Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2)

We come first to the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2), and we begin with the debate on Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 29, “Amendments to principal Act”, and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Kia ora and good evening, Madam Chair and members of the Parliament. Before we begin the committee’s discussion this evening, I just wanted to open the debate by once again thanking members of the public who provided their comments on this bill, and I also thank the members of this House who were sitting on the Education and Workforce Committee.The feedback that we received has been valuable in helping us better understand differing viewpoints and shaping a more structured and informed discussion today.

As I mentioned during the second reading, this bill introduces several important changes that advance the Government’s commitment to improving student achievement. It requires that school boards will make educational achievement their paramount or highest priority or objective. It also strengthens initial teacher education, ensures teacher discipline and competence processes are fit for purpose, and provides clear procedures for managing industrial action within the school system, alongside other improvements to the education system.

One of those key proposals in this bill is to amend section 127 of the Education and Training Act 2020 so that educational achievement and attainment becomes a school board’s paramount objective. It is the highest priority in school governance. By placing student achievement right at the heart of what boards should focus on, we are supporting schools to return to the fundamentals of education and get them right. This change ensures that every learner can gain the knowledge, the skills, and the competencies they need to reach their full potential.

The bill also includes proposals aligned with other key Government priorities, including raising our national student attendance. To support this, the bill introduces new requirements for schools to have attendance management plans that set out how the school will respond to and address the diverse underlying causes of non-attendance. My colleague the Associate Minister of Education, David Seymour, will also speak to and address questions in the committee that anyone may have on these proposals.

Similarly, the bill also introduces a proposal to require universities to protect and promote academic freedom and freedom of expression in universities. It’s vital that universities remain spaces that foster debate, encourage ongoing learning, and expose students to a diverse range of viewpoints so that they can develop into the critical thinkers that we need. My colleague the Minister for Universities, Minister Reti, will speak and address questions on this proposal.

Alongside the proposals in the bill, I’m also announcing that I’ll be introducing two Amendment Papers during our discussion in the committee today. The first Amendment Paper proposes to rebalance the Teaching Council’s membership. It proposes a majority of ministerially appointed members by removing the teacher education position and adding a ministerially appointed member. This change will help ensure that appointments are focused on professionalising the council and strengthening its strategic capability to more effectively perform its key regulatory function.

The second Amendment Paper relates to additional changes to school board objectives in section 127, and it responds to the Government’s Treaty reference review. During this review, concerns were raised about whether it is appropriate for boards to be held accountable for meeting the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. School boards are made up of parents and community members, who volunteer their time to support and run their local schools. This Government does not believe that it is reasonable to expect these parents, who are, effectively, volunteers, to carry legal responsibilities that rightly belong to the Crown.

This Amendment Paper proposes the removal of the explicit requirement for boards to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi from section 127. It’s replaced by explicit objectives for school boards to seek equitable outcomes for Māori students, to take all reasonable steps to provide for te reo Māori, and to reflect the school community’s cultural diversity in its policies and practices.

Given that my colleagues Minister Seymour and, shortly, I hope, Minister Reti are here to speak to the attendance management plans and the freedom of expression proposals, I’d welcome members’ questions on these proposals first. Then I can speak and answer questions from members on the other proposals in the bill, as well as the Amendment Papers.

Point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to get a clarification from the Minister of Education. Right at the end of her speech, the Minister’s recommendation was that we look at the questions on universities and attendance plans, etc., first, before coming down to other things like section 127, which is within her mandate—or is it that anything goes? I just wanted to check.

Well, just before I call the Minister, it’s up to the members to ask whatever question they like. However, it’s up to the Minister, if she can give any indication—

Hon Erica Stanford: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): But the questions will be—

Speaking to the point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just seeking your guidance on this and the follow-up. Given that the Minister of Education has indicated that Minister Reti will be arriving to respond to the freedom of expression component in Part 1, how does the Minister—or yourself, as Chair—recommend that we ask questions based on that, given that the Minister hasn’t arrived at this stage? Should we postpone those questions, or how would—

Well, I would suggest that if members want the best answer from the Minister, they would probably be able to observe whether the Minister is here or not. I would say, looking at the bill, that there is plenty of material that will lead up to the arrival, or otherwise, of any Minister.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wouldn’t want to miss the opportunity to ask the Minister for Universities directly—as outlined by the Minister of Education—the questions we need to, relative to this bill. So I just seek that commitment.

Well, once again, the questions will be actually through this Minister, and, generally, she will play something of a puppet master around how the other Ministers—the first questions, generally, are primarily directed through her. I’m sure she will be very quick to direct questions to other Ministers where she believes they have greater expertise or can provide a better answer than she can.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Despite the Minister of Education’s preference to deal with attendance and universities from the outset, we actually can’t do that, because the Minister for Universities is not here, and I’m a bit worried that the jumping all over the place is going to make it difficult for us to track what has been covered off and what hasn’t been covered off. I want to say that I think, when we look at the bill, there’s actually a quite thematic approach that we should be taking to this, because the clauses are—for example, issues that we want to raise around the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs) and Te Tiriti in clause 8 and clause 9 also come under clause 127; attendance is in clause 9 and clause 23; universities are in clauses 12, 7, and 11; and then we have the Teaching Council later on. I would like to make my contributions along the lines of a thematic approach, and the Minister can figure out who needs to answer what questions, depending on what we all put to her in our contributing speeches.

I want to start by saying that the Minister, in her opening speech, acknowledged the public and the submissions process, but what she failed to do in that acknowledgment is actually acknowledge that the majority of submissions were opposed to these proposed changes. In fact, 80.5 percent of the submissions disagreed with the proposal to make educational achievement the primary objective. The Minister, on the one hand, thanks the public for participating in this process, and then—typical of this Minister—she absolutely ignores them. She ignores the submissions that they’ve given and the feedback that they’ve given back and continues to push ahead anyway, always so dismissive of the points that they’re making.

I would also make the point that these changes are not based on evidence. They are based on the Government having a coalition agreement between the National Party and the ACT Party. It is, in fact, in there that this is the baseless politicisation of education in Aotearoa, which is a troubling trend with this Government, including the latest Amendment Paper that we have received this afternoon about removing Te Tiriti o Waitangi provisions for the board. What we have here is that the Government has a very narrow and antiquated view of education, which is fitting for this Government because they have little interest in meaningful engagement and collaboration with the sector.

My question to the Minister is: where is the evidence of the collaboration with the sector on the changes that she is making—which is acknowledged and actually is being celebrated by the Hon David Seymour, who is saying this is a win for them because this is something that they campaigned on and that they put in their coalition agreement. My question to the Minister is: where is the evidence of her engagement and collaboration with the sector on these proposed changes?

What we have here is a very simplistic solution that is not evidence-based. While the Ministry of Education and the Minister of Education portrayed a view that nothing will change under the new drafting, there is a reason why statutory interpretation actually exists, and the changes to section 127 do have interpretation repercussions.

In my first contribution, I just want to know, given that the Minister acknowledged the public and the effort that they went to to make submissions into this process, why she ignored that the majority of them were opposed to these proposed changes, and what evidence she can give this committee of the whole House of the collaboration that she did with the sector.

Like the previous speaker, the Hon Willow-Jean Prime, mentioned, we are going to take quite a thematic approach, and I think this bill does lend itself to that quite nicely.

We are starting with replacement section 127, inserted by clause 8—and just a signal to the Chair as well that we will then move on to attendance, universities, and the Teaching Council, in that particular order.

Now, starting with section 127, I also want to signal to the Chair that the Minister of Education released a very substantial Amendment Paper yesterday, without public consultation, without notifying anyone. Usually it has been the case in the past that when Ministers do bring a bill or have those Amendment Papers, they at least make the House aware that a certain Amendment Paper has been released, as a sign of good faith, but we also didn’t really see that. I really want to just request to the Chair that we do need to, because it is substantial, be given the full opportunity to examine this, as well as where the intention of this particular amendment came from. I think I’m referring to Amendment Paper 408.

In terms of section 127—this is clause 8 we’re looking at—this is something that we never got clarity on despite the select committee stage, and I understand the Minister’s position is that we want to have a single paramount objective, but then the Minister was also like, “Nothing is going to change.” The question then is: why make that change if nothing is going to change? If we are making that change, having the singular paramount objective, then something would be changed in terms of how the board is going to work. If something is going to change, then could the Minister walk us through, operationally, how school boards are expected to see that change? That’s my first question for the Minister and I do want to touch on, I guess, one of the bigger questions—and I also have an amendment to this particular section as well, which I will mention later.

I want to touch on the second question, which is on the Minister’s Amendment Paper 428. So this is the Amendment Paper that came in yesterday, and this is the troubling amendment where the Minister has removed Te Tiriti o Waitangi, specifically the giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi in new section 127(2)(e).

While I understand the Minister is saying that, “Oh well, some of the criteria are still there.”; that’s very different to giving effect to Te Tiriti, because giving effect to Te Tiriti is far more holistic than that. Other than what the Minister has just mentioned before, what sort of advice has the Minister received? I also want to look to the Minister who, in this case is also responsible for—hold on, let me just quickly check; it is in clause 11 of the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2). Nope, it’s not in that one. I’ll try to find it in another contribution, but I guess the question is: where is this coming from in terms of the removal of Te Tiriti? But also, more importantly, what we also want to check with the Minister is what consultation she has undertaken with the New Zealand School Boards Association, noting that the school boards are going to be the ones who are implementing this. I’ll leave those two questions for the time being. So exactly what is being changed? Walk us through the operational aspect, and where did this amendment come from?

In relation to the first question that was questioning the consultation, there has been consultation on section 127. There was public consultation on the proposal to amend section 127 and to remove the National Education and Learning Priorities provisions from the Act between 2 September and 14 October 2024. The Ministry of Education consulted in 2024 on section 127, making achievement paramount—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: And what was the advice?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: —before introducing the bill, so—she asked specifically about consultation.

Just making some comments in relation to the second question about the process, I’d just like to point out that the process is that the Amendment Paper should go up, I think, 24 hours beforehand—which it did, yesterday afternoon—and from all my time on the Opposition benches, the job of the Opposition was to keep an eye on the website to make sure that any Amendment Papers were brought to their attention. That’s certainly how it’s been working since 2017, and so that’s what the member should do.

In addressing the point around evidence, the evidence is that there have been decades of decline in student achievement, and I know that it hurts the Opposition—especially Willow-Jean Prime—to know that they had six years in Government and didn’t manage to raise achievement for tamariki Māori, or any students at all. I know that that hurts, and I know that it hurts that in 18 months, we have managed to raise the early achievement of phonics and reading for Māori students—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Oh, tell us about that data.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: —in just 18 months, and I love it that then they have to say, “Oh, it must be the dodgy data.” That’s where they always have to go to. Well, I know that it hurts—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Ms Prime, the good thing about being in the committee stage is that you’ll get a chance to go to your feet and respond to this, rather than have a continual barrage.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: But the point of this change is so that we are all rowing in the same direction, that achievement is the paramount objective of school boards, that we are being very clear and concise in our directions on what boards must do in order to raise achievement for Māori students and achieve equitable outcomes, to make sure that they are offering te reo Māori, to make sure that they are then culturally competent in their schools.

We are still being very directive, but what we are doing is saying that the Crown holds the duty when it comes to our Treaty obligation. It was signed between the Crown and iwi Māori. We take that very seriously, which is why we have made sure that every resource that we have produced in English has been also provided in te reo Māori, and that every single professional learning and development, every single resource, and every single policy has also been made available for kura kaupapa and available for Māori immersion units. That’s why we are seeing an increase in Māori achievement.

It is not the job of well-meaning parents who run schools who are, effectively, volunteers to be deferred a Treaty duty. Do you know what happened in the last six years since that’s happened? Nothing. Student results didn’t get any better. I know that that hurts and I know that it hurts that under our Government they have finally started to turn a corner, but when you focus on achievement and have everybody focused on that and following the evidence and the science as to what works, that’s what happens. Virtue signalling and empty words smattered around don’t actually raise student achievement. The core tenet—the core tenet—of our Treaty obligation as the Crown is to raise tamariki Māori achievement. Unfortunately, the previous Government couldn’t do that, and that hurts.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for pointing out that I get a chance in my contributions to respond to the Minister of Education and her virtue signalling about her recent results. I mean, I’ve seen so much feedback from the sector on those results that the Minister is boasting about, and I do question the robustness of that. I do question the methodology behind it—so maybe if the Minister would like to answer those questions in terms of that data that she is boasting about.

The Minister said that they consulted on these proposed changes in replacement section 127, inserted by clause 8. I asked the Minister: what was the result of that consultation? What feedback did she get and did the ministry get from the sector around the things that they consulted on before bringing this bill to the House? The Minister didn’t talk to any of that, conveniently. She also, conveniently, does not acknowledge that, in the public consultation process in select committee, the majority of those that submitted opposed what is being proposed here. She has this consultation, she ignores all of the feedback, and she carries on and pushes ahead anyway.

One of the things in this bill that they are proposing to do is to repeal—to repeal—the provisions around the NELPs, that’s the National Education and Learning Priorities. This is in clause 5. Those National Education and Learning Priorities were actually developed through extensive consultation with the sector, something this Minister doesn’t like to do.

Hon Erica Stanford: No, I like to raise achievement.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: No, the Minister does not like to work in consultation with the sector. It says that they provide crucial strategic guidance to school boards about areas such as putting learners at the centre; barrier-free access to learning; quality teaching and leadership; the future of learning and work; and creating a world-class, inclusive, public education system. They are only in place in the Act where children’s participation and decision making is required. Does the Minister care about the children and the students at all? Does she care about what they think? What consultation has she done with the children about anything that she has proposed in here?

Stakeholders made the point that they do not believe that it is necessary to repeal this provision within the Act, so why is the removal necessary when it is not a requirement to issue a NELP but only an option for the Minister if they choose? Why does she want to get rid of something that the sector supports—that, in fact, the sector was involved in the development of? She doesn’t seem to like working collaboratively with the sector and respecting anything that they may have worked on and put forward. Why is the removal of this necessary?

Interestingly, while submitters on this issue to the bill disagreed with the proposal to remove them, the School Boards Association did their own survey of school board members—so this is more like the public; you could imagine parents and people who are serving on school boards. The survey received 55 percent agreeing with the removal of the NELP. So there is a diversity of views out there.

But the views of this Government are that, yes, the previous Government did spend a long time on the NELP, around two years, consulting fully and creating another strategic document—they created many of them—in the end that only required school boards and others to “have regard to”. It was a document that they spent a very, very long time on that actually was replicated in many, many other areas and documents that was their work programme. But we have an urgent issue; we have got plummeting student achievement. If the member opposite and her previous Government had spent more time focusing on the children and their outcomes, rather than all of these strategic documents that didn’t actually do anything, maybe student achievement would have improved in the six years under their watch, but it didn’t.

We have used a different vehicle for our six priority areas. Many of the things that are outlined in the NELP are already replicated elsewhere. It is a document that people don’t have to give regard to or don’t have to follow if they don’t want to. We have our work programme. It is outlined in our Cabinet paper and in our press release and shown to the sector on many occasions. I talk about it often; it will never change, our six key priority areas to drive achievement. They’re already having an impact.

Again, I’ll say to the member: I know that it’s tough to see this Government raising achievement, when they spent six years with a whole lot of documents and strategies that didn’t go anywhere, but that’s just really unfortunate.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I also want to get some guidance from you, Mr Chair. We have heard the Minister of Education, rather than responding to the questions on this particular bill, spending an inordinate amount of time actually attacking the previous Government. So I’m just checking with you, Mr Chair, that if we are opening up shop for political hot takes, then there are a lot of things we could also be saying. But I would like to speak very closely to the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, I’ll just answer that question. The Minister is aware that the wider her answers, the more material then comes within scope for those asking the questions. It’s been a fairly broad-based debate to date. It is a little bit more difficult to direct to specific parts, probably, while the Minister’s answers remain as broad as they do, because there is always going to be that wider scope. Carry on, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. I think it is important, and what the Minister is saying is important, but I want to look at a few things that I asked before.

One of the things I asked is when it comes to the removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and potential legal obligations. Let me just say, then, the president of the School Boards Association has come out, and I wondered—the first question is around how the Minister keeps on talking about “core Crown”. The term “core Crown” has never come up anywhere else that I know of, so if the Minister wouldn’t mind first defining what she means by “Crown”, because school boards themselves are Crown entities—in effect, school boards are the Crown. If the Minister is saying that we don’t want school boards, as Crown entities, to be in charge of overseeing student work—and let’s say schools already have a number of obligations, responsibilities, and accountabilities. We have seen that in the past, school boards have been charged with neglect, so school boards already have to do that. By giving effect to Te Tiriti, it doesn’t actually mean what the Minister thinks that it means. I just want to check, just clarify: what is “core Crown”, and is the Minister aware that school boards are Crown entities and they do have a legal obligation as well?

Which then comes to my second question around Te Tiriti, which is: have the Ministers consulted with the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti? In section 6 of the Education and Training Act, they do give allowances for the Minister to actually collaborate with the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti on certain announcements. I would assume that the removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is probably quite a big one to consult with the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti on. I’m just checking if the Minister has consulted with the other responsible Minister in this area, on this, and whether the Minister will see this potentially open up to things like a Waitangi Tribunal application, because, again, we do, broadly, have an obligation in Aotearoa for things like the inclusion and, in this case, the removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It’s not just simply something that the Minister can drop the day before. That’s my third question.

On to consultation. I’m glad that the Minister quoted the consultation that she did, and I’m actually very pleased with that consultation. Hats off to the Minister for being one of the few Ministers that released an exposure draft bill. But in that consultation, in terms of making student outcomes the primary objective, the opposition rate—because the Minister cares about numbers, when she quoted 55 percent of school boards didn’t like the National Education and Learning Priorities—80.5 percent of the submitters did not agree with making education outcomes the primary objective for section 127. Then, if we’re moving on to the select committee stage, 94 percent of the submitters to the Education and Workforce Committee did not agree, or were opposed, to this particular section of making student outcomes paramount in the bill.

I know that it does hurt the Minister to consider that the way that we’re looking at student outcomes is the be-all and end-all, but, at the same time, if this Minister spends some time in front of a classroom, I feel like that it is a little bit different and it can almost be considered hubris for the Minister to not actually take the advice of the sector with something like this. That’s my third question. If the Minister truly did consult, then why has the Minister not taken on board the other numbers that didn’t necessarily agree with her agenda?

I’ll attempt to answer all of those—there are a number of questions there. Firstly, the core Crown—i.e., the Government of the day and central government agencies—are parties to the Treaty. The explicit duty for school boards to give effect to the Treaty is being removed in recognition that schools are not part of the core Crown. Yes, there are some Crown entities that have Treaty obligations, but school boards are very, very different than any of those. They are predominantly made up of parents who are, essentially, volunteers, who have a range of things that they need to achieve in the governance of their school.

We don’t, as a Government—and this Cabinet has decided that the core Crown has the duty with iwi Māori in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi and that it is not up to a school board to try to decipher how to give effect to the Treaty. We are, instead, being very clear with school boards: what are the things that you need to do around language, cultural competence, and ensuring that there are equitable outcomes for tamariki Māori so that they are very clear and not having to try and decipher what giving effect to the Treaty is? That is the job of the Crown; that is the decision of Cabinet.

In relation to the second part of the question and some idea that I don’t spend time in classrooms, I spent a lot of time in classrooms and with students and talking to teachers and talking to parents—

Hon Member: More than anyone—more than anyone.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Yes, I’d say you’re right, probably more than anybody in this House. It is one of my very, very favourite jobs. But it’s also important to note that, yes, there were people who submitted on the bill. There are also a number of other stakeholders in New Zealand, like parents. There are tens of thousands of parents who expect this Government to make sure that when their child turns up to school, they get the very best world-leading education and they reach their full potential at school. Now, for too long, as I mentioned, those results have been declining. Nobody has managed to turn it around. We have a plan, we’re putting it in place, we’re already seeing the early results of that, and we are unashamedly making sure that when children turn up to school, we turn those results around, because if we don’t, then the future of this country is not in a good space.

There may have been a third question that I’ve missed, and if the questioner wants to raise it again, I’ll answer it, because I don’t remember what that was.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have some questions for the Minister of Education on these provisions that we’re discussing. The first is: does she accept that Te Tiriti is the country’s founding document? Does she accept that Te Tiriti has constitutional status in New Zealand? Does she think it’s inappropriate or appropriate for our public school system to operate in accordance with Te Tiriti, particularly if she does regard it, in fact, as a constitutional document?

Does she think that it’s a zero-sum game that schools cannot chew gum and walk at the same time—that is, they cannot strive and improve educational achievement and do it while operating in a way that is consistent with Te Tiriti? If she does think it’s a zero-sum game, and that any energy that a school puts into operating in a way that’s consistent with Te Tiriti is energy that cannot be put into educational achievement, what evidence does she have to support that?

The member will be very aware that the Cabinet Manual sees the Treaty as a constitutional document, of course. Since 1989, we have had school boards, and we have not had a clause in any part of the Education Act which has conferred or deferred a Treaty obligation away from the Crown to a group of parents who are volunteers on school boards. Now, that change has only been in place for a few years. I’d also say to the member, there is more than just—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: In recognition that it was failing.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: You’re going to have your say when you get to ask your question, so just [gestures for member to sit down] for a bit, all right?

In answer to the member’s questions around chewing gum and walking at the same time, there are many things in section 127 that we’re asking the school board to do, not just to raise achievement. Around student safety and wellbeing, there’s parts around making sure that they’re turning up to school—attendance—and making sure that they’re carrying out assessments. There are a huge amount of things.

Not only that but also we’re being very, very clear about what school boards need to do, as I’ve already mentioned, in order to ensure that there are equitable outcomes for Māori students—that they’re offering te reo Māori and that they’re being culturally competent in the way that they operate in their school. There are many things that we’re asking the school boards to do, and being very particular, and some of those things are particular to tamariki Māori.

But it is, as I’ve already said, the Crown’s responsibility, and it’s Cabinet’s decision that it is the Crown’s responsibility, to honour the Treaty and to make sure that we are abiding by that, and we’re doing that in many ways. If you look at our entire work programme, everything we’re doing is also in te reo Māori. I’ve already mentioned all of the resources, all of the professional learning and development (PLD). We’re providing new assessments for assessing early readers’ phonics ability in te reo Māori, which is why we’re able to see where and when we need to intervene early for those students who are learning in te reo Māori, in immersion units, or in kura kaupapa, so that we can intervene early to make sure that their reading is on track as well.

As far back as I can see, no Government has ever mirrored their exact work programme to make sure that all of the resources, all of the PLD, everything that we’re doing, every policy, are also there and available in te reo Māori for Māori students as well. That is why we’re starting to see a shift.

Point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to say that I do take personal offence, under Standing Order 121, from the Minister for using te reo Māori when she is actively removing Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the legislation—

Hon Members: Oh, sit down!

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Shush, children! When someone is raising a point of order, it is heard in silence. Thank you. My point of order is that I do take personal offence, under Standing Order 121, for the Minister to use te reo Māori when she’s actively removing Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the legislation, and I would like for her to withdraw and apologise.

Hon Erica Stanford: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, you can speak to the point of order, the Hon Erica Stanford.

Hon Erica Stanford: Madam Chair, it is very clear, in everything that we’re doing, that we are supporting te reo Māori in schools, not only making sure that school boards have an obligation to make sure that they’re offering te reo Māori but also making sure that everything is available in te reo Māori—more so than any Government ever, that I’ve been able to see, so there’s no need for the member to take offence.

Is this a point of order, or?

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: No, this is a new call.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): A new call? OK. The Hon Willow-Jean Prime—he ceded the call to you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We’ve just had the Minister of Education, once again, standing up and talking so proudly about her record of te reo Māori. My question to the Minister is: what gave the Minister the right to determine that Te Tiriti o Waitangi means providing resources in te reo Māori? Who gave the Minister and the Crown the sole right to determine that giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi is to simply provide resources in te reo Māori? Who did she talk to? Which iwi, which hapū who signed to Te Tiriti o Waitangi did the Minister talk to to determine that in order to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, all she has to do is give some resources in te reo Māori? The duties of the Crown to give effect to and honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi are far more than providing some resources in te reo Māori, OK? The Minister might want to address that one for us.

But I want the Minister to also tell me how she can claim that providing resources in te reo Māori is giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, when she is also recolonising the curriculum, whitewashing the curriculum. Who was involved in the rewrite of that curriculum, minimising the use of te reo Māori, minimising Māori concepts and matauranga Māori in that curriculum?

Minister, as the Crown, who did you work with when working with your Treaty partners? Who did you consult? Who agreed that giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi was removing Māori words from 5-year-old students’ readers? Can she tell me the answer to that one?

Who did the Minister consult with when she decided that giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi meant removing $30 million of funding for Te Ahu o te Reo Māori, which is to train Māori teachers to be able to deliver?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I stop the member for a moment and just ask which clauses you’re referring to because I’m trying to find the scope of the questions that you’re currently asking. So can you refer me to a clause?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Sure, yes. Replacement section 127, inserted by clause 8, the removal of giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Madam Chair, for your benefit, prior to you arriving, the Minister made some quite broad contributions, and as the previous Chair pointed out, opened herself up to this very type of questioning and debate. That was made very clear by the presiding officer who was here immediately prior to you.

Now, the Minister, in her last contribution, as you were switching over, talked about how she was proud of this Government’s record of giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the responsibility of the Crown by giving te reo Māori resources to kids, by translating them. I am responding to that. The Minister stopped me as I was interjecting over here and said that I will get my turn. In my turn, I am asking the Minister to now answer the questions that she invited me to ask.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you for the recap. That’s helpful in the changeover, thank you.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Now, I look forward to the Minister answering those questions. I also want the Minister to explain very clearly for the—

Cameron Luxton: And slowly for the member.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: That’s right—really slowly, really clearly, in real detail, what she understands the Crown’s obligations to Māori under Te Tiriti o Waitangi are. In the Cabinet Manual, what are the Crown’s duties and obligations in education to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi? What are the obligations of partnership? What are the obligations of active protection? What are the obligations of equity? Can the Minister please tell me what she understands her obligations are, as the Crown, in terms of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Can the Minister then tell me how she intends to ensure that schools do this if the boards of trustees no longer have any responsibility under this legislation and the proposed removal of this requirement on them? The Minister is going to delegate duties to boards of trustees but not any responsibilities. How is the Minister, who says she’s going to retain that responsibility—what mechanism is she going to have in place to ensure that schools and boards of trustees are upholding her Treaty obligations? Because you’re removing one of those provisions. Can the Minister tell the committee this evening how she intends to monitor that so that parents across Aotearoa know that she is not simply delegating authority to school boards with no responsibility and that it just falls through some gap, which I’m sure is actually one of the key objectives of this? How will you ensure that that is upheld?

Going back to the start of that contribution where the member was asking around the provision of te reo resources—and this may go to part of my questions as to why the previous Government didn’t do this; I’m now starting to understand it. But under the Waitangi Tribunal’s decision, Wai 11—and the member would be advised to go and look at that decision, which says that treating te reo Māori as a taonga is important and that te reo Māori is, in fact, a taonga under the Treaty of Waitangi and it deserves active protection. The way that we do that in education is to make sure that we are providing resources, that there is bilingual education like the kura kaupapa and rumaki units, and that we are actively protecting the language, and a part of that is to provide resources. It’s only one way, but it is an important way of making sure that we are actively protecting that taonga of te reo Māori, which is exactly what we’re doing. There are a lot more things that we do in order to do that, but the member asked that particular question about resourcing.

The member also went on to ask what I think honouring the Treaty means, and I’ve said this a number of times. In article 3 of the Treaty, it’s very clear that the rights and responsibilities are given to Māori as they are British citizens, if you take the literal reading of the Treaty of Waitangi. That means, when we think about education, that tamariki Māori are receiving an education and they have equitable outcomes. That is why that yawning gap between Māori achievement and non-Māori achievement over so many decades has meant that we haven’t been doing all we can do to uphold that part of the Treaty, which is why I am so focused on every single thing that I do in the mainstream to make sure we’re also doing it in te reo Māori.

All of the things I’ve already mentioned, I won’t go over them again, but we are also being very clear with school boards. As I’ve already said, it’s very vague to say to a school board that “You need to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi.”, because what does that mean, in effect, for a school board?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: If it wasn’t taken out, they might know.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ll tell you what, the member opposite hasn’t actually said what she thinks that it means. We are being very, very clear. We are saying that you must offer te reo Māori when students request it, you must make sure that you are attempting to achieve equitable outcomes for tamariki Māori, and you must make sure that you are being culturally competent—very clear and specific to boards so they know exactly what they need to do. It’s all very well to just put words in without actually being clear about what they mean, because what happens is that boards lose their focus, and we want them to be laser focused on raising achievement, closing the equity gap, and doing those things to raise Māori achievement. That’s what we’re focused on doing.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Tēnā koe e te Minita. Otirā, tēnā tātou katoa. It’s my pleasure to stand here as the presiding member of te kura kaupapa Māori o Taperenui a Whatonga to seek further clarification around section 127.

Beyond te reo and beyond resources, can the Minister of Education accept that giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi looks different according to iwi, hapū, community, and the tikanga and kawa processes of that iwi, hapū, and community; if so, how can the Minister monitor effectiveness and, of course, ensure consistency? I mean, I’m yet to hear a good argument about why we’re honestly mucking around with Te Tiriti o Waitangi. He moumou taima tēnei.

[This is a waste of time.]

It’s absolutely unnecessary. To simply say that if someone wants access to their reo, to their culture, they can request it, already disenfranchised people are not going to do that. They are going to sit—

Hon David Seymour: Why not?

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: —i roto i te whakamā [in embarrassment]—because they’ve been downtrodden by ridiculous laws like this. That’s why Te Tiriti being in these documents is so important, so ignoramuses can’t detach people from their culture and their reo. But the question is: how can a Government asking stupid questions like that give us any comfort?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Direct the questions to the Minister and less of this pointing, thank you.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: How can anyone in this country feel reassured that Te Tiriti will be honoured when we’ve got Government Ministers making silly quips like that about the value of Te Tiriti and access to te reo and tikanga and identity?

In simplistic terms, how will the Minister monitor the effectiveness of this? What qualifies the Minister to ensure Te Tiriti will be given effect across schools across Aotearoa and therefore how will she ensure the consistency when the delivery giving effect to this will look different and it should look different in every school community, and that’s what boards can be charged with. Tēnā tātou.

One of the easiest ways to ensure that you are raising achievement—which is, again, the core tenet of a Treaty duty: to make sure that tamariki Māori are succeeding to their full potential, which we have not done in this country for some time—is to make sure that we’re assessing our young people. That’s why we created Hihira Weteoro, which is a phonics check that is designed specifically—a world first, as far as we can tell—for Māori children learning in bilingual units. It tests them at 20 weeks, 40 weeks, and 55 weeks—understanding that they are learning in a bilingual environment, in some cases, or in full immersion—to make sure that they are staying on track with their learning. Where they fall behind, we pick them up with our literacy intervention teachers and programmes that we have put in place, which are very, very important.

What we’re also doing is making sure that, for the first time—this has never been done before; the previous Government didn’t do this—we’re actually assessing. We’re taking a sample assessment in our Curriculum Insights and Progress study, where we take samples of children in years 3, 6, and 8 in the mainstream and assess them in reading, writing, and maths to make sure that they’re on track and that Government policies are working—for the first time, we’re going to be doing that in immersion settings as well.

The best way to make sure that we are achieving equitable outcomes is to actually ask the question: are we? We haven’t done that before. We haven’t had really good data across our mainstream and immersion units.

Also, from next year, there will be a requirement to assess, using one of the three assessment tools, reading, writing, and maths, twice a year, every year, from year 3. It will be very telling how achievement is going and whether or not we are making sure that there are equitable outcomes for Māori students.

Can I just say, before we take some more questions for the Minister, that we’ve spent a reasonable amount of time around replacement section 127, in clause 8, and the Minister has been answering the questions all the way through. The members may not like some of the answers, but the Minister has actually been answering. It’d be really good if we could branch out to see if there’s anything else in this piece of legislation.

Point of order, Madam Chair. Thank you for that. I do just want to check your understanding, though, because this Amendment Paper that has been introduced around Te Tiriti—the removal of the requirements for giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi—has not been to select committee. This is our only opportunity to ask the Minister questions about this specific point. There are other things in section 127 that did go to select committee, which we haven’t addressed yet—

I get the point of order from the member. My judgment is that the questions that have been asked to this point about how the Minister is going to ensure and measure have been answered by the Minister. I’m looking for different questions because I feel like the questions since I’ve been in here for the last 20 minutes have been very similar questions and very similar answers to what I’ve already seen that the previous Chair has written down. I’m looking for you to broaden out. What I’m saying is you may not like the answer that the Minister’s giving you, but it doesn’t mean that she’s not answering the question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate and respect your comments, and I’ll do my best to add additional points. The problem here is that the Minister of Education has been quite narrow in her responses and that what we’re trying to understand is actually how this decision came about where, at the eighth hour, we’ve received an amendment. We’ve been through a select committee process, and our select committee actually does good, constructive, robust work. It wasn’t a short process, so there was every opportunity for the Minister to drop this particular amendment.

It is a pattern of behaviour from this Government. This is not the first amendment that is dropped at the eighth hour to remove the Treaty of Waitangi; Minister Simmonds and Government colleagues did the same in the vocational training bill. It’s not new for the Government. It is part of the coalition agreement, so I am confused as to why the Government is, in fact, dropping such a large piece of discussion that is sensitive in nature and is the foundation document for our country at a late stage in this process. Hence why I’m sort of drilling into the Minister to say, “When did this amendment go to Cabinet and get approved by Cabinet? Was that this week?”—just to understand why it’s so late in the piece and what consultation keeps on coming up.

She actually hasn’t identified for us which groups have been consulted around this particular amendment. It is the removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I acknowledge that she is uncomfortable about doing this and probably is being wedged by the minor parties around her in this Government—the ACT Party and New Zealand First. This is their push, and she will be uncomfortable about this decision. But she is the boss here and she needs to answer these questions in this phase of scrutiny in the committee of the whole House.

Which groups did the Minister actually consult with here, which Māori groups as well, and which schools, if any—if any—came back and said to the Minister, “This is a good thing, to put an amendment in place that removes Te Tiriti o Waitangi?”

The next layer of that is about understanding the rationale behind why this is important. The Minister has talked a lot about equity but we haven’t unpacked the role that Te Tiriti plays in achieving equitable outcomes for tamariki in our education system. The question arises: can equity be achieved without our foundation document underpinning the decision making at a governance level in our schools; if that is removed, how do we achieve true equity?

The Minister, this afternoon, has come up with examples—some people call it cherry-picking—of the work that the Government is doing in te reo, and the like, which is fine, that’s good; I respect those things that they are doing, but that is not equity. That is not equity, Minister—

Hon Erica Stanford: What is it? Tell me.

SHANAN HALBERT: —it is examples—I’ve still got a minute.

Hon Erica Stanford: No, I mean, tell me what those things are.

SHANAN HALBERT: My question here—it’s my job to scrutinise you today, right?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Minister’s just asking the member to clarify what he meant by that last statement.

SHANAN HALBERT: As I said—

Camilla Belich: Point of order. Madam Chair, you’ll know that there is a Standing Order which prohibits the Minister from utilising the microphone during the committee stage in order to insert comments into the debate. So I just appreciate—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I do understand that. I’m just trying to get the best answers out for the questions. If the Minister wants to clarify a question that somebody’s asked, I think it’s really important for the Minister to be able to answer the question. I don’t believe she was injecting herself. I’ve seen Ministers inject themselves in the past; she was just trying to get some clarification.

SHANAN HALBERT: Thank you, Madam Chair. The thing I’m trying to understand from the Minister is: what role does she see Te Tiriti o Waitangi playing in achieving equitable outcomes for tamariki in our education system? That has been removed.

What has been done here is silencing of Māori voices around a governance group that runs our schools. I’d like her to give me an understanding of if she agrees that that is silencing Māori voices around that table and what’s the impact of that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say, Madam Chair, this is not repeating questions for the sake of it. I want to respond directly to something that the Minister of Education didn’t say in her failure to answer one of my previous questions, but also to respond to things that she actually has said.

I finished my last intervention by asking the Minister to share with the committee evidence that underpins, I think, her assertion that having the Treaty of Waitangi enshrined in this legislation is somehow a distraction, or detracts, from her objective—that, I think, is shared by everybody here—that we want to see tamariki Māori do as well as they possibly can in the education system. She didn’t answer that.

Further, I want to take the Minister’s claims at face value that she’s committed to supporting the achievement of Māori in the education system, and she’s investing and producing resources and so on; and, also at face value, the distinction that the Minister draws between achievement of Māori in the system and the inclusion of Te Tiriti in law. If I can paraphrase what I’ve heard from the Minister today, she’s more interested in educational achievement than she is in, somehow, the kind of symbolism of having Te Tiriti in our education legislation.

My question is: logically, why not do both? Why choose one over the other? Why not knock yourself out doing everything you can to encourage Māori to do as well as they possibly can in our education system and have Te Tiriti enshrined in our law, conveying to this and all future Governments our shared obligation to make sure that Māori see themselves reflected in everything we do in public life in this country? Why is she choosing one over the other?

The Treaty of Waitangi is enshrined in our legislation. It is deeply enshrined in the Education and Training Act, in section 32, and I take that responsibility very seriously. But to have a clause and a board of trustees requirement that says they need to give effect to the Treaty, without actually being very clear on what that means—and it’s very interesting that’s the members are using words like “true equity” and “really honouring the Treaty”, without even saying what it is that they think. The reason that they won’t is because they’ve got the same problem that boards of trustees have; that they don’t know what “giving effect to the Treaty” actually means.

What we are being very clear on is what they need to do to seek to achieve equitable outcomes for Māori students: to take all reasonable steps to provide for teaching and learning in te reo Māori to students whose parents or caregivers request it; to take reasonable steps to ensure that the policies and practices for at school reflect New Zealand’s cultural diversity. What we really need boards focused on is language, is culture, is making sure that students are achieving to the very highest possible of their abilities.

But in section 32, deeply enshrined in our legislation, is the Treaty duty, which sits with the Crown, which has been guiding me in all of my policies and all of my decisions. The members opposite might not like to think that providing resources and professional learning and development and making sure that we are providing Māori language skills to teachers—which we are about to commence with next year, as it was budgeted for this year; or the literacy resources we’re providing to schools, secondary schools, kura kaupapa, whare kura—is important. Those things are very important to our Treaty obligation to make sure that we are revitalising the language and making sure that Māori students are reaching their full potential, and that is exactly what we are doing.

What we are saying to boards is we don’t expect them to sit around and try and work out what honouring or giving effect to the Treaty means—because if you want to talk about something being very unclear, that is exactly it. We need, and parents expect, boards of trustees to be laser focused on outcomes for students: getting them to school, making sure they’re achieving to the highest possibility, and keeping them safe.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also just wanted to mention to you, Madam Chair, that with the previous Chair we mentioned there are broader themes within this bill that we want to explore and we’re on the section on the obligations of the board, but there is also the other sections of attendance, universities, and the Teaching Council.

I want to just check with something that I asked the Minister of Education right at the beginning, which was around not so much broader consultation with the public but more consultation with, potentially, her Cabinet colleagues or with other officials.

I think my first question would be: how come, particularly with some of these changes, we haven’t seen a child impact statement being conducted, when this particular bill does affect children quite severely? In this case, in terms of a child impact statement, what sort of consultation, particularly with the latest amendment, Amendment Paper 428, that the Minister dropped, has been consulted through Mana Mokopuna, the Children’s Commissioner? I think that’s also a helpful indicator to the committee that the due diligence, even though we may not have seen it, has been done when introducing something like that into the committee.

The other person that I checked with in terms of consultation, for the Minister, was the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti. That was mainly from the perspective of what, then—I understand what the Minister is saying, the Treaty of Waitangi is available in clause 6, amending section 9, but anything that removes the giving effect of Te Tiriti o Waitangi within any legislation should have serious scrutiny. I want to know whether the Minister for Māori Crown Relations has been consulted and what this would mean for Māori-Crown relations in general, and has the Minister received advice on what this would mean in terms of potentially an application to the Waitangi Tribunal?

All of these included, when we’re looking at replacement section 127, inserted by clause 8, I think a broader question that we haven’t asked is: sure, the Minister wants to make sure that there is one single paramount objective, but with everything else we’re talking about, were there actually other options that were being considered? The Minister has consistently mentioned that it was confusing, that boards are volunteers, etc., and I 100 percent agree with that, but, at the same time, what are some of the other ways for us to potentially reach the sort of ability for the school boards to be able to do their role as the governing body of a school by other means, by providing additional resources? Rather than kind of like saying, “You only need to focus on one thing, because you are volunteers and you don’t have the capacity.”, was there any option being considered that would give them the capacity to actually consider all of these or give them the resources that would potentially consider all of these?

Those are the tangible things. What information, then, have school boards been given on how to communicate or how to involve the mana whenua where the school is based? These are some of the tangible options that, for example, the Minister may have considered. I’d be keen to hear from the Minister.

Now, the Minister has also mentioned, in terms of ākonga Māori and some other things—and I think it’s really important to highlight that kura kaupapa, kōhanga reo, kura reo, and all of those sort of things, we are seeing tamariki Māori, etc., thriving in those environments. I don’t deny the fact that the Minister has put resources into it. However, 97 percent of ākonga Māori are in English medium; they’re not in Māori medium. While we’re celebrating Māori-medium success, what are we doing, signalling to those 97 percent of ākonga Māori in the English medium, saying “We are now removing the school boards’ need to give effect to Te Tiriti.”? What, then, would the Minister say to these 97 percent?

I really want to pick up the question from my colleague Cushla Tangaere-Manuel, because I think that question is really important, because what we are hearing from the Minister is that, yes, parents, caregivers, students can request it, but what that translates to is: “If you want to do anything that is culturally yours, you’ve got to bat for it—you’ve got to ask for it; it is not naturally given to you as your birthright.”

Ingrid Leary: Madam Chair?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Sorry, Madam Chair? I’m almost done.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you, Madam Chair. I apologise. I lost track of time.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I apologise too because I wasn’t watching the clock; I was listening.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I think that’s a really important point: what, then, would this signal to ākonga Māori in terms of how the Minister’s intent is empowering them to succeed as Māori, not succeed for Māori? That is the really important question when we’re looking at a lot of these.

Again, I don’t deny the fact that the Minister mentioned about success in phonics and all of those, because when you are looking for success, you will find success. But it’s also ironic that the Minister uses phonics as an example, because I think it’s a really important analogy when it comes to the understanding of phonics and semantics and all of those other things and when you’re looking at context within a language, is that, with phonics, the Minister is using Māori like phonics, but the Minister doesn’t understand the context of being Māori or what it means for Māori. That’s a very, very important analogy when we’re looking at purely singular success when it comes to phonetics.

The Minister also mentioned te reo Māori being a taonga. Now, we have seen, both in terms of the way that the new curriculum has rolled out, we’ve also seen, in terms of some of the removal of kupu Māori in books like At the Marae. I want to check with the Minister, when she says that te reo Māori is a taonga, then why are kupu Māori being removed—

Hon David Seymour: It’s irrelevant to the bill.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Well, it is because that’s what the Minister is saying, and the Minister is using this to justify that it’s OK to remove giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Jenny Marcroft: Is there a question?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: The question, then, for the Minister is: why has, then, the ministry also decided not to include kupu Māori in any new Ready to Read Phonics Plus books, except for only in character names?

All of those sorts of things, I just wanted to get clarification from the Minister, because the Minister is saying one thing but what we are seeing in terms of the reality and what we are seeing in terms of the announcement is something that’s completely different.

Just to recap a couple of the questions that I have: why was there no child impact statement being made? What consultation has she done specifically with things like Mana Mokopuna, in terms of obligation to children, with Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti? What are the potential consequences of application to the Waitangi Tribunal? Has she considered any other options in terms of this particular bill, other than having one paramount objective? What is her position, then, on things like removing kupu Māori when she says that te reo Māori is a taonga?

I want to finish with just touching on two additional things. One of the things is around the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs). I understand the Minister was saying before that one of the things that was part of the consultation was that though NELPs were really good, the current NELPs have “particular regard”. That I understand, from what the Minister is saying. I would ask the Minister to consider my amendment, Amendment Paper 403, which is to reinstate NELP but actually make it stronger by saying “to give effect” to NELPs, rather than just simply removing them altogether. I do agree with the Minister that “have regard” is a little bit more vague.

I would also like to ask the Minister to consider my Amendment Paper 404. Now, this is one of the other questions I had earlier, which is: if nothing’s going to change, why change section 127, everything within section 127, including supporting objectives? I want to pick up particularly on section 127(2) and 127(3), in clause 8. I propose that we change “To meet” to “In addition to”. Now, the reason for that is just to ensure that the supporting objective must be met. It provides a clarity that has not been provided from a statutory interpretation perspective. This particular amendment that I want to ask the Minister to consider is to provide a needed clarification that much more aligns the intention of the clause, where supporting objectives must be independently met, rather than have one be conditional on another.

I’ll just run through those questions. Firstly, there’s no requirement for a child impact statement. Secondly, the question around consultation—there was full ministerial consultation, as there always is in a Cabinet process, and Minister Potaka was also on Minister Goldsmith’s ministerial advisory group around the Treaty principles work that was done, so he was consulted, of course.

Around the claim that I’ve said nothing will change, that is not the case. What we’ve said is we want boards to be laser focused on raising achievement, and that’s exactly what we expect to happen. But with the clarifications that we’re putting into section 127, we are being very clear that there does still need to be—and very importantly—te reo, culture, and making sure that that equity gap is closed in section 127 so that boards are focused on doing their duty and not on a vague clause that says “give effect to the Treaty”, but they don’t know what that means. We are being clear in what it means: those are the things that you must do.

The member is talking like there is only one objective for a school board. There are many objectives and they are all essential supporting objectives, but we want to make sure that they are laser focused on achievement.

With the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELP), I appreciate the member’s position, but this Government has come in with six very clear priorities. The NELPs are overly burdensome. They are just one of many documents that school boards have to look at. We’re reducing that compliance. We’ve been very clear on what we need them to do and been very clear on what our six key priority areas are, and that is the work of this Government.

There may be some other things I haven’t answered; apologies. There were lots of questions and I tried my very best.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first contribution, and I’ve been listening very carefully to what can seem like quite an academic and conceptual debate around “giving effect to” versus a list of things that are based on assumptions. Picking up on what the Minister of Education just said, we heard about te reo / language. We heard about culture versus “giving effect to”, which was presented to us as being vague. I wanted to try and ground this in some questions, for the Hansard, actually—for the record—so that I’m reassured that not only our Māori kids but, actually, the diversity of cultures in New Zealand who benefit from Te Tiriti clauses will not be disadvantaged when it comes to things that do enhance their learning and do improve their academic achievement, and those are around culture and identity.

I want to just reference work that I did with the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe a couple of years ago and bring the voices of the students into the House. I had a constituent case which was tricky, of a student who was wearing corn braids. That was part of his cultural identity. He was not Māori. The rector at the school decided that that was a distraction, and there was a bit of an impasse.

The result of that was that we decided to hear the voices of students. We asked students from different schools—uniformed schools and non-uniformed schools; about six of them, I think, in total, from the greater Wellington region—to come in and give us their experience of having these school uniforms that did not or did require certain things. This is around identity and culture. It was very clear, from those conversations—there were arguments on both sides, but it was very clear that cultural identity and giving effect to Te Tiriti is embedded in school uniform protocols and in grooming protocols, and that those protocols benefit not only Māori but other students.

Actually, it goes a step further, because we also had a gender lens and we were able to understand the difficulty for some people to go into classrooms being required to wear binary uniforms that were distracting to their education. It was very clear that the evidence that the kids were giving us was that what they need to do to achieve is to feel comfortable and confident in their identity and in the rules that allow them to express themselves.

As a result of that, the Human Rights Commission drew up a list of guidelines for boards of trustees, and those were received around Aotearoa. They were not mandatory, but they were based on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, on freedom of expression and identity, and on Te Tiriti and giving effect to Te Tiriti.

My question for the Minister now is: if we’re going to take that out of the board of trustees’ suite of things to consider, does that mean that those school uniform protocols that have been adopted by many schools and welcomed with open arms by many boards of trustees and by many students and that, no doubt, have led to higher achievement are to be thrown out—the baby with the bathwater? Does it mean that giving effect to Te Tiriti, as I understand what she just talked about, is about culture? We might think of kapa haka performances, te reo classes, and resourcing. What about these really fundamental questions about self-expression and identity? If they are to be in that list of things, I think the Hansard needs to reflect that now so it’s very clear; if they are not, if they’re seen as a distraction and not part of the core things that boards are to focus on, then I think that needs to be on the record.

That, again, goes back to whose perspective on identity and culture we are honouring here. Is it one part of the Treaty partnership or is it true partnership? The reason I ask this is because this is not conceptual. We have had feedback from students, even in my electorate, who have had cultural taonga through moko kauwae, through other things, where they have embraced those. Their schools have embraced them. They have found a new love of learning. They have said how liberating it is for their education, and all the evidence stacks that up. This is not a conceptual debate; this is real life. If the Minister agrees that those school uniform guidelines should stand, then I would like that to be on the Hansard so there is absolutely no doubt that we are not ripping away things that have been built carefully with students at the centre of the of the debate.

I’ve already said this a number of times and I’m in danger of repeating myself, but if the member looks at the Amendment Paper, firstly, it does say, “takes [all] reasonable steps to ensure the policies and practices [at] the school reflect New Zealand’s cultural diversity:”, and I expect that schools, as self-managing entities, will continue to do exactly that.

There are a number of things in section 127 that are not changing: that a school is a physically and emotionally safe place for its students; that it gives effect to relevant student rights set out in this Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

There are a number of things that are already in the Act that protect against those things; it wasn’t suddenly in just the last few years since the previous Labour Government put in the obligation for a board of trustees to give effect to the Treaty that suddenly gave rise to all of these things. In fact, the Opposition are speaking like this is a duty that has been on school boards since the dawn of time of boards, which is 1989. In fact, it’s only been in since 2020 and it hasn’t given rise to these things. In fact, since it’s been in place, the core tenet, as I’ve said, of giving effect to the Treaty, which is raising student achievement, has gone backwards.

I can assure that member that schools are self-managing entities, and they will still take these decisions and continue to do so because it is here and we’re being very clear in the legislation: take reasonable steps to ensure that the policies and practices of its school reflect New Zealand’s cultural diversity. I’m answering all of that member’s questions.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that debate on this question now close. All those in favour say Aye; to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it? The Ayes have it.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: The Noes have it. Party vote, please.

Too late, sorry. I’ve just called the Ayes have it.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 364 amending new clause 15AAA be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Papers 364 and 428 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 403 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to delete clause 5 be agreed to.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to clause 6 set out on Amendment Paper 404 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s remaining amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 404 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendments to clause 8, new subsections (2) and (3) of section 127, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 411 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 127(1), to insert “and to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi”, be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 127(1), to insert “while upholding, protecting, and promoting the best interests of the child”, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 412 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 127(2)(c)(ii), be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 413 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 414 be agreed to.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 415 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 87, new section 127(2)(e)(ii), is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 416 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 405 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 9, new sections 137A(2) and 137B be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 406 be agreed to.

The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment deleting clause 11 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 407 be agreed to.

The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 12 deleting new section 281A be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 408 be agreed to.

Just confirming that I do have a track on the time, but we’ve just got a few more votes to go.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 409 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 410 be agreed to.

The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 12 deleting new section 281B be agreed to.

The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment deleting clause 13 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 417 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 418 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 15(3), inserting new subsection (7) of section 479, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 419 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 420 be agreed to.

The Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 21 replacing “7” with “3” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 421 be agreed to.

Members, the time has come to suspend the House for the dinner break. We will return at 7.30 and begin Part 2. Thank you.

Sitting suspended from 6.16 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Part 2 Amendments to other legislation