Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill — Committee of the whole House
· Full day report
Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill Committee of the whole House Part 1 Amendments to principal Act, and Schedule 1 CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill, and we begin with the debate on Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 56—“Amendments to principal Act”—and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part. Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (20:22): Good evening, Madam Chair. Just before we begin the committee’s discussion, I wanted to, once again, thank the members of the public who took time to provide feedback on the bill, and I also acknowledge the members of this committee who are sitting on the Education and Workforce Committee. The feedback we received has been extremely helpful for better understanding the range of viewpoints and shaping a more structured and informed decision. As I mentioned during the second reading, this bill sets out an important system level reform to clarify roles and responsibilities across our education system and to ensure it can effectively support schools, teachers, and learners. Alongside the bill, I also welcome discussion on the A…
Read full Hansard debate
Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill
Committee of the whole House
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act, and Schedule 1
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill, and we begin with the debate on Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 56—“Amendments to principal Act”—and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (20:22): Good evening, Madam Chair. Just before we begin the committee’s discussion, I wanted to, once again, thank the members of the public who took time to provide feedback on the bill, and I also acknowledge the members of this committee who are sitting on the Education and Workforce Committee. The feedback we received has been extremely helpful for better understanding the range of viewpoints and shaping a more structured and informed decision.
As I mentioned during the second reading, this bill sets out an important system level reform to clarify roles and responsibilities across our education system and to ensure it can effectively support schools, teachers, and learners. Alongside the bill, I also welcome discussion on the Amendment Paper that was introduced. I believe these are changes that are required now. They look to address recent reports which made concerning findings about the Teaching Council’s performance, ongoing concerns about the lack of visibility and assurance of the progress and wellbeing of home-educated learners, as well as recommendations from the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care.
I previously expressed my concern that current workforce settings, including those for initial teacher education, are not getting the best outcomes for the delivery of high-quality teaching. The bill shifts responsibility for the professional standard setting from the Teaching Council to the Ministry of Education. This will support better alignment of policy and standard setting and is consistent with other jurisdictions, such as England and Singapore, where standard setting and regulatory functions are separate.
Since the bill’s introduction, two reports have been published with concerning findings about the Teaching Council. The Debbie Francis report and the Public Service Commission’s review have highlighted serious shortcomings in the Teaching Council’s leadership, culture, purpose, and priorities. I’m particularly concerned about the finding that the council has inadequate focus on child protection and safety. This should be its top priority. These reports make it clear that meaningful performance improvements are required, in addition to the changes in the bill, to ensure the council can deliver on its core responsibilities of student safety and quality teaching. That is why the Amendment Paper proposes five further changes to the Teaching Council, focused on elevating the role of child safety in the council’s statutory purpose; strengthening reporting and monitoring arrangements for the council; requiring the council to give effect to Government policy directions, while also confirming the independence of the council’s decision making on individual cases; changing council membership from seven to nine members appointed by the Minister and changing the threshold for removal of appointed council members to be at the Minister’s discretion; and setting appointment term limits for the council’s chief executive. While these changes will strengthen oversight and accountability, I want to be clear that the Teaching Council remains statutorily independent. The council will retain its responsibility for teacher registration and certification, as well as confidence and conduct processes. I consider these changes are necessary to focus the council on its core responsibilities to restore confidence and ensure the council fulfils its role in the public interest.
The Amendment Paper also proposes strengthening the oversight of home education. Those seeking to home educate will be required to meet certain requirements, prescribed in regulations, to maintain an exemption from enrolment in a registered school. I’m progressing this change in response to ongoing concerns about the lack of visibility and assurance around the quality of home education and educational progress and wellbeing of some home-educated learners. The number of home-educated learners has increased, but we lack adequate tools to assess the quality of their learning or to intervene where needed. The proposed changes include a new power to make regulations that will set out what needs to be done to maintain an exemption from enrolling in a registered school. The regulations will provide specific requirements around the regulatory and content of reporting and may also include other requirements, such as assessment. The changes draw on public feedback and testing with the Education Review Office and Ministry of Education regional staff who work closely with home-educated families. The ministry will also consult with the home-education seeker on the development of the regulations before these are finalised to ensure the new requirements are workable.
Another important change in the Amendment Paper is the proposal to make school hostels subject to the same legal requirements for physical restraints that currently apply to schools. Regulation of physical restraint in hostels has been less stringent than it is for schools. Hostels are currently left to set their own policies for the use of physical restraint. The royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care recommended ensuring that there are adequate frameworks to govern restrictive practices for children and young people in care to minimise their use, limit them to last-resort situations, and ensure appropriate safeguards and checks. The proposed changes align hostels with the tighter safeguards in schools by only allowing the use of physical restraint to prevent imminent harm by trained staff with clear reporting and protections for boarders. In practice, I know that most hostels are already applying the same physical-restraint guidelines that apply to schools. This change brings the law up to date with existing practice. The ministry will consult the hostels before the rules are updated to ensure they are appropriate for the hostel context.
In closing, the measures in this bill strengthen the foundations of our education system and improve the support that it provides across the sector. I welcome questions members may have.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:28): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for that brief introduction, Minister. I wanted to first just check with you, Madam Chair. We are intending to go through the bill because Part 1 is the substantial part, and we’re intending on doing it clause by clause. But we are also noting that, just this morning, the Minister, as the Minister has expressed, released a new amendment book that also has quite a few changes as well, which we want to explore as well, noting that the amendment, despite the Minister’s introduction, has had no public consultation or feedback at this stage.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s correct.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: With that in mind, I’m going to start with clause 4, “Section 9 amended (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)”, which mention that the “School Property Agency must support the Crown in its responsibility to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi;”. Minister, as you can see, I’ve got a couple of amendments. We, understandably, would want the New Zealand School Property Agency (NZSPA) to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, yet we don’t see that as an agency that’s named in section 6 of the Education and Training Act, which is around “Statement of expectations”. Essentially, section 6 is where the Minister of Education and also the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti may provide joint statements which affect a particular agency’s operations around anything that affects Te Tiriti o Waitangi or touches on Te Tiriti o Waitangi. All of the other Crown entities are named in that list in section 6 but not NZSPA. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority is. The Tertiary Education Commission is. Education New Zealand even is. I wondered what the rationale was behind not including that in section 6 of the bill. That is my first question.
Now, moving on to clause 5, “Section 10 amended (Interpretation)”—again, there are quite a few bits, Madam Chair, and so I think that in order for me to work our way through and in a really logical and sensible way, we are doing it clause by clause, which means there are some potentially out-of-alignment themes, because, for example, the Teaching Council touches on multiple clauses and the School Properties Agency touches on multiple clauses. But in the interests of going steadily, I will be intending on doing it clause by clause.
When we are looking at clause 5, “Section 10 amended (Interpretation)”, my first question is this. It is often also common practice when we have specific dates that are relevant to a section only to be part of a definition for that section, as opposed to being a broader interpretation. I’m referring to the whole package of dates that are only pertaining to section 212 of the Act, around charter schools. I’ve got a couple of amendments, if the Minister wouldn’t mind considering this, which move those same definitions into the charter school section of the bill, as opposed to keeping it in the broader scope, because then, potentially, you are touching on every aspect—all 669 sections and 26 schedules—of the Education and Training Act.
Moving along, in terms of the next part, it is my amendment around education property. This is Amendment Paper 604, and it has been released. I wanted to check this with the Minister. As the Minister would of course know, section 212R of the Education and Training Act suggests that charter schools can also sit on Crown land, and so I’m curious to know why there is no part of anything to do with the School Property Agency—the NZSPA. We’re going to just abbreviate that for the time being. The NZSPA has no relevance to do with charter schools, and so in this case, which is education property, after new paragraph (a), Amendment Paper 604 introduces new paragraph (aa), which says, “occupied or used by a charter school in accordance with section 212R”. I ask whether that’s something that the Minister would consider.
Finally, just for the time being—because, again, there are a lot of sections to clause 5, as well—the last thing I wanted to touch on the fact that I have an amendment on school property portfolios. The definition says, “means land, buildings, or associated infrastructure”, and I wanted to check whether “land” explicitly includes “fixture”, as well. If the ministerial intent includes fixture, then ignore the amendment. Otherwise, I would ask the Minister to consider the amendment.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (20:33): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. In a minute, I’ll speak to my first amendment, which was time-stamped at 4:30:38. I’ve just checked my email inbox and I’ve had a number of emails from people who are now aware that the Minister of Education’s Amendment Paper 583 contains quite a few changes that have not had the ability for people to submit on—the changes, for example, to remove all of the democratically elected positions on the Teaching Council. That change came subsequent to the select committee, and there is also the ability for the Minister herself to determine not only what is in the curriculum—what she’s teaching our children—but also how they will be taught. That is determined by the Minister.
There were several emails from families where they have children who are home-schooled and who have multiple, different issues, including some families who have neurodiverse children. They are really concerned that they’ve failed to have the democratic right of actually submitting on this legislation, and so I look forward to hearing from the Minister: are we able to read out some of these submissions, or what is the process for New Zealanders impacted by this bill who haven’t had that opportunity to provide any comment or any feedback on these changes before they’re legislated for?
I’d like to speak to my amendment that is in relation to clause 5 in Part 1. This amendment proposes to amend the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill, clause 5(3). It proposes to repeal the definition of “initial teacher education programme” in the Education and Training Act, which currently states that “initial teacher education programme means a training programme recognised by the Teaching Council as suitable for people who want to teach”.
Now, when the Minister stood up and spoke, she referred to a couple of different reports on the Teaching Council. She referred to the Debbie Francis report, and she also referred to the Public Service Commission (PSC) report, which was pretty explicit in and around conflicts of interest. I actually have the section here that is in the PSC report. It says, at paragraph 31, that “Conflicts of interest involving public functions and money rightly attract a high degree of scrutiny. The public should be confident that those exercising public functions, and using public money, do so for the right reasons and are not influenced by favouritism or personal benefit. Effective management of contracts and conflicts of interest is critical to maintain trust in public organisations. It is therefore fundamental that organisations in the public sector get this right.”
The Minister is well aware that this amendment that I’m proposing shows that the current chair of the Teaching Council also has their own teacher-training institute, which received $5 million of funding through advocacy—whether it’s through her or through the Tertiary Education Commission Minister. My question is: if this is the paragraph from the report that she’s referred to about the Teaching Council, about conflicts of interest and public functions, how can she reconcile the fact that the current chair of the Teaching Council appears to be conflicted by the very standard she has set in the reports from the Public Service Commission and from Debbie Francis?
We’d be really interested to hear how someone who is responsible for regulating the teaching profession is also able to profit at the same time through their own private teacher-training institute, which received $5 million of Government funding. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s views on that.
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (20:37): None of that has anything to do with the bill, and I won’t be discussing it.
Can I just start by saying just in relation to Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question about land, about whether it covers fixtures. The answer is that land does cover fixtures, and so I’m glad to clear that up.
Can I also answer the question on clause 6 about the listed entities. The reason that this won’t be listed is because it is not a general direction on all of its business around the Treaty; it is just in relation to Treaty settlements. If we look at the relevant clause in the bill, it is very clear that the School Property Agency has duties, and those duties arise around the fact that school property can be on land that is owned by iwi that has been part of a settlement process or land that may be part of a settlement process. That’s why it relates only to that and it is not on all of its business.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:38): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up where the Minister of Education left off. I understand that particular interpretation, but if you are looking at a section of the bill—and I apologise, Madam Chair, because we happen to be discussing this, and I’m jumping ahead just slightly.
If you’re looking at clause 42, new Subpart 5A—and this is around the New Zealand School Property Agency. New section 517F(1)(h) says, “support the Crown in its responsibility to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, including by—”. The definition does not mean just that. The words “including by” doesn’t necessarily imply, from a statutory interpretation perspective, new subparagraph (i) and (ii); it does consider more broadly in terms of giving effect to Te Tiriti. I just wanted to make sure that in that case, the ministerial intent will be different from how the bill has been drafted, and so I wanted to check on that.
The other thing I want to address is what my colleague the Hon Ginny Andersen has suggested. I want to just pick up on one particular part—and I will discuss this more fully in terms of the bill itself—but when it comes to the changes that we’re making to home-schooling, I’ve noticed in the regulatory impact statement there’s been no consultation. Can I check with the Minister? Has the Minister consulted with the National Council of Home Educators NZ? That’s another question for the Minister to consider.
Now, staying with clause 5, “Section 10 amended”, I want to check with the Minister in terms of my new amendment, which should be arriving—or has arrived—at some stage; apologies to all in the committee because, again, we only saw the Amendment Paper this morning, so there was limited time for us to draft amendments on the amendment. Minister, in there, you have suggested additional, I guess, broadening of scope in terms of child safety, particularly when it comes to restraining, etc. That expands to school hostels, which I think is an important thing to consider. I wondered, Minister, if you have at any point considered also homestays, because, again, as the Minister would know, when it comes to homestays, particularly in regards to international students—and particularly in regards to international students under the age of 18—in the Education (Pastoral Care of Tertiary and International Learners) Code of Practice 2021, they are also able to stay in homestays, but we don’t see this similar requirement when it comes to homestays. My new amendment that should be here is also just inserting what the Minister has done in regards to licensed hostels, to also include homestays. If that’s something that the Minister could consider, that will be great.
Now, that is where we are at in terms of clause 5(1). I want to now move on to clause 5—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just before you do, Mr Xu-Nan, could you clarify the number of that amendment?
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: The new amendment doesn’t have a number yet because I literally gave it to the committee about 25 minutes ago.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Ah, that’s OK. Thank you. It’s just we have lots of them, so I need to keep track. Thank you.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: It’s one of the three currently unnumbered ones that I’m aware of.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Great, thank you.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Just in terms of clause 5(1A)—and I’m going to ask this as a broad question for the time being, because we can then go down to the specifics of the individual sections and wording—but just the broad aspects of the changes and the moving of the Director of Regulation from currently sitting under the Ministry of Education to the Education Review Office (ERO), as well as absorbing and incorporating additional functions to do with early childhood education, private schools, as well as hostels, that bill just passed at the end of last year. I know there’s an Acting Director of Regulation, but that role hasn’t really had time to truly embed, or knowing of any sort of evaluation of that particular position. What was the rationale of actually moving all of that, and including incorporating all of that—not just the early childhood section but also private schools and hospitals in that?
I think it’s prudent at this stage, while things are settling, if the Minister wanted to just move the Director of Regulation into ERO as an initial period without additional powers and a scope of powers. I would understand that, but having all of those, including additional powers, seems premature at this stage. I just want to check with the Minister regarding the rationale for that, and I’m going to leave it at that. Just to signal to you, Madam Chair, that’s the end of clauses 4 and 5 for me. Thank you.
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (20:43): Thank you. Look, regarding the home-schooling, we are going to be doing full consultation with the sector on the regulations when they are set. Can I also just make a point that I should have said in my opening address, and that is that Minister Seymour will be here at 9.30 p.m. for the bits of the bill that relate to his part. I’m happy to try and answer them where I can, but he will be here and can give you fulsome answers.
Regarding homestays, they are covered by a code of practice on international student wellbeing. We can’t regulate behaviour in private homes, but it has its own separate code of practice and isn’t part of this bill, and we won’t be including it by your amendment.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (20:44): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to speak to my tabled amendment 4.30.39, which relates to clause 6. This tabled amendment amends the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill. It repeals section 44 of the Education and Training Act 2020. This particular area outlines under which conditions the Secretary for Education may grant a certificate to exempt a student from attendance. To repeal section 44 without acting to address the root causes as to why such an exemption may be needed is to misunderstand the issue of non-attendance entirely. This was one of the parts of the bill that did get to have submissions on it. Some of the submissions received—particularly from principals, actually—made the point that that power should sit with school principals because there is a clearer understanding of some of the underpinning issues of not attending school. That’s, really, the underpinning idea of this amendment.
The problem we have is that, while the Minister will well be aware that attendance has slightly improved in some of higher socio-economic areas, in parts of South Auckland, for example, we have one in four Pasifika students who is not attending school. We’ve actually seen a drop-off at the other end: lower socio-economic areas are having lower attendance in the past year. The view is—and I’d be interested to hear the Minister’s words—that surely those school communities would be best placed to understand some of those underpinning reasons why students may not be attending school. From speaking with some of those principals, they would say that every individual case can be quite different, that there might be mental health issues for a parent in one family; there may be family violence issues; there may be issues around affording petrol or the cost of living. Each individual family has its own reasons as to why their child may not be attending school regularly. A more bespoke understanding of those issues actually is the best way of increasing attendance and making it work properly, so I would like her views on my tabled amendment 4.30.39.
I’d just also like to pick up that I appreciate the Minister has stated that the conflicts of interest in and around the Teaching Council were, she said, nothing to do with this bill, but, in fact, the Minister did stand up at the beginning of this debate and highlight and refer to the two different reports on the Teaching Council that were specifically in and around conflicts of interest. My understanding was that part of the reason for the reforms to the Teaching Council that we’re debating tonight was to prevent those conflicts of interests occurring again in the future. Please, correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that was part of the reason for this legislation. If we have a current chair of the Teaching Council who clearly has a conflict of interest, is it that the Minister simply doesn’t want to acknowledge that conflict of interest, or maybe she thinks that profiting and regulating the teaching profession simultaneously is acceptable?
There are many people in New Zealand who do not think that is acceptable, so I think the Minister might want to reconsider her view that it has nothing to do with this bill, because I think it’s actually right at the heart of what this bill does. If we’re not prepared to talk about the elephant in the room, which is the current conflict of interest that sits with the existing chair of the Teaching Council, it seems to be double standards. If there have been two reports that have identified a conflict and someone has been removed in the past from the Teaching Council, why do those same standards not apply with the case of the current chair of the Teaching Council? Given this very bill, at the last minute, is removing all of the democratically elected positions on that Teaching Council, you could even argue that he has more power than he did before. I’d be interested to hear the Minister’s views on that.
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (20:49): In relation to exemptions by principals, exemptions will still be granted by principals, but the Secretary for Education will set the rules and criteria and the evidence required for the principals to grant an exemption from attendance. It also removes the five-day rule as well, to allow a little bit more flexibility, but, essentially, the changes in this bill are focused on bringing clarity and consistency, ensuring that principals and schools are clear about what is expected of them. I know that principals are concerned that the changes over attendance exemptions will not adequately reflect student circumstances and needs, but I want to assure those principals that when the ministry develops the rules, they will do this in consultation with the sector but they will set out when exemptions can be used, the grounds for the exemption, the type of evidence a principal must receive, and the duration of the exemption.
Regarding the member’s other claims, I’m not going to be commenting on baseless allegations that are not part of this bill. I will not be speaking to them.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:50): Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, as I suggested before, I do apologise. There is one thing that I want to address, I think in clause—oh, no; I’m good. I have said to the previous Chair that I am through with my questions for clause 4 and clause 5. However, I would like to draw the Minister of Education’s attention—I appreciate the Minister’s response in terms of the fact that that will get—actually, I’m going to stop that conversation right there because it potentially touches on a particular part of Standing Orders, but I appreciate the Minister’s previous response.
I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to my amendment which is 19 May, 5.10.07, and also 5.10.08. This is with regards to my new clause 4AAA, section 7 and section 8 amended, on “Tertiary education strategy” and “International education strategy”. Now, I want to check with the Minister, in terms of the tertiary education strategy, whether there’s any particular reason, as we see in other areas, why universities, vocational education and training institutions, and relevant PTEs—private training establishments—are not considered as a part of the group that needs to be explicitly mentioned as bodies that the Minister responsible must consult with before making any significant amendment to the strategy. My amendment simply specifies additional groups or bodies that should be consulted as a part of the tertiary education strategy in a broader education system reform bill.
On top of that, I also think that while it’s important we look at the economic, social, and environmental goals, we should also consider the cultural goals as part of the tertiary education strategy as well. So I want to check with the Minister if she would be open to that.
Now, on to my amendment 5.10.08 on section 8 amended, “International education strategy”. Again, we’re seeing in other areas where, for example, the Tertiary Education Commission, for the tertiary education strategy, is explicitly mentioned as a group that should be consulted as a part of the tertiary education strategy, yet we don’t see the same Crown entity that is in charge of international—indeed, the Crown agency that is actually responsible for implementing the international education strategy, i.e. Education New Zealand, being explicitly mentioned as a body that should be consulted with. So my amendment in 5.10.08 simply just adds Education New Zealand as also an explicit group that should be consulted.
Now, on to clause 6 of the bill. The previous speaker, the Hon Ginny Andersen, has already mentioned in terms of the broader implications of repealing section 44. I do have an Amendment Paper on that that suggests that we don’t repeal it yet—again, simply because we don’t know the scope of impact that potentially would have.
I guess, on that, particularly when it comes to the impact it will have for rural communities and rural parents, I want to check with the Minister if the repealing of section 44 has—has the Minister consulted with rural communities such as Federated Farmers, etc., and other organisations that potentially would like to weigh in on that section?
Now, moving on to clause 8, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to my Amendment Paper 613. We see that the secretary is now able to make rules on exemption from attendance as opposed to principals having the discretion to make some of those exemptions, but what I’m not seeing in terms of clause 8 of this bill is around specific criteria that is required for the secretary to make those kinds of rules around exemptions. So my Amendment Paper 613 simply lists some potentially broader rules that should be considered—I think some of them have already been touched on by the previous speaker, the Hon Ginny Andersen. We’re looking at specific needs of the school; specific needs of a community; the equity index of a school; the impact on certain communities such as disabled communities, Māori communities, and Pasifika communities—whether that is something the Minister would be open to. So I’m going to leave that there, but just signalling to you, Chair, that, with that, I’m ready to move on to between clause 8 and 9 and whatever happens in between.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (20:55): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I just have another point in relation to another amendment, 4.30.40, to clause 8. In clause 8, inserting new section 46(1), my amendment proposes to delete the part which reads “which must be consistent with this Act”. Now, this tabled amendment amends the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill. Clause 8 outlines that the Secretary for Education—
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Sorry, what number was that again?
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: 4.30.40. I think it’s the time—each of them has been labelled with the time that they were lodged. So, 4 hours 30, and 40 seconds—that’s the way it’s written on my paper. Clause 8 outlines that the Secretary for Education may in fact make rules that must be met for a principal to exempt a student. Removing the part that requires that these rules must be consistent with this Act would allow the Secretary for Education to create rules that take into account specific circumstances. The amendment bill currently under consideration does not take into account any of the root causes of non-attendance, so this making of rules consistent with the Act could therefore be counter-productive.
I’m really interested to understand the Minister of Education’s perspective, because this provision here in clause 8 is emblematic of a bill that’s actually removing local control of anything to do with children’s education. I would’ve thought the Minister, who wants to see an improvement to children’s performance, to children’s educational achievement—that enabling a full understanding of some of the factors in their own areas that are impacting on their ability to learn, and one of those, no doubt, is the school community, the school principal, and teachers having a clear understanding and some say over what those factors are around attendance.
This legislation is just one part where what we’re seeing is a top-down approach where the ability for decision making, the ability to understand children and respond, is being removed and taken up to a higher level, to a ministerial or Secretary for Education level. My concern is that clause 8 is just one more example of our education system being compartmentalised in a way that prevents young people from actually getting the good education so that they’ll be able to succeed well in life. If their own teachers, if their own local communities aren’t able to respond to some of the circumstances that young people are going through, then that potentially removes the ability for teachers, for parents, for those local communities to have a positive impact.
So I’m really interested to hear why the Minister thinks a top-down approach is better in education and why removing decision making, local autonomy, and local communities being able to have a say over what’s happening in their schools—why that is a better pathway for New Zealand to go down.
We know that there are examples overseas where some of these reforms have been implemented and over time we have seen a widening of existing inequalities, a widening and a further entrenching of inequalities, and my fear—and my amendment is for that reason—is that by removing the ability of teachers and principals to have an input around non-attendance and have a local response, having it taken out of their hands and having it overseen by Wellington, that actually removes the ability for those schools to take ownership and respond accordingly to make sure that kids are getting the best education they can. I’d be interested to hear the Minister’s rationale for removing that local autonomy.
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (21:00): My fear and my concern is that kids aren’t turning up to school, and if they don’t turn up to school, their performance will suffer. It is this Government’s intention to make sure that young people are turning up to school so that they can learn and be at Curriculum and live the life that they deserve.
Now, it’s important to this Government that we tighten the criteria around exemptions from attendance. As I’ve already explained, the Secretary for Education will set the guidance around those exemptions and the evidence that’s required. For example, it may be the fact that, if a child is sick for an elongated period of time, some form of evidence may be required. That will be set by the Secretary for Education. I wouldn’t presuppose the types of things that she will require or the criteria that she will put in place, but this is designed to set clear expectations that the number one priority is that we get our kids to school. That may not have been the top priority for the previous Government, but it’s certainly ours.
In terms of the tabled amendment, we won’t be supporting it. All statutory powers have to be consistent with the purpose of the Act, so there is no need to add this amendment.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:01): Thank you, Mr Chair. I did notice that I’m still waiting for the responses to some of my questions and also my amendments from the Minister. I do want to move on to my next amendment. I’m actually really glad to hear what the Minister has just said in terms of looking at students’ ability to participate, whether it is in class or out of the classroom, and also in terms of work experience and visiting outside of the premises, as far as we’re looking at students being at school, so I’m glad to hear what the Minister said.
I want to draw the Minister’s attention to two of my tabled amendments—19 May for both; 5.10.17 and 5.10.18. They are inserting clause 8A, “Section 53 amended”, and inserting clause 8A, “Section 82 amended”. The first one in terms of clause 8A, “Section 53 amended”, is around courses, work experience, and visiting outside the school. I want to check with the Minister—and potentially the Minister has a good response for this—why does section 53(5)(a) specify that a student who is currently on work experience, particularly, or an apprenticeship is demonstratively ineligible for, or is not entitled to, payment? I want to check with the Minister why that particular phrasing of section 53(5)(a) is. My recommendation, my amendment, which would replace the word “entitle” with “require”—which also we would see in that particular section around section 53(5)—would allow the ability for our students to, potentially, be paid as part of their work experience. I want to know the overall rationale for why, if a student is getting work experience, they cannot be paid.
My next amendment is “Section 82 amended”. This is the one on “Secretary’s powers when excluded students aged under 16 years”. Now, the Minister just mentioned before in terms of the ideas to get students to school, which I agree with. I completely agree, but when we’re looking at this section, basically, only the secretary is able to allow for the exclusion of a student under the age of 16, under section 82, but there is nothing in section 82 that specifies that the secretary must first be satisfied that the board of a State school or a sponsor has excluded a student aged under 16 years after all possible intervention under section 81 has been exhausted. There seems to be no requirement for the secretary when approving the exclusion of a student under the age of 16 to say, “Oh, we’ve seen that the school has tried everything else, all other forms of interventions, all facilitations, etc., before making a decision.” It could just simply be that it’s implied within section 82. If that is the case, I hope the Minister wouldn’t mind specifying that so we can have it on record.
Now, let us move on to clause 9 of the bill when it comes to “Curriculum statements and national performance measures”. I want to start by saying that one of the things that we did have in the bill—and this is something, again, we’ve heard from the submitters as well during the select committee stage—is the ability for schools and communities to have curriculum statements from local curriculum that reflect local tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori, and te ao Māori. Now, if the Minister says, “Well, that is still implied”, that’s not so much what we’re seeing here, because, again, like the previous speaker, the Hon Ginny Andersen, has stated, the way that things have been changed is that everything is at a national level, and there is no room, as far as I can see, within “Section 90 amended”, that allows the space for local curriculum to develop. That was something that came through quite clearly as part of the select committee stage as well.
I think, with that, I’m done with my questions up until clause 9, and I’m happy to move on to clause 10.
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (21:06): In relation to the question about work experience and the member’s tabled amendment, this is a longstanding section of the Act. It’s not something we’ve looked at. It gets into employment law, so we’re not accepting the amendment.
In relation to the Curriculum, the intention of this part is to take the two existing curriculum statements that set out the what and the how and to combine them into one. That is the change. Now, I’m not entirely sure what the member’s question is getting at, but I don’t think that it’s relevant to this bill. All this is doing is taking two existing curriculum statements and putting them into one.
The member’s question around what goes in the Curriculum is not a part of this bill, but I would make the point that there has always been in the Education Act—for a very long time; since 1989, I think—the ability of the Minister to issue curriculum statements. That’s not changing. It’s just that we’re combining those two into one
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (21:07): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’m on to clause 9. I actually have four separate amendments in relation to clause 9 of the bill, and they are 4.30.41, 4.30.42, 4.30.43, and 4.30.44. As Lawrence Xu-Nan has already stated, this part of the bill allows the Minister herself to determine what students are to be taught and how they are to be assessed. That goes quite far beyond the current Act and, essentially, allows the Minister to give directions. It’s the view of many people, not just inside this Chamber, that that’s outrageous overreach and gives the Minister far too much power over what our children learn and how they learn it, so there are some proposals to amend this overreach in terms of deleting clause 9 or deleting clause 9(1), and even my third paper, 4.30.43, gives some helpful hints as to where the right direction might be.
One for the Minister to consider is that the Minister could consider winding that back slightly in providing foundational curriculum policy statements, which are statements of policy concerning teaching, learning, and assessment that are made for the purposes of underpinning and giving direction to the way in which the Curriculum and assessment responsibilities are to be managed in schools. That’s explicitly provided for in 4.30.43. Another is that national curriculum statements are locally developed curricula. They are statements in areas of knowledge and understanding to be covered by students during the years of schooling. My tabled amendment provides the skills to be developed by students during the years of schooling and desirable levels of knowledge and understanding and skill to be received by students during the years of schooling; and national performance measures, which are targets against which the performance of boards can then be measured if required. This tabled amendment takes away that the Minister is determining exactly what students are to be taught and how they are to be assessed, and it restores a level of local autonomy not just for schools but for the profession as well to enable that level of professional expertise to be utilised.
I’d be really interested to know whether the Minister thinks she herself is an expert; if this bill gives her a power to determine what our children are being taught, and exactly how that teaching is being delivered. Is it her view that she knows better than someone who is a trained professional? I’d be interested to know what experience or background she’s gained in order that she’s somehow got this knowledge-rich ability to determine, greater than anyone who’s professionally trained, exactly what our children should be taught and how they are going to be taught.
I wonder whether it was when she was putting together some episodes of Piha Rescue that she picked up some of the skills that enabled her to then determine what our children should be taught and how they were going to be taught—because we’re all at a loss to understand how the Minister can appoint herself to be the sole determiner of what is in the Curriculum of our kids and how it’s going to be delivered, when it appears the only advice she’s got is from a very small select group of Auckland principals that have her ear. That leaves the rest of New Zealand wondering how we’ve ended up with this bill.
I’m interested to hear, out of my four amendments—4.30.41, 4.30.42, 4.30.43, and 4.30.44—if the Minister would like to wind back some of her autonomy on determining what exactly our children learn and how they should learn it.
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (21:11): Firstly, the member is 100 percent, entirely wrong. It has always been, since 1989, the ability of the Minister to set and revoke and amend curriculum statements. Nothing is changing, and it was exactly the same, in fact, when the previous Minister of Education, Minister Chris Hipkins, gazetted the new history curriculum in exactly the same manner. I’d point out that his qualifications and education are probably much the same as mine.
I just would maybe say to the member: it’s just not nice or polite to make nasty comments around my background, because I certainly wouldn’t do that about them.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:12): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to move on to clause 10, Minister. This is around the “Review of national curriculum statements by Secretary”.
Now, a couple of things I want to check. “In conducting a review, the Secretary must have regard to”—this is clause new section 90A, subsection (3), inserted by clause 10. I want to check a few things with subsections (a), (b), and (c). The first point is that there is nothing in here—and I’m now looking at my Amendment Paper 617, which inserts a new subsection (3)(d). I think, as part of the review process, what’s really missing—like the previous speaker Hon Ginny Andersen has said—is when the secretary reviews the national Curriculum, nothing in here states that they actually need to consult with the sector or take the experience of the sector on board.
My Amendment Paper 617 simply says that the secretary must have regard to—which also, let’s make it very clear, does not say “give effect to”; “must have regard to”, so then you consider but it doesn’t need to be taken on board, which is fine—but, in that case, my Amendment Paper just says “relevant school sector experience, for example, from educators, principals, and teachers.”
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): What was the number of your Amendment Paper?
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Amendment Paper 617. I also want to note that all three are defined terms under section 10 of the Education and Training Act, and I had to go through all of the definitions to make sure that I made the relevant definitions that are actually in order. So, yes, I want to check whether the Minister would consider my amendment for that, just so that there is reassurance from the sector that they’re also going to be consulted by the secretary, or that the secretary will have regard for their experience.
Also, at the same time, I just want to note as well that I have asked the Minister a number of questions around my amendments for other parts of a particular section and I haven’t really received a lot of responses for some of the other sections. I do want to point out something the Minister said, which is that it’s not in the bill, but as we have seen in terms of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 583, new sections actually could just be added or changed as required—since this is, after all, a system reform, which means that everything in the Education and Training Act could be considered as part of the scope of that potential system reform. I do want to hear from the Minister regarding my other amendments, as well, which are in scope.
The other two areas I want to touch on in terms of new section 90A(3) is subsection (3)(b): “relevant evidence, for example, from new developments in educational research”. Now, I am looking at my Amendment Paper 615; there’s nothing in there that says those new developments need to be peer reviewed. That is important, because as an academic, anything that is not peer reviewed by credible sources is not credible, so by just saying “new developments in education research”, there is no confidence in the quality and the robustness of that particular research that could be used by the secretary for Curriculum changes or any sort of Curriculum review. That is concerning from an academic perspective, so my Amendment Paper simply just suggests to the Minister that we should, for both specificity and also clarity, include the word “peer reviewed” as a part of that.
Finally, in a similar vein, when we’re looking at new subsection (3)(c), “international practice relating to the setting of curricula”, I think, in this case, it’s best that particular section is removed from this bill. Now, the reason I say that is there is nothing limiting the secretary from consulting beyond what is (a), (b), and (c)—potentially; the Minister can tell me that. But, by drawing specifically on and mentioning in the legislation “international practice relating to the setting of curricula”, potentially, we lose out on what makes Aotearoa unique and our unique history and culture, because international practice may not be appropriate in the context of Aotearoa. I think it’s actually important for us to not have that there.
Of course, the secretary can always refer to international best practice, to international evidence. Nothing is stopping the secretary from doing that, but explicitly mentioning it seems out of step with what we should really be doing here, which is looking at what works for our students and our kids. This is something we have mentioned before, that students—and you have seen, again, I’m drawing on developments in educational research, as well—learn better when they can relate to the material better. International practice may simply not be relevant or relatable for our students, which then would affect and impair their learning.
I want to check those three amendments with the Minister. Again, just to specify, those are Amendment Papers 615, 616, and 617.
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (21:18): We won’t be supporting any of those amendments. Can I just start by saying, in terms of the standard of evidence required, that there are operational guidelines in place for the ministry, which ensures that the standard of evidence and research they are using meets the member’s expectations. Can I also say that this is already standard practice; it’s just that we’re putting it into legislation to make sure that, in the future, it continues. It’s something that the ministry has long done, and it has those standards of evidence in place.
I want to be clear about this, because the member talked about engagement of young people in the classroom. That is up to the professional judgment of the teacher in the classroom, and that is what they do best: engaging those young people in front of them. The Curriculum is clear about what is taught, but the way that they bring that to life and engage the students in different ways, by bringing all types of context to what they are teaching, is up to the professionalism of the teacher in the class, and so that’s why we won’t be supporting his amendments.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (21:20): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Further to Lawrence Xu-Nan’s comments and questions around clause 10, it probably doesn’t need to be said, but, I think, it’s obvious, I hope, that the Labour Party supports regular curriculum reviews. The objective of constant improvement is one that we all share. But our view, which is shared, really, with the overwhelming majority of submitters, is that the provisions in clause 10 increase ministerial influence at the expense of institutionalised input from educators and independent experts.
I would note that 570 submitters commented on this provision, and not a single one supported it at the select committee. Not a single one said this was a good idea. The departmental report says, “the majority of submitters were concerned the bill extends the Minister’s ability to make and amend the curriculum, shifting authority away from educators, and increasing the risk of political influence.” That pretty much nails it. That was the overwhelming sentiment at select committee.
My questions for the Minister of Education are as follows. What safeguards exist to ensure that the curriculum reviews remain evidence-led, rather than politically directed?
Second, who determines the priorities? I know the subclause says that the secretary must take into account “this and that”, but, other than that, who determines what the priorities are for a particular review? Those things that the secretary must take into account are wide open to interpretation. Any number of things could come into that. Who’s the person or who’s the part of the organisation or the ministry who determines what the specific priorities are for a given review?
Does the Minister accept that one of the strengths of the New Zealand Curriculum to this point has been that it’s largely insulated from short-term political cycles and the ideology of whoever happens to be sitting in the seat she occupies right now?
This might seem a bit basic, but why is it necessary to replace the kind of stewardship and responsibility of educators and experts with explicit power in the hands of the Minister and her secretary?
Does the Minister accept what the New Zealand Principals’ Federation told us at committee, that this clause represents “a fundamental shift from professional sector-led curriculum development to direct ministerial control.”? Does it? Is there any statutory body at all that has any role in checking, giving feedback, or providing any kind of oversight or input into curriculum reviews in the system that she’s putting in place?
In new section 90C, are there any consultation obligations that will apply before curriculum review directions are issued?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (21:24): I am repeating myself, I think, now for the third time. There is nothing in this bill that shifts any new, extra powers to the Minister; they already existed. There is no change at all. They keep saying that, but it is very clear in the bill that there are no additional ministerial powers. The only thing we are doing, actually, is putting somewhat of a limit on that, which is in practice but not in legislation, about ensuring that these are evidence-led, which was the question by the previous member about ensuring that it’s evidence-led, that is now baked into legislation. Since 1989, there has been the ability of the Minister to set curriculum statements, to revoke them, and to make changes to them. That has not changed. There are no additional powers. I don’t know how many times I have to say it. Hopefully, that is the last.
So, no, I don’t agree with those submitters, because there is nothing in this bill that is making those changes. There is wide consultation, as the member may know, going on at the moment, in fact, with the senior secondary curriculum out for a whole consultation. I’d also make the point that it has also been written by the sector. It feels like the members believe that somehow the Minister holds the pen on the curriculum; it is written by experts, by the sector, and, in fact, there are hundreds of writers out there at the moment, writing the senior secondary curriculum, and it is being consulted on at the moment.
But I’ll make the point one final time: there is no additional shift or increase or changes, at all, to the Minister’s power to set curriculum statements. I would also make the point if the previous couple of speakers were so intent on removing the Minister’s power to be able to do that, they had the opportunity to do that in 2020 when they created this Act and made all these changes, but they left the power in there since 1989 of the Minister to set curriculum statements, which is exactly what they did when they introduced the history curriculum. That power has not changed.
HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) (21:26): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tautokotia ana e au ngā kōrero āpiti o āku hoa i tēnei taha a te Pāti Reipa me te Pāti Kākāriki.
[Thank you, Mr Speaker; indeed, greetings to us all in the House. I support the additional statements of my colleagues on this side of the Labour Party and the Green Party.]
Ko ētehi o aku nā pātai i te pō nei [some of my questions this evening]—some of my questions and some of my concerns within the Education and Training (Systems Reform) Amendment Bill in the committee stage, coming to Part 1, clause 9, the change from, simply “curriculum statements” to “national curriculum statements” does signal a stronger centralised national approach. Our main concerns are: will hapū, iwi, kura ā iwis—specifically coming from a kura ā iwi school, that there’s a specific dialect, there’s specific curriculums that are taught within our kura that we have concerns about that shape localised communities.
Clause 9, replacement section 90(1)(a)(i) gives the Minister power to decide what students are to be taught, and 90(1)(a)(ii) allows direction over “how the curriculum is to be taught and learnt”. Some of our concerns around that area are that, obviously, that could affect some kaupapa Māori, and that’s what I’m seeking from the Minister of Education, is to clarify that. That could affect kaupapa Māori teaching methods, wānanga style, learning in collective environments, learning practices.
One of those areas specifically in the curriculum is Te Ao Haka. Te Ao Haka is a specific area within education, within the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, where the way that that’s assessed, where they way that that has been performed, the way that is engaged for students is very specific. So making sure that kura Māori, Māori education, the teachers of that specific curriculum still have that self-autonomy to execute that mahi within their students and kura.
Another concern is the five-year cycle. The five-year review cycle gives the secretary ongoing power to remove learning areas and subjects. The concerns that I have—or the questions within that are: who sits at the decision-making tables of those five-year reviews? Will Māori knowledge continue to be reviewed through a Crown lens? Will there be iwi and Māori education experts on that panel that can consistently give advice and expertise kōrero within that panel, or within that five-year review cycle, what does that look like for Māori education?
Also, some of our concerns are around making sure that hapū, iwi, local kura still have the power to make decisions for their tamaiti, that’s the whole standard approach and structure that we’ve had as a kura ā iwi, also as Aho Matua, as kura kaupapa Māori, and there are huge concerns around having this centralised curriculum national approach. Tēnā rā koe.
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (21:30): I think an answer that will incorporate all of the member Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke’s questions is that the bill clearly allows for different rules for different groups of schools, including kura, Ngā Kura ā Iwi, and Te Rūnanga Nui o Nga Kura Kaupapa Māori. That answers all of her questions.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:30): Thank you, Mr Chair. One comment, I think, in response to what the Minister of Education said, before I move on to what’s before clause 11A—new clauses 11AAA and clause 11AAB, inserted by Amendment Paper 583.
Just in terms of one final comment with regards to clause 10: I think, when we are looking at the development of a national curriculum statement, I acknowledge what the Minister is saying in terms of, look, this is something that’s always been there; we’re just now, basically, codifying it, as in putting it in legislation—something that is a standard practice. But, at the same time, what the Minister could have done, which is why we’ve proposed such amendments, is that we actually have the ability to put in more checks and balances and more ability for transparency and accountability around the curriculum. I think that’s kind of where I’m getting at in terms of my amendments. I’m not saying “either or,” but I’m saying that the system could always be improved.
With that, I want to move on to the Minister’s Amendment Paper 583, and this is clause 11AAA and clause 11AAB. This is on page 14, “Section 99 amended” and “Section 100 amended”. This is the first part of some of the changes the Minister has made with regards to things like physical restraint at registered school and also in terms of licensed hostels. At registered schools, we have those sort of checks and balances in terms of those requirements, and the thing that was detailed—I cannot remember the specific section number in the Education and Training Act, but, from memory, preceding section 99, there is a whole list of sections that specify the kind of qualifications and training that the person must go through in order to potentially bypass some of those limits.
Can I just check that all of those little things are all captured in clause 11AAA and clause 11AAB? I do see that 11AAA(3) clarifies around the “authorised staff member”, who is trained and authorised to use physical restraint in accordance—but also, you know, only when things are necessary. How is that going to work in a hostel environment as opposed to a school environment? Because, again, that’s quite different. So I just want to check if there’s any additional thinking that’s gone into that.
The next thing I want to check with the Minister is my amendment dated 5.11.20 p.m. 19 May 2026—for the benefit of the Minister at this stage, this is also in the pack that says, “66 tabled amendments”—section 103 amended. I have genuine questions about this section, which are about the title of this section, when it says “guidance and counselling”. “Charter schools must receive guidance and counselling and their parents must be told about certain things”. There is nothing in this bill, nor this section, that actually says what “certain things” are, or that even give a definition of “certain things”. So I want to check with the Minister if the Minister wouldn’t mind elucidating the committee on what certain things are. So this is section 103 of the Education and Training Act. But, in there, in terms of the ability to tell “certain things”—ambiguously and also disconcertingly—it should—
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Excuse me—could you repeat the amendment?
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: The amendment is 5.10.20 p.m. 19 May 2026.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): 5.10.20? All right.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Yes. It specifies that telling of certain things should only apply to a parent, whereas the preceding section, from memory, also includes things like whānau members or caregiver. I note that sometimes it’s not simply a parent who might be in charge of a child’s wellbeing or care for a child on a day-to-day basis. I’m curious to know why this section doesn’t include whānau members or caregivers. So my amendment simply states that after “parent”, you should also insert “whānau member or a caregiver”.
Now, just on to section 11, and this is my last bit for the current contribution. I’m looking at my Amendment Paper 623. Essentially, for this particular amendment, one of the things that has changed with section 91 is now that rather than the State school “must consult”—the Minister previously also said that State school now “informs”. Sorry, I just need a tiny bit more time, Mr Chair, I do apologise.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yep—Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Just one final thing: my amendment is just to ensure that there is some sort of framing or framework around when a school then does decide on a health curriculum. Because now what’s not in section 91 anymore is how and who decides that new curriculum. Is it a school? Is it the ministry and then do it? Like, is it being done on the school; what’s happening in there? But I just want to make sure that my Amendment Paper 623—“after section 91(2) … insert: [new] (2A) In making the content of the health curriculum, the board of a State school”—I’m assuming is the board—“must have regard (without limitation) for: (a) prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1993;” and also have regards for consent. Because I think it is important for us to know, when it comes to children’s wellbeing and safety, that any relationship and sexual education contains information on consent and is prohibited from perpetuating harms such as harmful transphobia, homophobia, interphobia, and biphobia that affect people with diverse genders, sexualities, and sexual characteristics. So if the Minister wouldn’t mind addressing that.
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (21:36): I’m getting some advice on the first questions that the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan raised, because I just need some advice. But on that last part, I would suggest that the member goes and reads the draft health and PE curriculum. It has “consent” in there for the first time; in fact, I did a press release about it. It’s quite a big deal, and it’s really important that consent is taught. It is in the new curriculum, and I suggest that the member goes and has a look at that.
The health curriculum has been written—it has always been a ministry-led curriculum. There’s never been, as far as I’m aware, a health curriculum that has been developed by schools and that doesn’t relate to a national curriculum. So this is us setting the national—or updating and refreshing the existing national curriculum. The changes in this bill are around ensuring that schools aren’t in the middle of quite a difficult situation where they are having to go and consult with their communities. What we’re changing this to is that they just need to say to parents what is in the curriculum. We’re going to be very open about that as well; that’s going to be on the Parent Portal. So we’re setting out in great detail every year what is being—[Interruption] If the member wants to listen, I suggest she just quietens down for a moment, otherwise I’ll sit down and you can ask questions and I won’t answer them. So your choice.
Back to Lawrence Xu-Nan. So this curriculum is set and will be gazetted. It’ll be up to schools to then share details of that curriculum with their parent community, but not to have to consult on it. The reason that we have not required this is because it has put schools in a very difficult position because it is very polarising and there are very strongly held views on either side around this. Now, there was a report done by the Education Review Office that talked about this. In fact, I’ve heard from a lot of schools who said, “Thank you very much for not putting us in the middle of a very divisive issue.” So, instead, it’s being very clearly laid out, every single year, what must be taught, and that will be shared. It is out for consultation at the moment. The member who’s been speaking up during my answer—I suggest that if she’s interested in having a say on what’s in it, that, firstly, she reads it and, secondly, she puts in some of her own comments about what she might like to see in it. I’m not sure that that’s happened. I know that consultation has already closed, and I’m not sure whether or not her or her party have put any recommendations in, but if they haven’t, that would be a great shame, given that they have many opinions.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (21:40): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I‘d just like to speak to the amendments I have under clause 10. I think there’s six of them, and I can give you the numbers if you would like: 4.30.45, 4.30.46, 4.30.47, 4.30.48, 4.30.49, and 4.30.50—oh, there’s another one—and 4.30.51. All of those pertain to clause 10, and I’d really like to pick up on the Minister of Education’s comment that she doesn’t think that this bill gives her the power to change the curriculum, that that’s already been around. Because from my reading—and please correct me if I’m wrong— the amendment to section 90 and the insertions of new sections 90A and 90B do represent a fundamental shift from professional, sector-led curriculum development to direct ministerial control. That’s the way I read it.
The bill replaces national curriculum statements with curriculum statements, transforming them from frameworks describing what students should learn into prescriptive directives specifying what must be taught and how it is taught. In fact, new section 90A establishes regular reviews, but new section 90B—that’s the important one, 90B, that the Minister could read that part of the bill and explain to me that that doesn’t give her extra powers—allows the Minister to issue or amend a curriculum at any time without any sector input, effectively bypassing any review process. The core issue is not whether the curriculum should provide direction and coherence—it should. The question is whether that direction should come from the collective wisdom of education and some of the people who are in the sector and the communities that it serves, and not from a single political office subject to changing electoral cycles.
Underneath that, and my specific amendments relate to that, it’s really undermining Te Tiriti o Waitangi and obligations to mātauranga Māori, because any curriculum framework must protect schools’ obligations to the Treaty and this requires maintaining schools’ ability to localise their curriculum, to engage if they want to with local hapu or iwi, and ensuring that mātauranga Māori is not subject to a veto by her under new section 90B.
The problem is the shift that she says doesn’t exist, the shift from national curriculum statements providing direction while enabling local adaptation to curriculum statements, which are prescriptive and centrally controlled, fundamentally changes the relationship between national direction and local implementation, and that’s the same issue as we were raising under the issue around absenteeism and school attendance. You’re taking the power away from our local communities and you’re installing it in the top in the offices in Wellington, and you need to be accountable back to our communities, and by doing this, it’s removing that accountability.
Centralising the curriculum and reducing local flexibility will significantly limit schools’ ability to do things that they want to like have tikanga and mātauranga Māori relevant to local teaching programmes, and it will limit those abilities for local communities to do it. New section 90B’s override power makes this concrete and it specifies in here—and I can read it—that the Minister must have regard to the Secretary of Education’s recommendation; that they can impose changes whether or not the Secretary has reviewed that curriculum statement, or even reported on it for that matter. Educators contributing their expertise through a formal review process could see that input completely dismissed. The proposed changes in this have that problem with the Treaty.
The other amendments I provided also, I want to highlight, create barriers to inclusive and equitable learning. It’s important to note that equity requires flexibility, and changes like this remove that flexibility from the system. If teachers can’t retain professional discretion to adapt both the curriculum and also their methodology to meet the needs of individual learners, whether that’s neurodiversity or other issues there, that they have the ability to meet those learners’ needs. Any differentiation by school type must be rigorously examined for equity impacts before implementation. Having this prescriptive approach that she will preside over means that it takes away any ability to adapt practice to what each individual leaner may need, and that’s the real risk of this system change. Mr Chair, I still would like to wind up, I’ve got a whole range of ones. I’ll do one more call if that’s OK.
Hon Erica Stanford: Why don’t you just let me answer that one and then—
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We’ll let the Minister respond and then we’ll come back to you.
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (21:45): At the risk of repeating myself—I think now for the fourth time—there is nothing in this bill that makes any changes to the way that the curriculum statements are made, that they are changed, or that they are revoked. Now, the member is making it sound like there was something existing in the previous Act that said that it had to be sector-led, or there had to be an independent statutory body, or some other type of arrangement that limited the Minister’s power. If the member believes that, I think she should point to the Act where it says that—because it doesn’t. There is nothing in the existing legislation that requires any of those things. It has always been at the Minister’s discretion to issue, revoke, or amend curriculum statements, and nothing is changed. In fact, I’m looking at the existing Act, the Education and Training Act 2020, in front of me at the moment. “The Minister may make the following: foundation curriculum policy [documents]”; “The Minister may make national curriculum statements”. The only thing that this bill is doing is merging those two things together and calling them curriculum statements. There is nothing that is being removed or changed around anything else
I already stated this as well in an answer to Lawrence Xu-Nan—so I’m repeating myself again—teachers in the classroom adapt their teaching practice to meet the needs of the students in front of them in order to engage them and ensure that their learning needs are being met. All we are prescribing, as every Minister has done, including the previous Minister of Education under the previous Government, is setting out what must be taught and the skills that must be gained. The way that the teacher engages the students and brings that to life in the classroom and the things that they bring in to their learning, like mātauranga Māori, is up to the professionalism of the teacher on the ground to engage those students. That has not changed. I’ve already covered this ground a number of times. If the members are still confused, I suggest they read the existing legislation, and then this legislation, and they will see that there is nothing that has changed in terms of the Minister’s ability.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (21:47): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Well, I’m pleased the Minister of Education made that reference because my amendment that I was meant to speak to—4.30.48—explicitly relates to new section 90B, inserted by clause 10, which is what we read as the ministerial override power. If the Minister could take time to read 90B and explain how that is not a ministerial override power, then you’re doing better than me because it reads to me that that is exactly what it does.
The problem with new section 90B, and what my amendment seeks to remedy, is that the curriculum—actually, to finish the last point I was making, which was having a prescriptive curriculum that doesn’t allow the room to move is a real concern to inclusive and equitable learning. That was the point I was going to make. Allowing curriculum statements to differ according to school classrooms, year groups, and levels creates a tiered education system that research consistently shows institutional streaming disproportionately disadvantages Māori and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. We are worried that the ministerial override power in new section 90B will follow the same outcomes as the United Kingdom when they introduced these measures, and they will further entrench existing inequalities, particularly from low socioeconomic backgrounds.
The point I would like to make next, Mr Chair, in relation to new section 90B, is that the view is that curriculum changes should only occur through a sector-led review process with adequate implementation timeframes, and that’s the difference. We’re having a curriculum that is coming from the top and being implemented.
The combination of sections 90A, regular reviews, and 90B, ministerial changes at will, creates maximum instability in the sector. My proposal is to make an amendment, and it’s important to note that every Curriculum change required substantial work—training teachers, developing resources, redesigning programmes, recalibrating assessments; doing all that work. When the Curriculum can be changed at ministerial discretion, schools face continuous disruption and unstable and unsustainable implementation, and that is exactly what’s been happening, and I suspect that is why she’s paused the Curriculum roll-out—because it’s got to the point where it’s breaking point and there are schools and teachers out there that are just unable to do it. The pause is, I think, a result from that.
The last point I’d like to make in terms of sections 90A and 90B is the removing of community voice from that ability. We have those amendments—I think there were six or seven amendments—to really enable, if education in New Zealand is going to work in a way we’re engaged with our communities, if we really do care about parents getting good, accurate information about their children and their achievements, and that it can’t be just done from Wellington, to people, you need to be engaging with communities and understanding the different needs. A rural high school is going to be very different from an urban primary school or a kura kaupapa Māori*. They are different communities with different needs, and having one single approach from the top to the bottom fails to understand the individual circumstances of not only communities but those students as well. As I’ve highlighted, the risks are we’re able to disown any obligations under the Treaty and we seriously risk further entrenching inequalities within New Zealand and creating barriers to inclusive and equitable learning.
I’m at a loss as to how sections 90A and 90B actually help our young people learn and achieve and succeed when what this appears to do is just create barriers to young people who might learn in a different way, and it fails to understand that not all children learn the same way. I know that the Minister thinks that all brains learn the same, but there is other evidence that shows that different children learn in different ways, and this implementation of sections 90A and 90B completely ignores that evidence.
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (21:52): Firstly, the point of this section is to stop what’s happening at the moment. We’ve been in a situation where we are having to refresh the entire Curriculum at once. We did it back in 2007, and we’re doing it again. It is extraordinarily disruptive, and it was a process that was begun by the previous Government in, I think, 2019. They managed to get one strand of one curriculum out in that six-year period, but the point is that we cannot keep doing this to the sector, where we do it all at once. It is disruptive and it is difficult, and the point of this section is to say, “Actually, let’s look at what other countries do, where they don’t completely change the Curriculum every 20 years, but instead they have small, rolling reviews, ongoing, small tweaks to make sure that the Curriculum up to date all the time.”
Again—I think this is the sixth time I’ve said the same thing—the current section 91 said the Minister can make a curriculum statement. That means the Minister can replace at any time existing—it is at the moment an unfettered ability. That is in the existing legislation. What section 90B does means the Minister can’t do that without the Secretary’s advice, evidence, and research, and all those things. We are actually putting in place a constraint on the Minister’s powers.
The final point is a point I’ve already made, again, around the engagement of the young people in the classroom and the way that the teacher adapts the teaching practice to meet the needs of those children. That, as I’ve already said, now for the third time, will remain at the professional judgment of the teacher in the classroom, for them to be able to make those calls. I don’t know how many times I have to say it. The member may not understand, but that’s not my problem.
HŪHANA LYNDON (Green) (21:54): I’m standing on behalf of Te Pāti Kākāriki to speak to proposed Amendment Paper 624, and this is in relation to clause 11A. It’s a bit emotional this one, because we’ve been to the Waitangi Tribunal on it, and it is in relation to how our schools give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This clause is seeking the return, the retention, of the way schools can give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, so the amendment states, “(3) After section 127(2)(b): insert (ba) to ensure that the school gives effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi:”.
I want to pay tribute to Ngāti Hine and Te Kapotai and our education leaders who took the urgent claim to the Waitangi Tribunal, Wai 3553, and successfully argued cases on behalf of the thousands of voices of support, the hundreds of schools, and the 70 percent of the education sector that stood up and shared through Te Rārangi Rangatira that they support and will uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi locally, in community, as allies and supporters, and that their students, tamariki, and mokopuna would learn these key fundamental tenets of our Aotearoa New Zealand of today.
What the Waitangi Tribunal shared with us in their recommendations and findings is that there has been a neglect of the relationship between tangata whenua and the Crown, and that the decision to pursue these significant amendments in the removal of Te Tiriti obligations and giving effect to Te Tiriti locally degrades the relationship between te Kāwanatanga and tangata whenua. We’ve heard in the media that the Minister is doing this because the Tiriti relationship sits with her on behalf of the Kāwanatanga rather than at a school level or a board level, so my question to the Minister is: how has the Minister, as the mana holder, taken on board this huge relationship of being the relationship holder with tangata whenua and uri of the signatories of Te Tiriti, in taking these changes to them? How have tangata whenua worked alongside the Minister in reaching this stage whereby the proposal is to remove this part of the legislation that provided the space for giving effect to Te Tiriti? If the mana sits with the Minister, how does it come into effect? What is the actual embodiment of it?
We’ve seen clearly in the reporting from Crown officials that there’s been no consultation. I must be living under a rock somewhere in Whangārei, where education leaders have said, “We haven’t been asked, either. We haven’t been asked at all. We value the way in which, through legislation, we are required to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and, through that, then go and build those relationships with local hapū, iwi, and kāinga, to work together on curriculum development, adopting Mātauranga Māori and working in the way that they can deliver and strengthen those relationships.”
My pātai is to the Minister: will she consider following the recommendations and findings of the Waitangi Tribunal, backed by some 70 percent of our schools across the motu, re-establish and uphold the fact that schools must give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi; and if not, how does the Minister, as the mana holder, demonstrate that she will value the iwi Māori relationship and that she has done that through this process, and how will the breach and the undermining and the degrading of the Māori-Crown relationship be healed through this process? The Waitangi Tribunal has been very clear in its direction. The claimants and education sector support the recommendations and findings. The pātai is: ka pēhea [how]? How are we going to repair what has been damaged thus far?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (21:59): I’ve said publicly on a number of occasions—and the member referred to it—that the Treaty duty sits between the Crown and iwi Māori, and I take that duty very seriously. The Crown entities that are school boards are legally separate from the Crown, and to delegate a Treaty duty to a Crown entity that is legally separate from the Crown is, in Cabinet’s view, not something that we want to do. It has been a Cabinet decision.
The member asks how we uphold that Treaty obligation, and I point her to article 3, which is around ensuring that the outcomes for tamariki Māori are raised and are the same as every other student. Through our work programme, the member will have seen that we established a Māori ministerial advisory group, and I was very pleased to announce today that the Hon Kelvin Davis is now a part of it. They are ensuring that our entire work programme is around raising Māori achievement. That is how we are giving effect to the Treaty, to make sure that all tamariki Māori have the ability to succeed at school and then in life, in further education or in employment.
It is well documented, although the media tend not to cover it, all of the efforts we’re putting into not only resourcing, curriculum assessments, supporting the workforce to make sure that Māori, regardless of whether they are learning in Māori-medium, kura kaupapa, or in mainstream, have that ability to succeed.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.
Sitting suspended from 10.01 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)
Extended Sitting