions of clarification, if that’s permissible—thank you, Mr Chair. Just one very technical question of clarification. First of all, I would like to preface this by saying my apologies: I was not here for the first reading of the bill when it was first introduced. But just checking in terms of clause 17 in the bill, which inserts new section 35 in the Pacific Education Foundation Act 1972 , “Amendments to Schedule 2 by Order in Council”. This is just a clarification in terms of subclause (2) of new clause 35: “An order made under this section is secondary legislation”. I just want a little bit of clarification: does that mean there is secondary legislation coming, or is there secondary legislation already available?

I move that the—

💬 Hon Member: Ask a question.

Ask a question? All right, we’ll ask a question then.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Ask a question, yes, because the Minister’s still trying to get some advice.

Oh, she’s still trying to get—well, I’m happy for her to take the call once she’s got the advice, Mr Chair.

I thank the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan for his question and I’m just confirming that that is secondary legislation.

I’ve got a question for the Minister of Education, just regarding the confirmation of the scholarship fund succeeding the 28th Māori Battalion Association. I’m just wanting to clarify exactly what the purposes of administering the fund and authorising the use of the words and emblems relating to the 28th Māori Battalion and association is for, and why we are going about creating that confirmation to succeed the 28th Māori Battalion and what the purpose of doing that within the Act is. Thank you.

I thank the member for his question. Look, the scholarship fund is incredibly important to honour the memory of the 28th Māori Battalion. I was recently at their award ceremony, where many incredible young Māori were provided with a scholarship. It means a huge amount to them to carry on the legacy of the 28th Māori Battalion. The reason for this legislation is to make sure that they are legally able to use the emblems of the 28th Māori Battalion, because there has been some question in their new form, their new entity, whether or not they have the legal right to use those, and this just clarifies that they do.

Minister, I’m going to ask a quick question, and then go from there. Does that cover all emblems that the Māori Battalion may be using across—you know, all varieties or variations of that emblem, or just the emblem as per Schedule 1 of the bill?

I can confirm with the member that that’s all.

All emblems.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 29 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2, as amended, agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.