edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Moroney Sue; Mallard TrevorSUE MORONEY (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate which we are conducting in a different way to what we have done before. So I hope I will be on theme in asking Minister Parata under clause 99 in particular—I have not had the opportunity to sit on the Education and Science Committee so I just want some reassurance around the repealing of the definition of correspondence school". Also in clause 105 we are repealing section 152 of the Education Act 1989 which outlines the role of The Correspondence School. I just want some reassurance that this is not disestablishing a feature of our current education system—a feature that is particularly important to people in rural and isolated areas. I am certain that this is not a stalking horse for getting rid of a very important part of our education features but I would like some reassurance from the Minister about why the definition is being removed and why the section of the Act that currently relates to correspondence schools is being repealed by the amendment bill that we are debating today. Further may I also request from the Minister some discussion about new section 156 "Designated character schools" in clause 109? I just want to convey an issue that is currently being debated in the Waikato area and I seek some reassurance that this is not a way that a Minister could use their discretion to address this particular situation. It is the situation of agreements that have been reached about school transport for pupils from outlying areas who are wanting to attend schools of special character. I want some assurance that this particular provision about the Minister's discretion in designating which schools are character schools and which are not is not going to be used to deny those students education support in getting transport from outer areas to those schools of special character because certainly that is a debate that is alive and well in the Waikato region at the moment and is of some concern. Those parents want certainty that the agreement that was established by the education department to allow school transport to be available for those children to travel from outer areas into Hamilton to special character schools will remain. So those are two areas that I would just like some reassurance on from the Minister. The Correspondence School—will it remain? I believe it probably has a different name now but do the features of that for people in rural and isolated areas still remain? Also of course it is sometimes a factor that is used in alternative education. So that is another group of particularly vulnerable students and I want an assurance that that service is going to remain available to them. The other area is the issue associated with the designation of character schools—to ensure that it will not be used to I guess allow the Ministry of Education to cut costs in terms of school transport options. The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I call Chris Hipkins."
Parata HekiaHon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I will just answer the questions that have been asked in the last wee while. The first thing is in respect of clause 144. The answer to that is that the Human Rights Act covers far more than this clause and that is why the bill has referred to the Human Rights Act instead of inserting a definition that is much narrower in this bill. That is the first thing.The second is that schools cannot refuse enrolment based on religion because the Human Rights Act protects that. The third question is in terms of consultation. Does absolute discretion remove consultation? No. Thank you.
Martin TraceyTRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but there is another question. It is around new section 153(1B) inserted by clause 106(1) new section 154(2B) inserted by clause 107(2) and so on—the Minister's absolute discretion." It is in the insertion of new section 154(2B): "A decision to close a school under subsection (2) is in the Minister's absolute discretion."I just wonder whether the Minister in the chair Hekia Parata—along with answering the question around why new section 442(2) which was to be inserted by clause 144 was removed—could speak to these "absolute discretion" clauses and say whether they are an extension of the conversation that was had at the Education and Science Committee and through regulatory impact statements about removing the requirement for the Minister to consult again. When I say "again" if I can just outline when there is a suggestion that a school should close—let us take Redcliffs School for example—due to an act of God that is fine but the ministry has to go and consult around the options for that school. Then the ministry comes back to the Minister and it might make a recommendation that that school should close.At the moment before this piece of legislation goes through if the Minister makes a decision that the school will close there is a requirement to go back to the community now that the community knows that that is the actual decision made—not one of a line of options; the actual decision made—and for that Minister to re-consult the community. That is what happened at Redcliffs School. What I am trying to get to is whether these clauses new section 153(1B) and new section 154(2B) which say "Minister's absolute discretion" are reinforcing—and I think it might be somewhere else in the bill—that there is no longer a requirement for the Minister to go back to communities like the Redcliffs School community but once the ministry has outlined all the options and it goes away and tells the Minister what it thinks the Minister should do the Minister makes a decision and that is it. If Minister Parata could please address those two questions I would be most grateful."
Delahunty Catherine; Mallard TrevorCATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): While the Minister in the chair Nicky Wagner is thinking about it I would just like to support Supplementary Order Paper 294 by Tracey Martin. I will just cover some very short points because I know that repetition is not welcome in this debate. The reason that I raised the issue of including the rights of the child and various other UN conventions in the first theme is that they protect us from discrimination and this is a discriminatory clause.It could be argued that private schools have the right to refuse children on these grounds; I do not know whether they do. But State-integrated schools that receive State money in increasing amounts—and that is part of what we are dealing with integrated schools at the moment—should not have this power. So I just want to make that point and that is why we need some tests in the legislation we need the conventions and we also need to put this clause back in so that it is fair.It is just blatantly unfair. It is potentially an abuse of human rights and you cannot discriminate—sorry you would never do so Mr Chair. The Government should never enshrine this kind of discrimination against the human rights of students because of race economic status—these things are just unacceptable. It does not do the integrated schools any favours that they came and asked for this to take place and that it is in the legislation. It does not do them any favours. It actually makes us all look bad and it should not be allowed.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Tracey Martin and then the Minister.
Parata HekiaHon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Given the way the member Chris Hipkins has characterised that I think it would be helpful if we just dealt specifically with that before going on to the other parts of this theme. The first thing to know is that that definition has been carefully worked out by a cross-sector working group made up of representatives from the disabilities sector and from the Post Primary Teachers Association the New Zealand Educational Institute and the School Trustees Association all of whom have completely understood the context in which this applies. It is important in terms of defining seclusion" because what we are saying is not allowed is to include those words "involuntary" and "belief".That then puts the concomitant responsibility on ensuring that communication is really clear when teachers are—as the member has already identified—using the desirable practice of time out or the continuum of other strategies that teachers have available to them to manage poor behaviour or to help a student self-manage and destress. So I will be expecting the Ministry of Education to issue guidelines on those communications—again worked out with the sector—to ensure that a vulnerable student understands what they can or cannot do related to managing their own behaviour.So I hear what the member is saying and I hear what others have said in expressing concern about this. It has been difficult for the sector to advise on exactly what the definition should be but we want to clearly be able to draw a line and say: "This is what seclusion looks like and it is unacceptable." Therefore these self-managing or facilitation techniques are included in how we ensure that schools get support to communicate in ways that both the child and the teacher and actually the other children in the classroom can appreciate and respect what is going on. Thank you."
Hipkins ChrisClauses 73 to 97 clause 147 and schedule 2CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I want to take one very quick call at the beginning to deal with a stand-alone issue before I get into the issues around school governance—that is to deal with a question around seclusion because these provisions were added as the bill progressed. In my view there is one remaining outstanding issue that I would like to work through. It is to do with the definition of seclusion". I just want to talk through that. The definition of "seclusion" as incorporated in the bill says: "seclude in relation to a student or child means to place the student or child involuntarily alone in a room from which he or she cannot freely exit or from which the student or child believes that he or she cannot freely exit." There are some definitional issues around here that have prompted quite a bit of debate including after we had deliberated on this section of the bill at the select committee because it was a bit of a last-minute addition.The issue is really around the phrase "which the student or child believes that he or she cannot freely exit". As schools and principals have pointed out the authority-type relationships that exist within schools create some different understandings and expectations to what we might have as grown adults in the sense that schools are concerned that this could be interpreted as if it gives a child an instruction to stay in a room and not leave. Because of the power relationship that exists there the schools are concerned that that could be interpreted by the child as them not being able to freely exit. While the door might not be locked for example—the door could be closed—the schools are concerned that the power dynamics that exist could result in the student being under the impression that they could not freely exit and therefore the school could find itself in violation of the actual wording of this bill if not the spirit.The spirit is a good one and one that we are absolutely in support of which is that seclusion has no place in schools but "time out" does. "Time out" is a legitimate strategy in a school and I know that schools use it. The kids who get amped up are told to go into a room calm down have some time by themselves and come back when they have recomposed themselves. That is a legitimate behavioural management strategy—one that protects the teacher the student and the other students in the class. We do not want to create an environment in which schools cannot use that as a strategy because they are concerned that they might fall foul of the seclusion prohibition. I am not going to talk any further about that because it literally just relates to the issues of clarification around how that could be interpreted to ensure that we do not end up inadvertently preventing schools from using a legitimate behavioural management strategy."
Parata Hekia; Borrows ChesterHon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Both the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and Adrian Rurawhe make good points. We are concerned about this in the mainstream system let alone in the introduction of communities of online learning. I would say to the members that rather than it necessarily being a negative experience we may find that the opportunity to have online learning actually produces a better experience than has otherwise been the case. I have certainly had that recounted to me by students who were excluded or who were in alternative education and emailed me to say more or less Hallelujah. If this had been around when I was going through my compulsory years of schooling this would have been far better for me". I think that makes the point that it is not a case of one-size-fits-all and that the one size that does fit a student may include a blend. It might include both the alternative education option and some supplementary online learning.The second thing to note is that any organisation can apply to become a community of online learning. It would have to go through the same rigorous requirements including how it will serve the particular age group that it is proposing to serve.In terms of whether or not these communities of online learning will be monitored yes they will be monitored. Sorry I am just choking up at the possibilities. They will obviously be subjected to a regime of scrutiny because our purpose in adding this to the diversity of choices is to try to find the pathways that will work for every child. It is not every pathway; it is multiple pathways. And so yes we will ensure that they are monitored.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Members it is my view that it is now reasonable to move on to the next theme. Therefore we shall move on to the debate on boards of trustees and management of schools comprising clauses 73 to 97 clause 147 and schedule 2."
Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): In building on that point and having listened very carefully to the Minister Hekia Parata's contribution the question that I have is around children who have potentially disengaged and are part of an alternative education programme. If I am reading these clauses correctly they imply that schools are accredited as communities of online learning. So it is possible that young people who are currently in alternative education could be part of a community of online learning. Whether or not the learning environment is conducive to what is generally the case in alternative education we are trying to get these young people back into the education system and more importantly into the classroom environment.My question really amplifies the comments made by Adrian Rurawhe. If alternative education students are part of a community of online learning environment what further assessments are done to ensure that learning solely through technology actually improves the social and educational objectives and the broader aspirations of that young person? Also is it possible for a young person to be excluded if we accept that the potential for alternative education is to provide communities of online learning to these particular students? Is there a possibility of exclusion and then what is the next step for this group of students? I would hate to think that the communities of online learning may further disenfranchise already challenged learners within the education system with no ability for them to pathway into a more appropriate learning environment. If the Minister can clarify that that would be very helpful.The other aspect is in relation to exclusions. Do the same exclusion criteria apply to those students who are vulnerable and potentially part of a community of online learning environment? What other remedy may there be or what obligation does the school or the community of online learning have to ensure that they have another pathway to continue to be engaged in another environment of learning that is more suited to them?It certainly appears from the responses of the Minister that there is an ability to review the effectiveness of the communities of online learning. I can only take it from that that this provides the opportunity to improve the arrangements or the criteria that apply in this area. If that is the case is the way in which the communities of online learning are reviewed going to be systematically assessed in such a way that you are streamlining the improvements to ensure that the best learning environment can occur through the utilisation of technology?Lastly given that the Minister has been thorough in responding to questions is it the intention to include early childhood centres because of access issues in terms of providing communities of online learning or is it for some other reason? It is not apparent to me. I was not on the select committee and I did not hear the submissions but it appears that they can be included as a community of online learning so I am asking what the purpose is. Kia ora.
Rurawhe AdrianADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): I have a really quick question for the Minister. In a submission from the Post Primary Teachers' Association it pointed out that Treasury had noted that the option of online providers for students who are at risk of disengagement from school could be a route out of the formal education system which is significant. I just wanted to ask the Minister whether she felt there was any need to provide further assistance to those students who are on that route into communities of online learning and whether or not they would need additional support to ensure that the nature of the risk of disengagement does not apply to them—or to help them in this instance?
Martin TraceyTRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Chair. Firstly can I thank the Minister for her answers to my last questions. It is absolutely an acceptable answer for the Minister to say at the end of the day: We disagree." It is really nice to have that as an answer on the table rather than the dance that we sometimes do around here. That is fine. That is what this place is about. It is about people disagreeing in debate fighting ideas. At the end of the day I do not agree with the Minister but she is in the chair at the moment they are in Government at the moment and this is what we are dealing with. So thank you for the honesty Minister. I really appreciate it. This has been a really great process so far. It has probably been the most respectful you and I have been to each other for a long time.Can I just ask a couple of things though Minister. I do want to go back to section 35ZJ in clause 38. First of all I want to say that the Minister made a point about why we could not take the Opposition's perspective which is actually to not open this up to private businesses by using the Mind Lab as an example and the Khan Academy. Can I just point out to the Minister that the Mind Lab and the coding school that she was referring to deliver subjects. So they deliver subjects—right? They are not delivering the full curriculum. Absolutely that is what we need to bring inside our schools—coding particularly. Let us bring real-life coding experts inside our schools to work with our senior students—and all examples given are senior students. So again the question stands: why primary students? And we are already doing it; let us just frame up what we have got before we go another step. But as the Minister said and well within her rights we just disagree.Just with regard to section 35ZJ(3): "A grant may be made unconditionally or subject to conditions determined by the Minister." Can I ask the Minister why she feels the need or why the Government or her officials feel the need for that grant to be made unconditionally—if she would not mind just answering that question."
Parata HekiaHon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I will be repeating some things that clearly the member Jenny Salesa was not here to hear but to assure and quell her anxiety that there is no interest on my part or that of my Government in delivering some kind of broken model for New Zealand students. What we have done and what Governments through time have traditionally done is looked overseas looked at the research and said: What can we learn from that?". And what we can learn from the US experience is that we need to cap numbers we need to have more regulation and we are proposing to do that.If I can refer the member to clause 38 we are requiring that prospective communities of online learning must satisfy criteria that will include providing a safe and secure learning environment providing an appropriate curriculum and tuition standard having the capacity to meet pastoral care and student well-being responsibilities and having equipment that is suitable for the curriculum that is being taught. New Zealand's model of online learning learns from other jurisdictions and proposes to do it better. To give the submitter her full credentials Ms Bronwyn Cross was also for many many years the executive officer of the Post Primary Teachers' Association. Thank you."
Parata HekiaHon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I can only repeat for the member Catherine Delahunty that it is not schools that get to direct students to communities of online learning. Secondly the issue of exclusion or stand down—there are natural justice provisions. Thirdly the introduction of the idea of communities of online learning is not introducing that new unacceptable behaviour—and it is a behaviour of some schools that the ministry is working hard to deal with. We take great pride in our approach to special education and learning support and where we are aware that is occurring we take action. Thank you.
Delahunty CatherineCATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): This is just going to be a very brief response because—I just cannot let it go. So I came to Parliament to stand up for people who do not have a choice—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Well I just want to—[Interruption] Sorry. Order! Whether or not the member can let it go is not necessarily completely over to her. The member will be aware of the constraints of this debate and repetition and I have noted in some speeches that we are going round in circles even within the same call and being repetitive. So I will just warn her against that.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: OK—thank you very much Mr Chair. If we are going to say that parents have choices can the Minister of Education please explain to me about the choices of people whose children are excluded from school or get only 1 hour a week because they are hard to teach. Can we just have an explanation as nothing in the existing Act protects them. How are we going to make sure that communities of online learning (COOLs) do not make things worse for them? Because they do not have the choice to say no when they have been excluded and then parents are threatened with truancy if their child is not enrolled in a school. That is how they could end up in a COOL and that is why I want an explanation as to how we are going to make sure that does not happen. Thank you.
Parata HekiaHon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): The member Ms Delahunty actually makes exactly the point of this. It is not one size fits all. So in the example the member just described it clearly would not have been an option for her. But I can tell the member that I received emails from other people who said that if this option had been available when they were at school they would have got their first-chance education rather than now funding a second- or third-chance education.The second point I would make is that it is not compulsory. It is a choice for parents. Whether to enrol in a community of online learning (COOL) is a choice for parents. Schools cannot direct children to a COOL. It is the parents who make that choice and in making that choice as they do now they will be able to see what the requirements are for those particular communities of online learning. It is not the type of school; it is the quality of it and the fit of it for the particular students and their families.As for again Ms Delahunty's comment that it was the board of Te Aho o Te Kura Pounamu that favoured this but not teachers I am advised that the New Zealand Educational Institute teachers are completely in favour of it and have invited further discussion. So I guess it was other members of the teaching workforce at te kura. But I can comment to the member that I have found it impossible to get an absolute consensus on everything from all teachers across New Zealand so it does not surprise me that it is not possible to get consensus completely in one school.Te kura already runs an early childhood programme and so it has already demonstrated that it is possible to provide online learning. The member quite properly asks for reassurance about how we protect for these pastoral care issues. I am assuring the member that the regulations as I have outlined them in the bill will be rigorously applied. None of us have an interest in this not being successful.Finally I make the point that primary schoolchildren by law cannot be left at home alone under the age of 14 years. This would not attempt to contravene that law.
Parata HekiaHon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I would like to address questions that have been asked both by Ms Martin and just recently by Mr Hipkins. The overriding interest in establishing in the legislation the provision for communities of online learning (COOLs) is not one thing or the other; it is not about either modernising Te Aho o Te Kura Pounamu or providing for there to be more providers but it is absolutely about being realistic about what the future looks like for our young people. That is why the Government has for instance invested so much to make sure that all schools are connected and that they do get 24/7 ultra-fast high-quality data. But it also recognises that there are diverse providers of education and we see that through our system now. To speak to the specific questions this is not because te kura is overloaded. Te kura welcomes the introduction of this legislation and I will quote shortly from its submission. The legislation includes a two-stage approval process with an Education Review Office review prior to full accreditation. An interventions regime will apply to COOLs to measure that they are delivering what they propose they are delivering. It includes an ability to set additional conditions.Members have properly expressed concerns about whether this is going to be a place that is the only recourse for the mainstream system which finds it difficult to deal with some kids. Again the answer to that is no. We have been very emphatic with the education system and we have seen that stand downs and exclusions and early-leaving exemptions have all trended down because we are clear that we want to maintain the very high standard we have around inclusion. So no that is not what is intended here. The same kinds of disciplines will be provided to communities of learning.If I could refer members to clause 38 of the bill they will see that prospective COOLs must satisfy criteria to be accredited by the Minister and these will include providing a safe and secure learning environment providing an appropriate curriculum and tuition standard having the capacity to meet its pastoral care and student well-being responsibilities—and I want to emphasise that—and having equipment that is suitable for the curriculum and mode of online education delivery. The enrolling entity be it a school or a COOL will be responsible for a full learning programme of children.So I just want to quickly quote te kura whose board of trustees submitted that it was a myth that students do not develop social skills in online learning settings. The board noted that done well online learning involves social interaction and team work through both communications technologies and face-to-face activities. This Government—and the member invited me to give a commitment on behalf of this Government although this legislation we intend to be enduring—is committed to ensuring that those safeguards and the full well-rounded education that New Zealanders are entitled to have will be required whether the medium is a face-to-face full-time mainstream school or a community of online learning.
Parata HekiaHon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): If I could just answer the further specific questions around the cohort entry age that have been asked—in particular what kind of research has been done on this? The problem is that it has been very difficult to do research on it because New Zealand is such an outlier. There is significant research on cohort entry and on groups travelling through but comparable research—next to nothing.Secondly there was a further question around concern about ensuring that the smoother transitions from early childhood to new entrants are not compromised by cohort entry which is a concern I share with Mr Hipkins. We have made it very clear that as part of the operational effectiveness of the new communities of learning and kāhui ako one of the explicit and specific expectations is to ensure that that happens between all early childhood education services and schools rather than at the moment where it happens around the country. So yes we share your concern.To respond to Ms Delahunty yesterday we in fact launched on its 21st birthday a refresh of Te Whāriki and of making sure that the curriculum objectives there are very much up to date with supporting young people and their transitions. So I think that is another indication of how serious we are as a Government to invest into that space.Then of course a question was asked—I am not sure now which member it was now; I think it might have been Mr Hipkins—about what happens if a parent exercises the flexibility to send their child in an early cohort and then finds that that actually is just not working for their child particularly since we are compelling them once enrolled to stay. The bill enables a flexible plan and a review for that particular age group. Speaking to the compulsion part what we do know from evidence is that too many parents are starting their child in the continuous entry way by taking them in and out of school until they are 6 and that is extremely disruptive.Finally we are asked What support is there for this?" because there were not a lot of submitters at the Education and Science Committee. I can tell you there was significant support. First of all the Advisory Group on Early Learning which met right through to the middle of 2015 formally recommended that this should occur. When the ministry consulted we received support—80 percent from teachers 68 percent from boards and 76 percent from parents. So there was widespread support and I do not know whether Committee members would agree but sometimes you will get more representation from those opposed than from those who do agree. Thank you."
Rurawhe AdrianADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana. I too want to speak to the National Education and Learning Priorities statement in new Part 1AA inserted by clause 4 and in particular give voice to some of the submissions on new section 1A(3)(c)(iv) the Treaty of Waitangi and te reo Māori." and also to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 302. The Post Primary Teachers' Association (PPTA) felt that that line ought to be rephrased in line with the submission from the Education Council which said that it should be rephrased to: "the Treaty of Waitangi … and having knowledge of tikanga and te reo Māori." So that was the suggested change from them.I also wanted to talk about the submission from Dr Mere Skerrett and Associate Professor Jenny Ritchie who felt that it did not go far enough and that there should be—and I was really pleased to hear the Minister of Education say that these were minimum requirements. So we have the PPTA and the Education Council that want that minimum to be raised a bit higher. Dr Skerrett and Associate Professor Ritchie want to move it up to even another level and they are saying that it ought to be rephrased as: "promote the learning of and through Te Reo" so in other words let the Reo be the basis for implementing what it says in the bill as it stands here. So I stand in support of Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of Catherine Delahunty.I want to acknowledge Tracey Martin's contribution in the sense of whether we have the capacity to implement that straight away. But my position is that we need to take note of the changing environment that we live in and only recently Auckland University of Technology published on its website yet another survey it has done with nearly 6000 participants which shows consistency with others that have been published: that there is a rising number of people who support this very thing—the teaching of Te Reo Māori as a core subject in the national curriculum up to year 10 in the case of this Supplementary Order Paper.So in the spirit of the new nature of this debate I am going to leave it there and I hope to have a response. Kia ora."
Parata HekiaHon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I would really like to answer as comprehensively as possible the issue of equity that is being raised quite properly by members of the House and that is to say that when the objectives provide for each and every child reaching his or her potential that is the equitable outcome that we are focused on.I agree with the member Ms Martin that children start at different points but the whole point of this objective is that regardless of where children start from there must be equitable outcomes for each and every one of them. That is further buttressed in the bill by the references to what boards will be required. It is in new schedule 6 which says that a board's objectives in governing a school include that the board must ensure that the school is inclusive of and caters for students with differing needs. So in different ways throughout the legislation there is the explicit requirement to get each child what they need for them to be successful and that is the definition of equity that I am looking for—that they get the best results possible for themselves.On the matter of cohort entry just recently raised by Ms Martin first of all I want to repeat that this is completely voluntary. Schools are not required to adopt cohort entry but for those schools that wish to they must consult and after consultation they can introduce it.Secondly parents choosing to have cohort entry are not required to start their child at the age closest to their fifth birthday but before it. They can choose exactly what the member is commending—after 5 or closest to their child turning 6 but certainly before they turn 6. So nothing about cohort entry is compulsive or prescriptive but the evidence that we have for new entrant teachers is that it is in their view more effective for kids to start with a group and begin their transition from early learning and progress through their first and second terms together.The third point I would make is that New Zealand is alone in the countries we compare ourselves with in having continuous entry. Thank you.
Parata HekiaHon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I want to take an opportunity to address two issues that have come up which I have responded to but I just want to be really emphatic about this. The consultation period in preparation for this bill was 2 years. It involved forums and workshops and provided opportunities for submissions and regional collaborations. It specifically involved my repeated invitation to schools to involve their young people in the process. May I say that the select committee was never precluded from inviting submissions from children.Secondly in terms of the international declarations and commitments that members have been commending those are the overarching documents and commitments that our Government and all Governments observe. In terms of the rights of the child which are the specific concerns that have been articulated sections 3 and 8 in the principal legislation speak to the rights of all people to have education and clearly that includes children.
SpeechThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call Tracey Martin there are a couple of points that I should make just to make it absolutely clear about the way this debate works—that is that all of the questions will be put at the end including all of the amendments all of the Supplementary Order Papers. The expectation is that people will speak to the amendments on the particular themes as we work our way through.I will just put one other thing out there which might be more hopeful than realistic and that is that one of the hopes that we had was that people would not feel an obligation to use all of their 5 minutes—that they would ask their questions and they would sit down or make their points and sit down—because they have an opportunity to get back up again to interrogate the Minister in the chair some more or to reinforce their points. So we get a bit more of an interchange.
Mallard TrevorEDUCATION (UPDATE) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee this debate will be conducted on a themed basis not part by part. The themes are: principles and central management; communities of online learning; boards of trustees and management of schools; establishment of and types of schools; and miscellaneous provisions.There will be no debate on clauses 1 to 3 but clause 2 may be referred to in relation to the commencement of provisions as they are debated. The Chairperson will determine the length of the debate on each theme so there will be no closure motions accepted. There is no limit on the number of calls per member except for the fact that the normal arrangements apply whereby members cannot have more than two calls at one time.
Sage EugenieEUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker thank you. The Green Party is very pleased to support the nomination of the Rt Hon Simon Upton to be the new Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. He has been deeply immersed in environmental law and policy for many years and I think his experience in this House as Minister for the Environment Minister of Health and also Minister of Research Science and Technology will serve him well in this position. But it is particularly the depth of his involvement with the OECD the breadth of his experience with policy initiatives to tackle the most challenging issues of our time—from climate change to land use and water quality; how you use things like economic instruments—and just his overview of and connection with New Zealand that means he can bring that international experience and that knowledge to this position of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.This role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is absolutely critical. When the office was set up it was called a watchdog and it has been that with the succession of commissioners—Helen Hughes Dr Morgan Williams and then Dr Jan Wright. They have provided invaluable advice to Parliament—independent advice—with a small staff at the moment of around 20 and a budget of about $3.3 million.A number of critical reports from retiring Parliamentary Commissioner Dr Jan Wright have made a real difference. I would like to acknowledge her work and the depth of the reports on issues as diverse as the status of the longfin eel and its decline land use and water quality and the use of 1080 as a tool for predator control. I think the office has assessed in the last year that the success of its recommendations in being adopted by the Government was somewhere around 58 percent. You want an office that can review the evidence base its recommendations on robust science and actually have them presented to Parliament to inform parliamentarians and inform the Government on where policy should move. I think we have seen that with the current commissioner and I am sure that the Rt Hon Simon Upton will continue that tradition.One of the strengths of the current Parliamentary Commissioner has been the accessibility of her reports. They are clear concise and easy to read and it is that accessibility and explaining of the science behind land use and water quality and the impact of nitrates on water quality that has engaged the media and enabled a lot more New Zealanders to understand the issues at stake here which are affecting our extraordinary natural landscapes and environment some of those challenges and how the Government communities and local government are best to respond to those.We are very pleased to support the Rt Hon Simon Upton in this new role. I am sure that he will bring robust analysis his use of his quite deprecating sense of humour and his wide range of policy experience to ensuring that the office remains a vital part of our environmental policy structure in New Zealand in providing independent and robust advice to this Parliament and to the Government. Thank you.
Brownlee GerryAPPOINTMENTSParliamentary Commissioner for the EnvironmentHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move That this House recommend to the Governor-General that pursuant to section 4 of the Environment Act 1986 Rt Hon Simon David Upton be appointed as Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Mr Upton will be well-known to many of the members in this House having served for some 21 years prior to taking up a position in the role of a director of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—the OECD environmental director post—outside New Zealand. He has been back in the country for a number of years now and has also been engaged in environmental advocacy one would say. Mr Upton's team at the OECD was responsible to all of the member countries and was instrumental in putting together policies that would improve outcomes for the environment on a range of issues that included water biodiversity climate and then the widespread use of agricultural chemicals. He played a key role in the OECD's green growth strategy. Mr Upton is a New Zealander who has had a long commitment to public service and that coupled with his obvious interest in better outcomes for our environment means he is I think an ideal candidate. His previous portfolios as a Minister in a Government of New Zealand were in the areas of not only the environment but also research biosecurity health and State services. So in Mr Upton we have a person who has broad experience of the government process in New Zealand and somewhat unique experience as a Minister in the field that he is now hopefully going to be confirmed as commissioner for as well as having very vast international experience and understanding of how the rest of the world considers some of these matters. I have no hesitation at all in nominating—as this motion does—the Rt Hon Simon Upton for the position of New Zealand's Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.
Mark RonRON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I want to firstly thank the leader of the Labour Party Andrew Little the Leader of the House the National Party and the Prime Minister for the nomination of the Rt Hon Winston Peters and for their acceptance of that. I also thank the Green Party for its support which it has just indicated here today.There is an old saying in Māoridom that the kūmara does not tell you how sweet it is so it is a good thing that I get the opportunity to tell you how sweet the kūmara is. The Rt Hon Winston Peters is we believe absolutely the correct appointment for some of the reasons that have just been highlighted by the Hon David Parker. We are talking of his integrity his discretion his long service and the fact that he is trusted. As the Hon Gerry Brownlee has just said he has also served this Parliament and the New Zealand people well in the most senior of offices—be that as Treasurer Deputy Prime Minister or on occasion during the coalition Government time in the 1990s Acting Prime Minister—and has done so with aplomb and distinction. I guess the other thing we note in New Zealand First is that the Rt Hon Winston Peters is the only member of the Privy Council in the House and we take great pride in that. He has also been recognised by being invited to speak in the House of Lords on at least two occasions that we know of.Mr Peters will I think serve the interests of the Green Party and all other parties in this House very well. For those who might have thought that he would be very very conservative and very strictly war hawkish—well you have never seen that demonstrated by Mr Peters. In fact Mr Peters' endorsements of my views on the Iraq invasion back in 1993 and later in the years 2000 and his adhering to those sometimes very controversial views on deployments into the Middle East is I think something that gives comfort and satisfaction to other parties in the House—that he will be a very balanced mind and a person who will exercise experience and wisdom in adjudging security matters.Once again I want to thank the Government very much for supporting his appointment. I thank the House for the endorsement and assure it that Mr Peters is looking forward to the responsibilities and will perform with distinction as he always does.
Graham KennedyDr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): The Green Party also supports the nomination of the Rt Hon Winston Peters as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. We believe that the nomination of Mr Peters by the Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little is the appropriate one to make in the circumstances. The Green Party has always had respect for the political experience of Mr Peters and the breadth of his knowledge acquired throughout his time in the House but also particularly as Minister of Foreign Affairs which is directly relevant to this appointment. The Green Party in the course of the passage—if I may just recall the adoption of the Intelligence and Security Act which I believe came into force on 28 March and had its passage through the House in recent months. It was quite recently that the Committee of the whole House was immersed in the whole issue of the structure of the intelligence and security apparatus of this country. The Green Party was very pleased that changes were made in the Committee to the legislation—as I think the Hon David Parker has alluded to—that resulted in the requirement that from now on when nominating a person for membership of the committee the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister must have regard to security requirements and the proportional representation of political parties in the House of Representatives." at section 194(5). We were pleased that that was able to be adopted by the House. I think this goes a long way to getting the right balance between the national security requirements of this country and the regard for different angles that the people of New Zealand represented by the political parties in this House bring to bear on the issue of national security and the relationship of that to human rights not least the right to privacy in this country. So in that respect we regard the appointment of the Rt Hon Winston Peters as an appropriate step along the way to the proportional representation that is already enshrined in section 194(5) and we look forward to the fulfilment of that legislative requirement from now on in the future."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): On behalf of the Labour Party I absolutely endorse the nomination of the Rt Hon Winston Peters for this position. As the Hon Gerry Brownlee has already indicated there is no one in this House with longer experience or indeed broader experience than the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I do not think that anyone in this House doubts his capability. We may disagree on minor matters at times but I think all of us know him to be a man of integrity who will get the balance right between the security interests of the State and the rights of people not to be intruded upon unduly and who will be discreet as is required. I have no hesitation in recording that—well as nominated by the Leader of the Opposition.One final point on that: the closer we get to proportionality on that committee—representing the face of this Parliament—the better. I think this is the right nomination and we will be voting in favour of the motion.