Roberts AngelaANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): I'd firstly like to acknowledge the member across the House the Hon Paul Goldsmith for his enthusiasm—almost four months too early to acknowledge Chinese Language Week but it's great that you understand the importance of these weeks to lifting the profile of language learning in this country so ni hao. I just want to start by going to The New Zealand Curriculum because it's a critical part of how we address the challenges that have quite rightly been brought to this House. Ko tōu reo ko tōku reo te tuakiri tangata. Tīhei uriuri tīhei nakonako. Your voice and my voice are expressions of identity. May our descendants live on and our hopes be fulfilled." Ambitious words from Te Ao Māori in our New Zealand Curriculum. I think these really help us. I think everybody's already talked about the why; the why is actually quite easy. Again like the other speakers before me I acknowledge the communities and the individuals and the professionals who came and submitted—the more than 130 who made written submissions and the dozens who turned up to share their experiences and their knowledge with us. As far as the why a few things stood out to me. The New Zealand Sikh Youth community came and eloquently talked to us about intercommunal integration—that language connects us with our own culture and with each other. We heard from professionals who really clearly understand about identity engagement and wellbeing when language is included in our curriculum. We heard from a parent who talked about her children feeling at home and settled if they felt acknowledged through their language being acknowledged. The Punjabi women's association from Wellington talked about improving ethnic cohesion and their opportunity to change public perceptions of second language speakers so that New Zealanders will cease to experience the "Speak English" challenge on the bus or in the supermarket. The why is easy. So what is happening? How are we rising to this challenge? Because it is absolutely appropriate that our Minister of Education has a very significant role to play in this nationally. So what is happening? We already heard from the Minister about the numbers of students engaged and the numbers of languages being engaged with in schools. We were told by schools that they can already explore any language and you see it happening and well. They told us it's because they've got access to resources not because they've been made to do it. I just need to reflect for a moment. I need to acknowledge a fabulous little school down the road in Te Aro and I need to share with the House the experiences as a member of that school community for a few years of their commitment to their students from day one right through to the end of year 8 learning Mandarin and Chinese culture—not just language but calligraphy and art celebrating New Year—because they had support from the Asia New Zealand Foundation and from the Ministry. We also got to experience Matariki—not just te reo but the wonderful celebrations and rituals that have been brought from Te Ao Māori. Alongside that was their ability to nurture first languages home languages heritage languages so their students felt included and knew that they were valued. But that required commitment from the community to bring the experts in and support the teachers in what they were trying to do to support and engage their students. The Post Primary Teachers' Association told us the desire the will is absolutely there to improve the provision—we know why—but that provision isn't everywhere. We need to look again to our submitters to work out what it is we need to do to improve the situation. Again like the other speakers I need to reflect on the fact the intent of the bill is a very solid one: it is to make it easier for schools to provide at least one additional language to their students. So what was the plan in the bill? Well first of all the Government decides 10 priority languages to be resourced—I know it is a minimum but Mr Goldsmith did tell us that you needed to be quite diligent about not spreading a resource too far. So the Government will decide the 10—and we had more than a dozen languages proposed as those which those 10 should be—and then the school community will consult. The school community decides the one—probably—that attracts the additional resourcing. There are unintended consequences to this. This approach is not inclusive or student centred. It could undermine the other commitments the school has to te reo. It's been made clear that it doesn't preclude other languages being included but it makes it very difficult. So how do you decide—as a Government or as a school? Is it the largest group in the community? Is it the easiest to resource? We heard from Berhampore School from Mark the principal there who said he's got over 35 languages in his school and there was something quite sad when he said the one that was the hardest to resource the teaching of was te reo. So the solutions to this problem are very complex and they are not going to be fixed by compulsion and a bit of cash being given to a school board to enable them to make some decisions. The general policy statement says the Government is to "fund professional development language specialists and online resources". These grants are to be paid to boards. There is nothing strategic sustainable efficient or effective about doing it this way; 2500 school communities making their own decisions is not going to make sure that we make progress. So what do we do? How do we respond to the passionate committed communities and teachers who came and shared their experiences and knowledge with us? How do we support those pockets of excellence the exceptions to becoming the norm in every school whether they are a school that already has 65 communities represented or a school that has only two or three a school that is in the middle of an urban setting like Te Aro or a rural community that needs access via online learning for example? Compulsion doesn't solve the problem; we need a better plan.So that is why it is with great pleasure that we support the idea of a national languages strategy. What will it do? It will build on the current work that's happening—there's a curriculum refresh going on we have NCEA being developed and of course we've got policy development around Māori medium Pacific bilingualism and immersion. So what do we need to do? We need to take note of what is working. Those little pockets of miracles around the country—how do we scale that and sustain it? We need to look at the current resources that we heard about in the Education and Workforce Committee: the rich resources that come from our communities professional development opportunities the Virtual Learning Network Te Aho o Te Kura Pounamu Auckland University dropping in Asia New Zealand Foundation other Governments Kāhui Ako collaborations churches and community schools on weekends. The people and the knowledge and the commitment are there; we just need to make sure it's coherent and cohesive so we can leverage off that. The opportunities to hook into a language learning pathway—how does The New Zealand Curriculum really fit into this and how do we develop subjects through NCEA? The opportunity to engage and consult with our communities with iwi and with kids is a really really important part of this strategy. And of course finally workforce development—it's a long-term plan but one that is absolutely important. We need a coherent and strategic development in collaboration with the wider community of a strategy; support for effective and appropriate programmes in the short term; and staged investment and development over the medium and long term. We must include considerations around workforce and resource development and wider curriculum expectations. And we need to make sure that—unlike the proposition from across the House that there's a suggestion we are trying to kill this—what we are going to do is feed it and make sure that our languages grow and thrive. I commend the idea that this bill is going to be turned down to the House."