Stanford Erica; Tinetti JanERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Right well that leads me to my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) because as the Minister just said she trusts schools—awesome. In that case why do we need a long list of things that boards must take into account? My Supplementary Order Paper removes all of them and says that every board should reflect the diversity of their students and school community"—trusting schools to know their communities schools and students to be able to make their own decisions based on the skills and experience of the people that they are co-opting to that board to make sure that they have a good representation. If the Minister is so hung up on trusting schools as she should be then why do we need all of these carve-outs which actually leave out many groups? Because she talks in here about disabilities but we know that there are many many things that a student might have that are not officially classified as a disability therefore not included in this list. It's not an exhaustive list so why have a list at all? Because it does lead to unintended consequences where you get people who are left out. It is much more simple and fair and if she indeed does just trust schools to know their communities will she support my Supplementary Order Paper that removes all of those—and all of the problems that they come with—and the lack of definitions leaving it just up to schools to decide what the differences between gender and sex are; and making the LGBT community in one of their own submissions just feel that they are being marginalised in this bill? And the same with people from low socio-economic circumstances being marginalised because they are poor and not just capable of being on a board. All of those things that we heard in select committee would be clean and tidy if we had this Supplementary Order Paper which just said "every board should reflect the diversity of their students and school community": trusting schools to make the right decision for their community. So I put that to the Minister and I do want to go back and just make sure that she understands that the things that I have been bringing up were from submitters. They were direct quotes from submitters and I would like to point out the overwhelming majority of submissions on this part of the bill were in opposition.Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): The new co-option criteria was of significant interest to submitters and I appreciate the time as I've said earlier that people gave to make their views known. Many submitters said that the bill should define sexes gender and sexuality. Some submitters considered that skill rather than personal attributes should be the most significant factors in board membership. The change proposed through the bill is to ensure that population groups underrepresented in school governance who can feel invisible in the schooling system have greater opportunity to have a voice in how schools are run. I remind the member of what I said in an earlier reply: you know we think sometimes that when we group these groups together they will automatically be seen. Ask those groups in many other instances how seen they have felt in other times when they have been seeking representation and "very invisible" is the answer that they will give through that. The amendment posed by the Opposition would mean that boards may not be prompted to consider the representation of groups listed in the co-option criteria. This is just about prompting. This isn't about "You must do this" or "You must co-opt these groups". It is about prompting those groups. If we don't have those prompts there they might not be seen—Erica Stanford: I thought you trusted schools.Hon JAN TINETTI: I absolutely trust schools but as someone who would love to have those prompts there I think that this is a really really good amendment to this. Furthermore I reject the view that having broader community representation on school boards will result in a reduction in the skills and experience of school boards. I also remind the committee that it is not compulsory for school boards to co-opt members or if they wish to do so it is not compulsory for boards to appoint people from any specific community including LGBTQIA+ or disability communities. On that basis I therefore do not support the member's Supplementary Order Paper. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Just one more final question on this part—well maybe; I think so. The Minister just said that there are population groups that are underrepresented. I would like to ask her: what evidence can she state here in the committee today that LGBTQ people are not well represented on school boards? What specific evidence—not anecdotal evidence or things she's heard from her time as a principal but actual data—has she received? [Interruption] Well you started this Minister! What evidence do you have that those certain LGBT population groups are underrepresented that led her to this bill; not anecdotal but actually data?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): I'm really disappointed that the member would actually minimise the views of the rainbow community because it is the views of the rainbow community that have led to this today. And to say "That is anecdotal so we don't want to know that"—that says a lot about the views over there. We have listened to the views; we have listened to those rainbow students who have felt minimised and marginalised in their schools—Nicola Grigg: Where's the data?Hon JAN TINETTI: There is data; if the member is looking for data look at the mental health statistics for that particular group. They want to see themselves represented. This is a big part. You cannot be what you cannot see. When you have that representation you can aspire to those roles but also you have people that are advocating for you who know your journey that you're going through; that know the difficulties that you're going through. We have that data. We want to turn that around—we want to make it a safe and happy place for our students from those communities. I am disappointed that that member—or members from that side of the House—believe that this would not seek that safety and assurance that our young people would see themselves represented within that school and have people that would advocate for them. Very disappointing."