The Education and Workforce Committee has examined the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill and recommends by majority that it be passed with the amendments shown.

This is a Member’s bill in the name of Jan Tinetti, MP. It seeks to amend the Education Act 1989 to enable statements about the diversity of education provision to be included in the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities. The amendments proposed in the bill aim to align the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities more closely with the New Zealand Curriculum.

This commentary covers the main amendments we recommend, by majority, to the bill as introduced. We do not discuss minor or technical amendments.

The bill as introduced proposes substantial changes to section 1A of the Act through clause 4(2), (3), and (4). However, the member in charge of the bill wrote to the committee on 19 June 2018 asking to remove these provisions from the bill. Jan Tinetti said she felt that, in light of feedback and plans the Government has signalled, any changes to the enduring objectives in section 1A ought to take into account findings from the Government’s Education Conversation Kōrero Mātauranga.

Jan Tinetti’s letter also requested the removal of clause 4(7), which would make the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities a disallowable instrument. We recommend, by majority, accepting both of Jan Tinetti’s proposals and removing the relevant subclauses.

Clause 4(5), new section 1A(4A), sets out the stakeholders the Minister must make reasonable efforts to consult. We recommend, by majority, a number of changes to the list to include young people and to replace references to “national representative organisations” with “national bodies representing the interests” of specified stakeholders.

We recommend, by majority, inserting subsection (4A)(g) to (l) so that consultation would include national bodies representing the disability community, support staff in schools and early childhood services, Māori education organisations, Pacific education organisations, proprietors of State integrated schools, and national bodies with a particular role regarding the character of designated character schools.

We recommend, by majority, inserting clause 4(1AAA) to make it clear in section 1A(1) that the notice published in the Gazette may either contain the statement in full or describe the statement in general terms and indicate where the full text can be obtained.

In clause 2, we recommend, by majority, changing the bill’s commencement date. As introduced, the bill would come into force 3 months after it receives the Royal Assent. However, we recommend, by majority, it come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal Assent.

The National Party members of the committee oppose this bill as we believe the bill proposes unnecessary minor changes to legislation and is poorly timed.

The National Education and Learning Priorities (NELP) were originally designed to ensure members of Parliament, officials, and others in the education sector share a common understanding of the objectives of education in New Zealand. This bill proposes several insignificant changes to the NELP. While some substantive changes were initially proposed, these changes were weakened throughout the select committee process to the point that they will no longer have any perceptible impact on education in New Zealand. Replacing “good” with “positive” and adding “to become lifelong learners” will have no effect, while removing “educational achievement” as a core objective will only diminish the value of the NELP. We therefore do not believe that progressing this bill in its current form is a worthwhile use of Parliament’s time.

The bill is also poorly timed, as the Government is currently carrying out the Education Conversation and a range of other reviews in the education sector. As the PPTA stated in their submission, the results of these reviews will impact the NELP. Therefore, while we are not opposed to changing the NELP, we believe the bill should be delayed until the conclusion of the Education Conversation.