Stanford Erica; Tinetti JanERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for her introduction. I wanted to go straight to Part 2—I think the Minister will be aware I've got a Supplementary Order Paper I want to speak to. But before I speak directly to it I want to ask the Minister some questions around Part 2 clause 38 the co-option of members to a school board. The first question I want to ask the Minister is: why is it that one of the existing provisions around the 50:50 split of male and female has been removed from the Act and disappeared completely and is replaced with the genders sexualities and sexes of the student body? I just want to ask the Minister: first off what was it that was wrong with sexes and why has it been replaced?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Thank you Madam Chair. Basically because we've got a changing view of the terminology and that has been pointed out throughout the shepherding of this bill—to understand the diversities within the community and the full diversities within the community. Can I also point out that this particular part does relate to the co-option of board members and we have around about 5 percent of our boards so we're not talking about a huge number of our boards but we are talking about when they are co-opting into those areas to take account of the different diversities and the differing diversities within there. It's looking at your community and your school community as a whole.ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): One of the very good submissions on the bill from the group Speak Up for Women made the point that in the previous Education Act between 1989 and 2020—when that previous Education Act was in place we saw huge steps in the acceptance of the rainbow community in New Zealand. The Human Rights Act 1993 made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation civil unions provided for legal representation of same-sex relationships and finally the legislation for same-sex marriage. So huge gains between 1989 and 2020; these momentous things all occurred in the 31 years between the Education Act 1989 and the Education and Training Act 2020. When this Minister's Government in 2020 introduced the new Education and Training Act there were no appointment criteria recognising sexualities despite all of those gains. Why it is in the last three years it's suddenly—the question is: what has happened in the last three years that means wording that was perfectly fine in 2020 after all of those gains of 30 years for the LGBT community is suddenly out of date and desperately in need of modernising just three years later? I'm talking about in terms of sexualities where we're adding it in now where the Minister in her previous answer just said change of terminologies and it doesn't really hold water because this Act was only amended in 2020 after so many gains over so many decades in terms of sexualities. The question is: what has changed in the last three years that we now need to add sexualities in?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Well was it working? That's one of the reasons why we have legislation going through the House to make certain that we are making it stronger. It's the whole reason why we are here doing this job so I would disagree with the member's take on what she has just presented there. Specific criteria are helpful prompts to support boards to think about the diverse perspectives that need to be raised to ensure that they are meeting the needs of the diverse school community that they have. We know that there are disabled and LGBTIQA+ learners present in almost every school and specifically including these terms in criteria can prompt and support boards to consider the needs of those students and their community that they are representing when they are co-opting members.So I would like to once again say that one of the reasons that we are doing this is because it will make it stronger for those members of the community.ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Another good point made by Speak Up for Women is that there is an insinuation by this Minister and this Government that members of the rainbow community are not able to be elected on their own merit—I'm reading from her submission and that that is offensive and untrue. All throughout New Zealand for many years members of the rainbow community who want to serve have been elected to school boards. The inference that we need special treatment or recognition is another form of othering us and yet again calling us out as different. When many of us have fought for the right to be ordinary. To be boring. To be just like everyone else. To have the same rights as everyone else nothing more nothing less. To be chosen on merit not because of a special identity." The reason I read that out Minister is because I want to—I've got more questions on the back of this but I wanted you to answer their questions around this and also that the offence that they're taking that they believe they're able to be elected on their own merits rather than having to have a special category carved out for them.Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Look first of all I would like to say thank you to all submitters who took the time to submit on this bill and while I respect the process of their submissions I disagree with that and I'm very disappointed to hear that people think that minority groups or groups that have struggled to make themselves heard do not need to be elevated because they can just stand on their own merit. Ask other people ask other groups that have struggled to make themselves heard over time how well that's worked out for them. We need to actually acknowledge our groups in this country including our LGBTIQA+ group. We need to acknowledge them and have that separate criteria so that they are seen because if we don't have them they will not get seen. That's not to say that they are not amazing people but they will not get seen. That is the bottom line. We have the same here; we have a 50:50 split in our Parliament now of women and men. We got that through deliberately—people deliberately and parties deliberately going and acknowledging that we needed to do that. We were not seen up until that point. If that member thinks that people can stand on their own merit and get elected go ask those groups that that hasn't happened to. Now we're not talking about election here; we're talking about co-option. What we are talking about is that when board members are co-opted they will give the reflection to those particular groups. Those groups are being seen in the process."