Sharples Pita: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Sharples Pita: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2636] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 The Maori Party has a Supplementary Order Paper on the Education Amendment Bill and I would like to speak to some of the matters raised in it. Clause 6(1) inserts new section 70A covering education lands. The Maori Party amendment adds three new provisions: firstly when the Minister of Education declares that land is no longer needed for educational purposes it is a requirement that the Minister offer the land back to the former Maori owners; secondly if the land was gifted it must be returned at no cost or charge; and thirdly—and this is quite an interesting one from Judge Eddie Durie—if the land was not gifted the chief executive of Land Information New Zealand must take into account the circumstances in which the land was acquired from the Maori owner. As acknowledged by Eddie Durie the circumstances are critical as for many whanau and hapu the land was given because of the importance of education. It was not given as a sale contract in the normal sense. 
I would like to talk about section 154A(5) inserted by clause 30. We are seeking support for a new subsection (5) but I will quote the existing new subsection: “No school may have its designation as a Kura Kaupapa Maori removed unless the Minister has first consulted with te kaitiaki o Te Aho Matua (as identified under section 155B).” The question of the diagnostic criteria for kura kaupapa Maori has been debated for some time now—since it began—and it has been the cause of some concern to those who have created this model of school for New Zealand. 
In order to establish kura kaupapa Maori kohanga whanau went outside the education system at incredible cost to themselves financially physically and spiritually. They have built schools outside the system and were given no assistance at all initially. For 5 years we existed outside the school system before Tomorrow’s Schools and the change of our educational arrangements when we became a bona fide school under the Education Act of 1989. But after that once a school type becomes legislated for the Minister then owns it and can prescribe criteria for the school. 
The whole reason we stayed outside the education system to establish the school was to establish the special character—that is Te Aho Matua. Te Aho Matua is a set of Maori philosophies that guides the teaching of the school. Essentialy kura kaupapa Maori is an alternative education programme for all New Zealanders but it is specially designed for Maori to cater for the other Treaty partner—the Maori people their culture their beliefs their spiritual system their knowledge their language and their customs. 
We found that Ministers and other people were designating schools to be kura kaupapa Maori when they did not meet the criteria by which the Act described them so we took Te Aho Matua and brought it here to the House. The Hon Tau Henare when he was Minister of Maori Affairs pushed it through so that we could get Te Aho Matua passed into legislation. This meant that the only people who could approve a kura kaupapa Maori as being bona fide were those who were in charge of that philosophy Te Aho Matua. Te Aho Matua philosophy is very broad. It can be applied to various tribal customs and so on but it is essentially from the knowledge basket of Maori. It was really important that that be legislated for and it was legislated for. As a result schools that want to become kura now have to adhere to Te Aho Matua in order to be a bona fide kura kaupapa Maori. 
So we would like to propose that the amendment be that no school may have its designation changed from or to a kura kaupapa Maori unless the Minister has first sought the approval of the kaitiaki o Te Aho Matua. That is in section 155B “Te Kaitiaki o Te Aho Matua” of the principal Act. Really it is a way of protecting that school type. Otherwise why did our people stay outside the system for 5 years at great cost to themselves to create this model? That is a very important concern for us. 
The other concern is about kohanga reo and we support the Early Childhood Council’s call—in opposition to what has been described over here—for an amendment to section 317(2)(b) in clause 43 to ensure that criteria are not prescribed but are merely guidelines. We have heard the arguments for them being prescribed and there are some good ones—safety and things like that. But at the end of the day prescription stifles innovation and development especially things Maori—things that Maori people know but those who are in authority do not know. Therefore we often find ourselves being shut out by prescription. 
Finally I refer to sections 309 and 310 in clause 43. These amendments are about properly recognising the unique identity of kohanga reo in the early childhood sector. Te Kohanga Reo National Trust are concerned that the unique identity of kohanga reo is compromised in this bill because it categorises kohanga reo as being early childhood education providers when their scope and purpose is wider than education and is whanau centred. We had a great deal of difficulty when we set up kohanga reo. When we said: “This is kohanga.” we were told: “No you’re a play centre.” When we said: “No we’re kohanga.” we were told: “No you’re an early childhood centre.” When we said: “No we’re kohanga.” we were told: “Well you’re a kindergarten.” and we said: “No we’re kohanga.” The essential thing about kohanga is that it is a Maori concept. Kohanga means a nest. It is a nest concept a whanau concept; it is a concept that nurtures the child in a different knowledge base. So we are concerned that the identity of the kohanga remains distinct to that Maori definition. The proposed amendments mean that kohanga can be recognised as being part of the sector without their being categorised in definitions that do not fit. 
Te Kohanga Reo National Trust also has an issue with the regulations that will come out of this bill particularly in relation to playgroups being funded for only 4 hours per day. Currently kohanga have an exemption to be open for 6 hours each day and we ask whether this exemption will continue or whether the hours for funding will be cut. An amendment is being proposed to ensure the ongoing entitlement of kohanga to receive funding for 6 hours per weekday. Also under section 316 we propose an amendment that kohanga reo can choose to be licensed as service providers thus qualifying for funding rather than making the licensing mandatory for them. 
What we are really putting forward here is in fact the Maori knowledge point of view. Kohanga and the kura kaupapa are Maori concepts. Let them live and breathe as Maori concepts without over-regulating them to become what they are not.