Rurawhe AdrianADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe Te Māngai o Te Whare otirā tēnā tātau katoa e huitahi nei i tēnei pō.[My appreciation to you Mr Deputy Speaker and at the same time my acknowledgments to all of us assembled here together this evening.]I stand in opposition to this bill. I asked myself whether this bill transforms education in New Zealand and I say no it does not. I support the contributions from colleagues on this side of the House on that. I too want comment on the comment that was made by one of the members opposite Todd Muller about children being fit for purpose. Well it is not the child who needs to be fit for purpose; it is this bill that ought to be fit for purpose and I can tell you it is not. It is in fact a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity to have had the voice of rangatahi of tamariki heard on this bill. They are supposedly front and centre on this bill and yet their voice is virtually lost.I am thankful that a year 9 student made this submission. I am a year 9 student. I am diagnosed as being on the Autism spectrum as well as having tested as academically gifted and am working above my year level. I am fluent in te reo Māori and English. However I have not experienced success in school …". That is the voice that we need to be listening to but was his voice heard in what we have in front of us on this table? No it was not heard. That is the voice along with others that I am sure the Children's Commissioner was speaking about. He was right to put up a stop sign to say "Stop. You've got this process wrong." and I stand in support of what he said as well as what this young man who took the time to make a submission said knowing full well that this bill is not for him.I also want to mention another group of rangatahi who are part of a group called Te Mata Rangatira which means "the face of leadership". They came to the Education and Science Committee and they not only presented to the select committee they also sang for us actually. Their voice fortunately was heard by the select committee but again really the select committee has not taken notice by voting in majority for the things that they wanted changed in the bill. They talked mainly about communities of online learning. They were terribly disappointed by what they thought were the goals of that policy. They had real concerns about how it would impact on Māori and Pasifika students in particular. This was a group of Māori rangatahi who took the time to come to the select committee and have their voices heard. I commend them for taking that time. I am disappointed that their voices are not going to be heard. I also want to refer to another submission—and before I do I want to thank all of those who made submissions. This particular submission is from Dr Mere Skerrett and Associate Professor Jenny Ritchie. They were disappointed and again it is a lost opportunity or a missed opportunity because they pointed out and wanted a change to Part 1AA clause 1A(3)(c). They felt that—well I will read exactly what they said. They said that that particular part falls short "of the recognition needed … We recommend an additional point in section 3 to promote the learning and through Te Reo for each child and young person." That was a missed opportunity. That does not actually say that Te Reo Māori should be compulsory in schools but it is certainly a level above the statement that is actually made in this bill. Those kinds of statements become quite meaningless.I will read that statement out to the House. In the submission it says: "Te Reo Māori within the objectives should be strengthened." Instead it has got in the bill: "to instil in each child and young person an appreciation of the importance of … the Treaty of Waitangi and te reo Māori."—an appreciation of the importance of the Treaty and Te Reo. That is not a high enough level to give the importance that Te Reo Māori deserves. This House and this Parliament passed the Māori Language Bill. Is this statement consistent with that Act which the House has already passed? No it is not. It definitely is not. That is one where—without saying that Te Reo Māori will be compulsory in schools—if the wording of that clause was changed slightly it would elevate the importance of both the Treaty and Te Reo Māori. What is wrong with that? I do not understand why the Education and Science Committee would not agree to that. I do not understand why this House would not agree to that. I believe that we should support what Dr Mere Skerrett and Associate Professor Jenny Ritchie have said.I endorse the words around the communities of learning. From my perspective and particularly for all of those kura kaupapa—kura Māori—who operate under a kaupapa Māori base a community of learning should also be kaupapa Māori - based and yet under this legislation it will not necessarily be the case. I think it is a far better thing that we have a cooperative model a model that is not forced upon schools—to interact with other schools rather than developing their own relationships. I think that would be a better model.Regarding the communities of online learning again I want to thank the submitters who provided a lot of information—valuable information—that in the end was not taken up by the select committee and in particular the evidence provided by Dr Michael Barbour who provided a 16-page submission that went into some depth around what the issues were with communities of online learning. I worry about our tamariki who are not achieving in schools now let alone in some instances—because I am not convinced that students are not going to be forced into enrolling in online schools. That is not a good model for our tamariki and it is not a good model for the future of education in New Zealand. I think again this has been a missed opportunity.I think back to when the last major change in education was made through the policy known as Tomorrow's Schools. It has endured to now. Does this transform education in the way that that policy did? No it does not. Thank you."