Summary of Position
I strongly oppose the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2), introduced by Erica Stanford. While the bill presents itself as an administrative and policy update, it is in fact a strategic repurposing of Aotearoa’s education system. It reshapes the Treaty relationship, restructures school governance priorities, imposes culture-war frameworks on universities, and expands ministerial and bureaucratic control under the guise of “freedom,” “performance,” and “attendance.”
This is not improvement. It is quiet ideological replacement — disguised as reform, delivered through technicality, and dangerously aligned with the broader legislative erosion agenda.
1. Treaty Undermined — Partnership Recast as Performance
Section 9(1)(b) is repealed. Treaty obligations are moved into board objectives under section 127(2)(e).
- The change reframes Te Tiriti as a school goal, not a constitutional foundation.
- Treaty duties are now conditional: only to the extent that they “support achievement.”
- This subordinates Indigenous rights to state-defined educational success.
A true Treaty relationship is not a supporting objective. It is a legal and moral starting point.
2. School Boards Rewritten: From Community Stewards to Performance Managers
Section 127 is replaced with a new “paramount objective”: achieving “the highest possible standard of educational achievement” for each student.
- This singular goal overrides community, wellbeing, and cultural objectives.
- Boards are now required to prioritise assessment performance — not nurture or equity.
- Obligations to eliminate racism and protect rights are subordinated, not standalone.
This is not a neutral change — it retools governance to serve measurable outputs, not people.
3. Attendance Management: From Support to Surveillance
New sections 137A–137D force every school to develop and publish a Ministry-guided attendance management plan.
- Plans must follow centrally issued regulations and thresholds.
- Risk of standardised, punitive responses to complex absences — disproportionately impacting Māori, Pasifika, disabled, and low-income students.
- Little room for culturally responsive or trauma-informed approaches.
This is state-enforced conformity, not care-based re-engagement.
4. Academic Freedom Hijacked by "Free Speech" Politics
New requirements for university councils to:
- Adopt freedom of expression policies,
- Provide platforms for “diverse viewpoints”, including controversial or offensive speakers,
- Avoid taking positions on social or political issues.
This is not about freedom — it is about depoliticising academia, silencing institutional conscience, and platforming harmful voices under the veil of neutrality.
Universities are not town halls. They are spaces of responsibility, not just opinion.
5. Expanded Ministerial and Bureaucratic Control
The bill:
- Grants the Minister power to set fees and criteria affecting principals and international students.
- Authorises the use of national student numbers for researcher profiling — with retroactive validation.
- Gives the Ministry influence over Teaching Council standards and practice reviews.
These shifts:
- Centralise power in the hands of the Minister and Ministry,
- Reduce the independence of teachers, researchers, and educational institutions,
- Enable data-driven compliance and control, not dialogue or reflection.
6. Retrospective Legalisation and Overreach
Section 129 retroactively legalises the use of student numbers for researchers — regardless of consent, context, or previous legality.
This is:
- A breach of privacy principles,
- A form of executive self-forgiveness through legislation,
- A clear example of governance without accountability.
7. Additional Concerns
- Teaching Council powers are revised in ways that could politicise discipline and weaken consultation.
- Freedom of expression complaints must be tracked and reported, opening the door to performance policing of speech.
- Strike notice amendments (mentioned vaguely) may hint at future anti-union restrictions.
Conclusion and Recommendations
I urge the Committee to reject this bill in full or substantially revise it. Specifically:
- Restore section 9(1)(b) and retain Te Tiriti as a legal foundation, not a board objective.
- Reinstate holistic board governance goals that prioritise wellbeing and cultural safety.
- Withdraw or overhaul attendance plan mandates, ensuring any interventions are restorative, not punitive.
- Reject the ideological recasting of university speech rights as platform mandates.
- Reaffirm institutional independence, including of the Teaching Council and universities.
- Withdraw retrospective legalisation clauses, especially those related to data and researcher profiling.
This bill reflects a deeper trend of bureaucratic control, cultural suppression, and ideological alignment with global anti-rights agendas. It is a threat to true education, and a silent dismantling of trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Ukes Baha
Public Health Advocate | Counsellor | Policy Analyst
ukesbaha.com