Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill. When we were considering this bill earlier today, we were debating Part 1, so, once again, the question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve been listening very carefully to the Minister’s responses, and I’m sure you have been following along behind the scenes. I know that we have interrogated a bit on clause 5, so we are coming shortly to the end of those questions. I do just want to clarify for this committee that when I referred to the inclusion of or reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi in an earlier section, I think the Minister misheard me as wanting a definition. It was actually a question around why Te Tiriti was not included. It was not to define it. I just thought I’d put that on the record.

I have been listening to the Minister’s answers, and I just want to seek clarification, please, on some of the answers that he gave to the Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan regarding section 14. I guess I’ll frame it like this so that it’s really clear for the Minister: we’ve got subsection (a) and subsection (b) both as purposes, and he gave some answers around the common understanding of why a labour market rationale should be supported. When we look at the submissions from some of the big hitters in the sector, they don’t agree with the Minister’s interpretation of labour market forces being as valid as section 14(a), which is around educational outcomes.

Really, what I’m looking at in section 14 is the word “and”, which separates subsections (a) and (b), and whether the Minister sees these as complementary or whether they are mutually exclusive, because if we look at the submission from Kindergartens Aotearoa, they critique it. They say, on page 3 of their submission: “The purpose is narrowed and the interests of children are no longer the primary focus.” If we look at the Office of Early Childhood Education (OECE), they say that the bill’s “purpose, objectives, and guiding principles … [in Part 1 undermine] children’s rights” and position early childhood education (ECE) as labour market support. If we look at Montessori Aotearoa New Zealand, in their submission they said that there is a “Risk that an emphasis on supporting parental workforce participation may overshadow quality improvement goals.” That is in the section under “Key Risks” in their submission. Finally, under the ECE Parents’ Council Aotearoa, they have said: “By embedding workforce participation as a core purpose, the bill shifts ECE away from child development and learning, and family support.”

My specific questions on this: the first one is around whether the Minister believes that the word “and” is sustainable there, or whether that replaced by the word “or”, and what would that mean for the director? In effect, that is what this bill is doing. Is there a hierarchy in those two parts, subsections (a) and (b)? If they do not prioritise the child’s learning, then can he, please, let us know that on the record—or is he saying that children’s learning is still prioritised? In which case, it would be really important to have that on the Hansard so that there can be some kind of accountability to the director in their interpretation of that purpose.

The second question is around what evidence the Minister has—he still hasn’t produced any to support his contention around this kind of common understanding that parents and caregivers want to participate in the labour market. While I accept the contention, as the basis of a policy that is being put into the purpose of Part 2, I’d like to know what evidence the Minister has for that, because he still hasn’t given us the evidence from the sector to say that that is what the sector itself wants.

The other question I have is around whether he agrees with his Minister of Education that all children learn the same way—I have heard the Minister of Education say, in this House, that all children learn the same way—and the reason I ask that is because of the failure to have a Te Tiriti reference in there. If that is his contention—and I refer to his comment before lunch that Te Tiriti was, in his words, “extraneous” or one of the extraneous matters, and that was a word that he did use—then where is his evidence that all children learn the same way? If there isn’t that, how will he make sure that Māori children are able to get the same learning outcomes?

I still have just a couple more questions on this, and this is really bringing us to the end, I think, of Labour’s questions on this clause.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, perhaps the member could ask those couple of questions now if you’re ready to take another call?

INGRID LEARY: Sure, and then—thank you.

Madam Chair, seeing as she hasn’t taken another call—the question of whether or not parents and caregivers pay to send their children to early childhood education centres, with one of their goals being to go and work, I’ve now addressed this several times. That is one of the reasons parents do it. If anyone wants to dispute that, they can, and the people watching from home can judge for themselves.

There was a question, “Do all children learn the same way?”. No, they don’t, but there is, actually, a science of learning where you can make advances by testing hypotheses, seeing what works, and advancing. That is what this Government is committed to and what Erica Stanford, our education Minister, is committed to. The idea that, somehow, the Government thinks that all children are the same—it doesn’t; it just thinks we should use best possible knowledge when it comes to curriculum and pedagogy, which we do.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question on this clause 5, section 14A, “Objectives of Part 2”. Now, I’m not a member of the Education and Workforce Committee that has covered this bill, so forgive me if I’m asking a question that members of the committee already know the answer to, but I don’t. I’m interested in hearing the Minister’s answer to my question with regard to section 14A(e). Throughout the regulatory impact statement, it talks a little bit about the current regulations etc., etc., being somewhat confusing, needing to provide clarity for centres, parents, etc.

In Objectives of Part 2 paragraph (e), where it talks about “implementing a licensing and certification system that provides service providers, parents, and caregivers with certainty and clarity, as far as is reasonably practicable, regarding minimum standards for quality services.”, I’d like to know why the wording “as far as is reasonably practicable” is in there, because surely that doesn’t provide certainty and clarity. Why could it not be without those words, where it just says, “certainty and clarity regarding minimum standards for quality services.”? I’m interested to know what “reasonably practicable” means in this particular part. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to move on to a new clause. I’m going to move on to clause 7, “The Director of Regulations”. New sections 27A to 27E are a substantial part of this bill regarding the new role that the Minister is creating. I’m going to focus my contribution, this time, on new section 27A, “Director of Regulation”, and also new section 27B, “Functions of the Director of Regulations”. To begin with, because this is something that the select committee and also submitters have raised as a part of that, they just want to get clarification from the Minister about whether, in this case, the Director of Regulations would also be overseeing kōhanga reo and puna reo, as part of their role? If I can get a nod from the Minister—oh, great, thank you, Minister, for that first clarification. In which case, I think that it’s important to bring to the Minister’s attention one of my amendments on new section 27A, which is in clause 7, new subsection 27A(2), after “experience and expertise”, to specifically include “experience and expertise when it comes to Te Tiriti o Waitangi”.

Now, this is not simply us wanting to include Te Tiriti for the sake of including Te Tiriti but actually offers a very reasonable explanation for why that is important for the Director of Regulations, because if the Director of Regulations does indeed—like the Minister has just nodded to and acknowledged—have oversight over kōhanga reo and puna reo without any understanding or background in Te Tiriti, that would, potentially, mean that they can’t really perform their duty or power or functions as effectively as they ought to when they are looking at Māori-medium early childhood education (ECE) services. I want to check with the Minister, first and foremost, if that is something that he would consider under new section 27A.

Now, in terms of new section 27B, we’re looking at two main areas: we’re looking at the “Statutorily independent functions” of the Director of Regulations, but also at “Other functions”. I want to check with the Minister from an “Other functions” perspective. There are a number of things in here that, I think, seem odd, unless the Minister thinks that paragraph (j) does, in fact, cover it. But things like, for example, new section 27B(g)(iii)—“incidents at licensed early childhood services and certified playgroups.”—one would assume that when it comes to incidents, particularly critical incidents, it is important for the relevant health and safety agency—for example, Worksafe—to also be involved as a part of that. Despite the fact that the Director of Regulations may have certain powers and functions, there are specific requirements, as the Minister may understand, in terms of the Health and Safety at Work Act, but there are also relevant regulations as a part of that, in terms of the health and safety of children in an ECE service.

I know that the Minister, specifically, wants to talk about synthesising or distilling some of the regulatory environment, but it is important for the committee to also recognise the fact that the deregulations that we’re seeing across the Ditch, in Australia, have led to more critical incidents in ECE centres, as well as a growing trend of unsavoury behaviour that we’re seeing in ECE that may eventuate if we do look into distilling or even deregulating. I do want to check, as a starting point, whether the Minister will consider one of my amendments, which is around the fact that when we’re looking at incidents, for example, and critical incidents, in licensed early childhood education certified play groups, the relevant health and safety agency must be involved as a part of that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Lawrence Xu-Nan has quite correctly pointed out that clause 7 is indeed a bit of a heavy-hitting clause in this bill. Nevertheless, we have skipped over clause 6, and I would just like to ask the Minister some questions about it because clause 6 amends section 22 of the principal Act in relation to records. It effectively puts “or the Director of Regulation” after “the Secretary”, so it expands what information early childhood education services must make available to the director. This is referred to in the regulatory impact statement (RIS) at page 38, but there’s also some real caveats in the RIS around this.

On page 33, it notes that the regulatory actions could be seen as punitive by the director. It also confirms, again, that there was no consultation with providers on expanded information requirements, and at page 30—and this is probably one worth really getting an understanding of from the Minister—is how this new regime is going to deal with the confusion risks during the transition period. That has been highlighted in the RIS at page 30.

If we look at who is going to bear the brunt of this, once again, it’s going to disproportionately affect small, Māori-medium, and community-based services, so I have a question for the Minister about what advice he received regarding the impact of this particular clause on smaller and Māori providers. I’d also like to ask the Minister about the Privacy Act implications. Clearly, there is a need for limits on information collection and use. Could the Minister, please, just let us know what rules or protocols will cover this? Will this happen through secondary legislation, and if so, when can we expect to see that, and what will the level of scrutiny of that be? What will the scope of that be, and this is really important given the Opposition’s concerns about the direction of travel, which, in our view, seems to be heading toward a weighting towards privatisation.

How will that data be protected from commercial exploitation? Who will be accountable if there are failures to protect that data, and what are the sanctions? What advice, if any, did he receive about Māori data sovereignty? That has a different suite of issues and concerns that need to be answered. Also, why were providers not consulted on the new information burden?

The totality of the question really is: how will the Minister ensure that information-gathering powers will respect privacy and data sovereignty? Will they follow the same regime as the secretary, even though the director’s powers are more extensive? Are the safeguards to be equivalent, are they not there, or are they intended to be proportionate to the extended powers, and where will they sit?

Then, when I can come back for another call, we’d really like to go into detail on new sections 27A to 27E, in clause 7, where we have a plethora of questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. While the Minister’s just getting some advice and also potentially responding to some of my earlier questions, I do want to raise a specific example—and a very recent and topical example—when we’re looking at the functions of the Director of Regulation and what the Minister for Regulation would then think in terms of the interaction between the new Director of Regulation and the existing function.

The specific example I wanted to address is the recalling of play sand that has asbestos. Currently, that’s going through our schools and also our early childhood centres. The reason I want to address that particular example is that the person who is currently managing that particular incident—that is done by Ministry of Education (MOE); that is currently done by the Deputy Secretary Operations and Integration, and that has a direct line of reporting to the Secretary for Education. But, when you’re looking at the Director of Regulation for early childhood education (ECE), it reports to the secretary, but other deputy directors in the MOE don’t necessarily report to the Director of Regulation, and the Director of Regulation doesn’t necessarily report to the deputy secretaries. I’m assuming that we’re looking at a lateral sort of organisational chart when you’re looking at the function of Director of Regulation.

If the Minister wouldn’t mind walking us through that, in these sort of situations, when you have currently about 90 early learning service centres that need to have the play sand with asbestos recalled and potentially shut—temporarily closed while we assess the situation—how would the Director of Regulation be able to work with this function? Or, alternatively, the Minister may say that that’s actually not the function of the Director of Regulation, and that particular aspect of the operation—integration of the ECEs—still falls within the appropriate deputy secretary within MOE. That is a very topical, I think, example of how this is going to, potentially, play out on who is going to be the person responsible for the ability to address that particular incident.

Now, in terms of my other tabled amendments, while I’m waiting for the Minister, in terms of some of the Amendment Papers that were already proposed—giving the chance to speak to those—I do want to address another tabled amendment that I’ve got—well, actually, a couple more—and that still is to do with new section 27B. That is that, after new section 27B(k), there should be additional clauses that we’re looking at. Both of them cover, in terms of both our obligation under the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child, which I mentioned before—that’s not necessarily a bureaucracy, as something internationally that we genuinely just signed up to and is held accountable for. In that particular case, I’m proposing to the Minister, alongside when we’re looking at “[carrying] out proactive, regular, risk-based monitoring of compliance by service providers with applicable requirements under this Act”—and that is new section 27B(e)—that there should be a separate clause that talks about carrying out proactive and regular monitoring of compliance alongside the Children’s Commissioner against the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I think this is quite an important thing, because also, as the Minister understands, with the passing of the Regulatory Standards Bill, etc., and everything that’s attached to that, and how we can look at things like regulatory impact statements, it’s also prudent to mention that the bill the Minister himself has brought doesn’t actually have a child impact statement attached to it, even though this is probably—arguably—one of the bills that will affect children the most. I think it would have been beneficial for the committee to be able to assess some of the impacts it would have to children through that particular assessment. Those are my few questions for the Minister at this time.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to take a call on this bill. I wasn’t in the Education and Workforce Committee, so I have been following the conversations with interest. I just have a couple of quick questions for the Associate Minister of Education, looking at what the difference is between the role of the secretary and this new role of a Director of Regulation. I think that’d be really helpful for folks at home to sort of try to understand why there is this extra layer.

To support the contributions made by my friend and colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan around the inclusion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi—I support the reasons that he did so, because kōhanga reo and puna reo have a very specific pedagogy and a specific role to play as well. Getting those answers, I think, would be important—but, just to add to that question as well, around the role of te reo Māori quality assurance, if I can put it that way, because if you’re going to kōhanga reo and you’re going to puna reo, it’s going to be all in Māori. How will that function work in terms of this Director of Regulation? How are they going to assess whether the appropriate standards, whatever, are being met as well? I think that’s a really important question for the Minister to answer. It’s specifically about the quality of te reo Māori language quality assurance, and also the way that it links to te reo Māori pedagogy and curriculum as well, because you can’t just walk into a kōhanga reo and not understand the language and then be able to do this function. I would be interested to hear some answers from the Minister around how that function fits in with the very specific role that kōhanga reo and puna reo have as well.

Also, I was looking at sections 27B(e) and (g), inserted by clause 7, which are “(e) to carry out proactive, regular, risk-based monitoring of compliance by service providers with applicable requirements under this Act:”, and “(g) assess and respond—(i) to complaints about licensed early childhood services and certified playgroups:”. Perhaps this has been covered before, so apologies to the committee if it has been. I’m thinking about the role that teacher-pupil ratios will have—early childhood ratios. As the Minister probably does know, and probably the committee knows as well, that is a point of contention within the sector as well, and it’s always different as well. If you’re looking after—I’m just thinking about my own kids—a bunch of two-year-olds, they’re all different than if you’re taking care of children that are younger than two-year-olds, and, of course, as they get older as well. What role does the Director of Regulation play? And things around teacher-pupil ratios: is there a role; isn’t there a role? I would also be interested to hear the Minister’s response, and how that could be possibly linked, or not, to WorkSafe considerations as well, because if you’re trying to juggle lots of kids and you’re just one person and they’re babies, that’s a lot of work. What compliance tasks will the Minister expect this Director of Regulation to do? What are the functions that they could have as well?

I’ll just recap for the Minister. Just for someone like myself, who wasn’t able to get to the select committee, the differences between the secretary and the Director of Regulation—also, those questions around the inclusion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, not because it’s just a constitutional element, which I think is important, but because it defines particular early childhood spaces such as kōhanga reo and puna reo. How will the function of this Director of Regulation check on the quality of te reo Māori language assurance and quality? My last question is just around ratios as well: how will that work? We do want teachers to be able to do their job safely, to look after our kids’ safety as well—it’s incredibly important. If there is some function that is outlined there, it’d be good to hear that.

I’ll address, quickly, a number of questions that have been asked. Jo Luxton asked what “reasonably practicable” means. It means what it sounds like: people should be required by the law to do what is possible, but they can’t be asked by the law to do impossible things. It’s used in a lot of drafting. I faced a similar question, I think over the Regulatory Standards Act, or maybe it was the Medicines Amendment Act, but that should be a familiar term to people who are paid to make laws in New Zealand. It’s through many of the laws we make.

Lawrence Xu-Nan and Teanau Tuiono both asked about incorporating a Treaty clause, particularly in relation to kōhanga reo and te puna reo. We could do that, but I would stress to them that actually New Zealand is a place with many settlers of different backgrounds and many different types of education. It’s not obvious why we would put one of them in legislation. What we want is people who work for all children, and that means that you may look at section 14(a): the select committee actually said “education that allows all children to establish strong foundations”.

Lawrence Xu-Nan said he had an amendment in relation to that. I’ve addressed this issue of the Treaty several times; we’re not going to accept that amendment. There was also an amendment suggesting that WorkSafe be involved. WorkSafe is already involved, because this is a workplace under the Health and Safety at Work Act; that’s played out where the Ministry of Education and WorkSafe have worked together over the coloured sand issue that’s being dealt with as we speak, so there’s no need for WorkSafe’s role to be put into this legislation.

Ingrid Leary asked a series of questions about clause 6, about information and the custody of information and respect for information. She even asked about Māori data sovereignty. Quite simply, all that clause 6 of this bill does is shift a role from the Secretary of Education to the Director of Regulation. That person will be subject to exactly the same requirements, acting under the Public Service as they would be, regardless of what particular role they had or what we called it, so there’s not actually a substantial change there, in clause 6 that’s relevant to what she’s talking about.

Then there was a question, I think, about—Lawrence Xu-Nan asked if the Director of Regulation would be accountable to the secretary. I think it’s really helpful, I’d say to Dr Xu-Nan, to read what it says here: the Director of Regulation is appointed by the secretary. They have to be an employee of the ministry, which the secretary is in charge of. I think it should be pretty clear: if you work for someone and they appoint you to a position, you’re accountable to them. I can’t make it any simpler than that, much as the member might need me to.

Then there was a question of whether there should be a child impact statement added, in some sort of analogy to the Regulatory Standards Act. No, we have no intention of doing anything like that.

Finally, there was a question from Teanau Tuiono in relation to new section 27B and the functions of the director and whether the director would be a policy maker, for example, setting the ratio of students to teachers. Well, the answer to that is no, and part of the purpose of what we’re doing here, and the reason that we’re setting it up this way, is that we want the person who makes the policy and the person that enforces the rules to be different. We wouldn’t want, for example, the police to be making the laws and then enforcing them. We try to have a separation, and that’s generally considered now to be best-practice regulation; that’s what we’re doing here, in part. It’s one of the things that we’re doing with this bill, so that will continue to be made by the Government, advised by the Ministry of Education, not by this director.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two questions for the Minister. One’s a new one, but the other one is that I just want to seek some clarification from the Minister with response to my earlier question. I accept what he has said there, and I’m not trying to be difficult; I’m just trying to understand really clearly—really clearly—where “as far as is reasonably practicable” is used in new section 14A(e), “Objectives of Part 2”, inserted by clause 5. I want to understand why those words are in there when it says clearly that you’re trying to implement—“implementing a licensing and certification system that provides service providers, parents, and caregivers with certainty and clarity … regarding minimum standards for quality services.”

Why are those words “reasonably practicable” in there when this is going to be implementing a system that provides clarity and certainty regarding minimum standards for quality services? I still don’t understand why those words are in there, and I’m genuinely not trying to be awkward when I ask that question. I wasn’t a member of the select committee, so I really am keen to understand that, when it should be something that should be quite clear and easy for the objectives to be.

The other question I have is around the Director of Regulation, new section 27A, inserted by clause 7—that “The Secretary must be satisfied that the person has the appropriate experience and expertise to perform and exercise the functions, duties, and powers of the Director of Regulation.” What is deemed to be the appropriate experience and expertise? Are they going to be required to have a sound knowledge of the early childhood sector or otherwise? Is that going to be a requirement or not? I note some of the questions that were raised by the Kindergartens Aotearoa association with particular regard to this point.

What mechanism is in place to ensure that, in discharging their duty, the director is not in conflict with ministry policy and practice? Do they remain an employee of the ministry when their responsibilities will sit with the Education Review Office?

I’m interested to know about the appropriate experience and expertise. Who will decide that? What is deemed to be appropriate experience and expertise? Surely someone who’s going to be in charge of a sector like that should have—it would be good for them to have—certain knowledge of the early childhood sector and how it has operated in the past and what it is that the Minister is trying to achieve going forward in the future with early childhood education service as well. It would be really good if the Minister could clarify.

I will just try once more on “reasonably practicable”. I guess the point is that the law has to be upheld, and it could be upheld in a court. If the law didn’t say “reasonably practicable” and it said that the regulator had to provide certainty and clarity to parents, without any qualification, then it’s a standard that could never really be reached, because there would always be somebody who said that something was too uncertain or unclear. You can test whether a person has done all of the things that they reasonably could have done, so it actually allows the law to be followed and interpreted, whereas it could become meaningless if it’s a standard that can never practically be reached.

As far as the appropriate knowledge and expertise, the bill doesn’t say what the appropriate knowledge and expertise for the Director of Regulation is. What the bill says is that the person who appoints them has to be satisfied that they have the appropriate knowledge and expertise. Now, in that circumstance, the person might well be asked, “What did you think was appropriate? Why did you think this person was the right person?” and they would have to give their reasons, and that would be subject to public scrutiny. Like many of the purposes of this legislation, we are trying to ensure that the purpose of regulating and the quality of regulation is set out in law so that ordinary people can say, “Hey, you’re not doing this right. Parliament said how you should do it.” It’s all about giving people some standing and some status and holding people accountable.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to thank my colleagues over here for defending Māori education, and, in this case, our kids. I want to stress the point, the relevance, and the place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in education legislation and endeavour over the last 50 years. This is not just a case of “Can you put pop the Treaty in?”, and this speaks more broadly to the broad attack on Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the removal of it in education, from preschool all the way through to university.

Now, it’s been the adherence to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the requirement of adherence to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, in education legislation over the last 50 years that has taken Māori from a place of being almost boxed out of education, be it in preschool or university, in the 1950s and 1960s, that has been hard fought through the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s, and the 2000s, all the way up to today, to us producing the highest results in education—the highest in the country. Have a look at NCEA, have a look around, and have a look at the participation rates of today versus 1980. Have a look at it all. It all tells us that the inclusion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is part of the success.

The Māori education model has been tried, tested through fire and through everything, and has come out still going strong, OK? It’s the best educational model for Māori. It’s the same in preschool. It’s the same in puna reo, in kōhanga reo. It’s the same in kura kaupapa and wharekura. It’s not lost on me that we have a Minister here who’s actually using the kura kaupapa model to promote his other endeavours in education. It’s just beyond me.

OK, so it has been the adherence to Te Tiriti o Waitangi that has enabled all of that development. So why, oh why, in 2025, are we taking it out, getting rid of it, stripping it back? We’re making it, oh, just, you know, no longer a commitment. It’s completely beyond me—it’s completely beyond me.

There has been generation after generation of Māori academics who have stood up and proposed these things—educational hypotheses, completed doctorates—and who became professors, led universities, and started their own to prove all of these things. All of it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt—that’s what the evidence tells us—and yet here we are, having to defend the Māori science of learning—the Māori science of learning.

OK, these things have been done already and they’ve been proven. The link between language and knowledge system is a known thing. In te ao Māori [Māori society] we call that te reo Māori me ōna tikanga [the Māori language and its associated traditional practices], and what’s known is that it is connection, and the earlier you can get it in, the more powerful those young people become along their educational journey. Proven fact—proven fact—time and time and time again. Then, here we are, with someone not so schooled in educational endeavour, leading the bandwagon of getting rid of the Treaty. It is absurd—it is absurd and obscene. It’s obscene, because as I think about the 30 percent of young Māori who are going to form the labour workforce of this country into the future, you are talking about undermining their educational experience. I just cannot fathom what the reasonable answer is, and I cannot fathom it because there is not one there.

So as I think about these things—these are all in Part 1, by the way—and as I read through it, there’s no requirement for anyone in this piece of legislation to give any thought to anything a young Māori learner or their whānau might need. How can that possibly be a community, family, or a representative model where one culture is just completely sidelined?

If we want to talk about the relevance and the place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, you’re talking about the constitutional founding document, the document that gives constitutional validity to Māori and constitutional validity to every other person in the country, and the Minister thinks, “Huh, well, there are a lot of us in this country. Why would we put that one in?” We’d put it in because it represents every single person in the country—that’s why. So I’d love to hear any response this Minister has to any of the things I’ve put forward. Kia ora tātou.

I’m going to take a question from Teanau Tuiono, but I am looking for new—

Teanau Tuiono: Yeah.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): And questions.

It’s a couple of quick questions, and to acknowledge the responses so far from the Assistant Minister of Education. I do hear what my colleague Tākuta Ferris was saying, as well, in terms of Te Tiriti, because, for a number of us, that would solve a lot of the issues.

We were talking earlier about the role that the Director of Regulation would play, and I haven’t yet heard an answer around how when you go into, say, a kōhanga reo or a puna reo, you don’t have the language or cultural competency—how is that going to work practically? That’s what I want to know. This person will have a number of new functions under this legislation. How are they going to understand them, let alone all the other early childhood centres which operate in other languages, as well? So it’s a practical question about exactly how that particular element would work.

There are a number of us that think that if you put Te Tiriti in there, in the references—and I just acknowledge the tabled amendments by my friend Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, which would take care of that and ensure that that would be taken care of. But if they’re not in there, how is that function going to be carried out in a way which is useful? If they don’t understand the language, it makes it very, very tricky if they don’t understand the cultural context as well, and there has to be a depth of language, as well, in order for that to be useful.

The other quick question that I have is around ratios. I heard what the Minister was saying that this is about compliance, and if they’re not compliant, then that should have a feedthrough with policy. I understood that. But what happens with the situation where you have complaints that are arising because particular early childhood centres are breaking ratio, where you have too many kids or babies per teacher, and that’s creating unsafe working conditions for both the tamariki and mokopuna, and also for the teachers, as well? Does that fall into the function of this Director of Regulation? Are they able to make recommendations to the policyholders or to the policy creators, as well?

My understanding is that ratios are determined by Order in Council, and the one that we have—unless we’ve changed it since I was following this issue more closely—is still stuck on what the old ratios were years and years ago, even though the research is telling us, “Actually, you’ve got to be able to deal with our babies differently, as opposed to our toddlers.”, and so on and so forth. So my question is: what is that link, and I ask if the Minister could be give a specific answer around the ratio question. If complaints arise because of the functions of the Director of Regulation in terms of breaking ratio, or all of those other issues that I’ve talked about, what is the follow-through so that you can get some policy change?

Look, in the first speech, there was actually nothing of substance to respond to. In the second speech, from Teanau Tuiono, he’s asked, well, what happens if the rules are not being addressed? New section 27B in clause 7 is the section that he might look at. It’s the job of the Director of Regulation to address breaches of the rules.

He’s then asked me about the fact that there may be some people who would argue that the research suggested ratio should go up, and others would suggest that they should go down, but, as I’ve said, that’s not part of this bill. That’s not something this Director of Regulation should decide. But section 27B(b) does say that they should enforce the rules that are there.

He’s also asked about language and culture, and asked whether people will be confident, given that you’ve got Māori there as first settlers, and you’ve had many waves of settlers since then—people with different aspirations, language, and culture. If you go into a place which might be Chinese, for example, will they be able to speak to that? Obviously, when you come to hire people, hiring people that are capable and confident is going to be important. But that’s not something in this legislation, other than perhaps the requirement that the person who is hired as the Director for Regulation has the capability required in the opinion of the Secretary for Education who hires them.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 440 be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, amending the new definition of early childhood education to insert “that opts to be certified under this Act”, be agreed to.

Can I please ask people to be prompt with their voting, and also just to make sure, under Speaker’s ruling 71/3, that it’s just the person who calls out who gives the vote for or against, and the number that they’re voting for, and nothing extra.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, deleting the words after “a playgroup” in the new definition of early childhood education, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, replacing the word “system” with “service” in new section 14, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting words after “system” in new section 14, be agreed to.

Mr Willis, I’m just going to ask you if you can be just a little bit quicker getting to your feet with those votes, please. Otherwise, start standing up a little sooner.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, deleting the word “minimum” from paragraph (a) of new section 14, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, replacing paragraph (b) of new section 14, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, deleting paragraph (b) of new section 14, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, adding the word “grandparents” after “parents” in paragraph (b) of new section 14, be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting paragraph (c) into new section 14, be agreed to.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting a new paragraph (c) in new section 14, relating to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting new paragraph (c) into new section 14 regarding resourcing for early childhood education, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting paragraph (aa) into new section 14A, regarding children’s rights and welfare, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, replacing “receiving” with “participating in” in paragraph (a) of section 14A, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting “as the primary objective under this Part.” in paragraph (a) of new section 14A, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting the words “including adequate teacher-student ratio” in paragraph (a) of new section 14A, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting the word “emotional” into paragraph (b) of new section 14A, be agreed to.

The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting paragraph (ba) into new section 14A, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting “grandparent” after every instance of the word “parent” in new section 14A, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, amending paragraph (d) of new section 14A, regarding monitoring and reporting of the performance of the early childhood education system, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, adding the words “geographic availability and equitable provision” to paragraph (d) of new section 14A, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, adding the words “availability and price” to paragraph (d) of new section 14A, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, adding the words “geographic location and availability” to paragraph (d) of new section 14A, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, deleting “as far as is reasonably practicable” from paragraph (e) of new section 14A, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, deleting the word “minimum” from paragraph (e) of new section 14A, be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting paragraph (f) into new section 14A, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting paragraph (f) into new section 14A, relating to funding and resourcing for teachers and staff, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting paragraph (f) into new section 14A, relating to implementing a curriculum that gives effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting paragraph (f) into new section 14A, relating to relevant student rights, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting paragraph (f) into new section 14A, relating to the elimination of forms of discrimination, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting paragraph (f) into new section 14A, relating to the reporting on early childhood education, be agreed to.

The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting a new section 14B headed “Kōhanga reo”, be agreed to.

The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting a new section 14B headed “Kaiako pay equity”, be agreed to.

The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting a new section 14B headed “Equity-based funding for Māori medium education”, be agreed to.

In response to the question from the Hon Kieran McAnulty, a break in between would not be very helpful.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well, it’s just she was tired, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I know, I can see that, but a break would not be helpful. The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting a new section 14B headed “Te Tiriti o Waitangi”, be agreed to.

Point of order, Madam Chairperson. In light of the comments from Kieran McAnulty being tired of voting, I seek leave for the remaining Opposition amendments to be skipped in terms of voting.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Point of order, Madam Chairperson. I think everybody knows that that’s not what I said—you certainly know that—and I don’t think that leave should be taken seriously when it is quite clearly a misrepresentation of what has been said. The comments were between you and myself, not between the Minister and myself, and you, at the time, took it as a light-hearted comment. It shouldn’t lead to leave being sought for those purposes.

Speaking to the point of order, I was aware that the proposal that I made was not his solution to his problem. I was just giving him my solution to his problem.

Well, thank you for those points of order. Look, I will say that some of these times in the committee are quite tedious, and I do question what value the public who’s watching on TV gets from this process, but it is a political thing that’s been going backwards and forwards for many years. Given that there’s some more votes in front of me, I think we’ll just carry on. If anyone does want to withdraw their amendment and we have a rest, they’re more than welcome to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting a new section 14B headed “Clarity of obligations”, be agreed to.

Point of order, Madam Chairperson. I’m not sure how the member from New Zealand First voted, I don’t believe that to be clear, and, just for clarity, I’d like him to say in either of the official languages how it is that he voted.

Thank you. Would the member like to repeat his vote?

Dr David Wilson: Eight votes opposed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6, replacing “Director of Regulation” with “Regulations Review Committee of Parliament”, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6, inserting the words “if the information relates to regulatory compliance or efficiency only”, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6, inserting the words “by agreement of the Secretary”, be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 7, amending new section 27A(2), be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, inserting the words “including Te Tiriti o Waitangi” into new section 27A(2), be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 7, inserting subsection (5) into new section 27A, be agreed to.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, inserting the words “alongside the relevant health and safety agency” into new section 27B(k), is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, inserting paragraph (j) into new section 27B, relating to compliance with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, inserting paragraph (j) into new section 27B, relating to compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, be agreed to.

The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 7, amending new section 27D(c), be agreed to.

The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 7, inserting paragraph (ca) into new section 27D, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, inserting paragraph (ca) into new section 27D, relating to the role of qualified teachers and staff, be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 7, deleting new section 27D(d)(ii), be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, replacing paragraph (aa) of new section 27E(3), relating to delegation of functions, be agreed to.

The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 7, inserting a new section 27F headed “Annual Māori education equity report”, be agreed to.

The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 7, inserting a new section 27F headed “Monitoring of racism and discrimination”, be agreed to.

The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 7, inserting a new section 27F headed “Māori early childhood workforce development”, be agreed to.

The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 7, inserting a new section 27F headed “Māori Standards Authority”, be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 9, inserting subsection (5) into new section 619A, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 9, inserting subsection (5) into new section 619A, be agreed to.

Just before we start the next vote, I’d just ask the member not to interrupt the member who is so diligently doing all that voting over there. Thank you.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 10 be agreed to.

The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 11, amending new section 636(2)(b), be agreed to.

The question is that Part 1 as amended be agreed to.