Having listened to Erica Stanford's interview with Mike Hosking and written to her asking how she justifies further Maorification of the school curriculum, I wonder if the Minister would include me as one of those she describes as, "They are whipped up with hatred and lies .. they are yelling at the sky .. frothing at the mouth with hatred .. it’s utter rubbish.”
Having received my education in the days before weird political agendas became embroiled in the education process, I write politely and do not indulge in mindless insults towards those with whom I disagree.
But whether or not I am regarded by the Minister as indulging in "hatred and lies" etc., it seems to me that her hysterical response to questioning of her party's policy is hardly going to enable sensible discussion of this issue. After all, she is representing the party which, during the 2020 election campaign, promised to put a stop to such underhand policies as dreamed up by the previous government.
Or perhaps, having realised that she is having to defend the indefensible, the Minister sees hysterical outbursts as her best means of avoiding the relevant questions.
I agree with you Peter. Stanford was vitriolic and id go so far to say hateful. I couldnt listen to all the interview as it made me feel angry and depressed for NZ. The fact is its not just Hobsons Choice raising this but they were singled out by Mike and Erica. She really sounded awful- i now have no respect for her. It is actually Professor Elizabeth Rata who first raised this- one of her own recent advisors i believe. The Professor has said on the Platform that this section was put in last minute, not as the Minister claimed, so who is correct and who is not telling the truth?
I have heard the Minister in discussion with Mike Hosking. I do support Hobsons Choice and am not impressed with the Minister very negative chracterisation of the organisations supporters.
I have read the previous act, The 2020 version from the Labour Government which stepped the situation up and I have read the amendment. The Minister surely cannot believe that readers will not note the substantial increase in duty across all policies , plans and learning materials loaded onto school boards, every school board, by the introduction of the word "must".
The shift to the treaty/Maori content being of "paramount" importance raises the bar again in the amendment Bill.
The Minister told us via Mike Hosking of the good work being done in Maths and literacy. Great.
That is more than negated by the amendment provisions seeking to impose, as a duty on all boards without option, tikanga, maturanga Maori and Te Ao Maori across all aspects of the learning process. That is a breach of electoral mandate. The Bill is not fit for second reading in its present state.
Agree with all these comments. Moreover, the bit that stumps me is why any self-respecting education leader would tolerate ANY inclusion of ‘Matauranga Maori, te Ao Maori and/or tikanga’ at all. They are in fact antithetical to the traditional education system which has served western society so well. The much vaunted ‘Maori worldview’ does not provide a functional basis for a modern, scientific society. Much like the caveman worldview we left behind a few thousand years ago.
I'm happy for them to teach the Maori worldview as an option... not core curriculum. But will they teach a Christian, Creationist worldview too? Why not?
Indeed! They can teach Creationism (& a 6,000 year old universe) or Matauranga Whatsit as study topics for interest if they want, but the proposed Bill requires te Ao Maori to underpin all education. That’s like asking a Flat Earther to teach the Coriolos Effect. A Te Ao Maori worldview is NOT compatible with logic or science. You cannot base an education system upon deeply flawed premises, it will just fail and worsen our kids’ outcomes.
Just to add…Stanford said she didnt put the section in there…so I think shes actually been caught out for not knowing what her own Ministry is doing. She certainly sounded very defensive and that was directed elsewhere at everyone but herself imo.
Stanford is telling the truth. The Treaty clause was in the original Education and Training (2020) Act. She has juggled the importance of the clauses to make "equity" more prominent. But the amendment bill was her chance to take out the Treaty clauses entirely.
That sounds about right Graham. Having heard the interview this morning I’d say that the Minister Stanford scored an own goal there. Where to from here though?
I think Elizabeth Rata has proposed a Supplementary Order Paper to remove all the Treaty references in the Bill. The select committee doesn't report back until September, I think, so I guess it depends how much noise critics make before then.
Ahh, makes sense. I hate to consider where we might be without Professor Rata, and others. That the Nats are allowing this divisive scheming at all is particularly galling.
Excellent Peter, right on the money. Which is ultimately what this is all about. Money. And power.
No sane person could think that basing an education system on ridiculous spiritual nonsense could ever be a good thing. The system would fail. So mostly, not much will change in Mrs Smith’s chemistry class. But subtle influences of bullshit te Ao Maori will come through at an ever increasing rate. And such will be leveraged to indoctrinate and promote Maori consolidation of power & influence. (And if I’m wrong, then Mataurangi Maori will be fully imposed on classes - just imagine how physics & bio will be taught then!). Just laughable & Stanford is a fool for facilitating this madness.
More people will homeschool their kids... driven by this (non-secular Maori worldview) and the ongoing RSE filth. What the teach in the name of Relationships and Sex Ed to very young children is just outrageous
I have been watching this nasty puss filled wound develop and am of the opinion that the Minister knows more about the lack of action in removing "the wonderfulness of maori" from our legislation than she is admitting to. I concur that she did not introduce the nastiness but her continued and clear avoidance of saying it would be removed suggests strongly , to me anyway, that Luxon is heavy handed in the control of not allowing his MP's the right of discussing or supporting the implementation of the removal of "the wonderfulness." Hence Stanford's continued fob off, "another minister will be looking at it" Clearly a, "Not my job and I don't want to discuss it " attitude.
Further, I suspect that Luxon and his acolytes will continue supporting the "wonderfulness" at the expence of ignoring a major election promise.. I view Luxon as untrustworthy in dealing with "the wonderfulness' as Key was.
I have, in an earlier post in this thread already made my view on the Amendment Bill clear.
HOWEVER, today I received my email copy of Act's newsletter, "free Post and for those who would not have, because they are not subscribed, I paste an extract here as it contains an "explanation" re why the Amendment Bill did not delete the offending words..
.
"..... Free Press has it on good authority that ACT argued to just remove it now. If a bill is being passed, just include the deletion in it. ACT settled for a deal of having this section explicitly included in the wider review. That is the reality of coalition Government.
We now expect that the Education Bill will pass this year, and a new bill reviewing all Treaty clauses will be introduced to Parliament early next year and passed before the election...'
.
I understand what is done, but neither understand why nor accept the explanation... especially as ."ACT settled for a deal " is mentioned. Parliamentary deals stink worse than festering wounds.
.
Accordingly my views on this "deal" are not flattering and if the wider review of the " new bill reviewing all Treaty clauses will be introduced to Parliament early next year and passed before the election..." does not remove the offending words before the election , Act shall loose my support and vote .
Great commentary thanks Peter. My opinion of Minister Erica Stanford has collapsed after a very promising start and I fear the harm she will do to the education.
Having listened to Erica Stanford's interview with Mike Hosking and written to her asking how she justifies further Maorification of the school curriculum, I wonder if the Minister would include me as one of those she describes as, "They are whipped up with hatred and lies .. they are yelling at the sky .. frothing at the mouth with hatred .. it’s utter rubbish.”
Having received my education in the days before weird political agendas became embroiled in the education process, I write politely and do not indulge in mindless insults towards those with whom I disagree.
But whether or not I am regarded by the Minister as indulging in "hatred and lies" etc., it seems to me that her hysterical response to questioning of her party's policy is hardly going to enable sensible discussion of this issue. After all, she is representing the party which, during the 2020 election campaign, promised to put a stop to such underhand policies as dreamed up by the previous government.
Or perhaps, having realised that she is having to defend the indefensible, the Minister sees hysterical outbursts as her best means of avoiding the relevant questions.
I agree with you Peter. Stanford was vitriolic and id go so far to say hateful. I couldnt listen to all the interview as it made me feel angry and depressed for NZ. The fact is its not just Hobsons Choice raising this but they were singled out by Mike and Erica. She really sounded awful- i now have no respect for her. It is actually Professor Elizabeth Rata who first raised this- one of her own recent advisors i believe. The Professor has said on the Platform that this section was put in last minute, not as the Minister claimed, so who is correct and who is not telling the truth?
She has sadly cast out Rata
That's what the do to give the impression of widespread support... only invite those who 'support' to the table...
I have heard the Minister in discussion with Mike Hosking. I do support Hobsons Choice and am not impressed with the Minister very negative chracterisation of the organisations supporters.
I have read the previous act, The 2020 version from the Labour Government which stepped the situation up and I have read the amendment. The Minister surely cannot believe that readers will not note the substantial increase in duty across all policies , plans and learning materials loaded onto school boards, every school board, by the introduction of the word "must".
The shift to the treaty/Maori content being of "paramount" importance raises the bar again in the amendment Bill.
The Minister told us via Mike Hosking of the good work being done in Maths and literacy. Great.
That is more than negated by the amendment provisions seeking to impose, as a duty on all boards without option, tikanga, maturanga Maori and Te Ao Maori across all aspects of the learning process. That is a breach of electoral mandate. The Bill is not fit for second reading in its present state.
Agree with all these comments. Moreover, the bit that stumps me is why any self-respecting education leader would tolerate ANY inclusion of ‘Matauranga Maori, te Ao Maori and/or tikanga’ at all. They are in fact antithetical to the traditional education system which has served western society so well. The much vaunted ‘Maori worldview’ does not provide a functional basis for a modern, scientific society. Much like the caveman worldview we left behind a few thousand years ago.
I'm happy for them to teach the Maori worldview as an option... not core curriculum. But will they teach a Christian, Creationist worldview too? Why not?
Indeed! They can teach Creationism (& a 6,000 year old universe) or Matauranga Whatsit as study topics for interest if they want, but the proposed Bill requires te Ao Maori to underpin all education. That’s like asking a Flat Earther to teach the Coriolos Effect. A Te Ao Maori worldview is NOT compatible with logic or science. You cannot base an education system upon deeply flawed premises, it will just fail and worsen our kids’ outcomes.
Just to add…Stanford said she didnt put the section in there…so I think shes actually been caught out for not knowing what her own Ministry is doing. She certainly sounded very defensive and that was directed elsewhere at everyone but herself imo.
Stanford is telling the truth. The Treaty clause was in the original Education and Training (2020) Act. She has juggled the importance of the clauses to make "equity" more prominent. But the amendment bill was her chance to take out the Treaty clauses entirely.
Equity is an impossible dream. Equal opportunity should always be a goal.
I think Ms Stanford may have some moments of regret about her handling of that interview. I hope so anyway.
The National Party need to reread their Coalition Agreement and start doing what they said they would regarding Treaty references etc.
That sounds about right Graham. Having heard the interview this morning I’d say that the Minister Stanford scored an own goal there. Where to from here though?
I think Elizabeth Rata has proposed a Supplementary Order Paper to remove all the Treaty references in the Bill. The select committee doesn't report back until September, I think, so I guess it depends how much noise critics make before then.
Ahh, makes sense. I hate to consider where we might be without Professor Rata, and others. That the Nats are allowing this divisive scheming at all is particularly galling.
Excellent Peter, right on the money. Which is ultimately what this is all about. Money. And power.
No sane person could think that basing an education system on ridiculous spiritual nonsense could ever be a good thing. The system would fail. So mostly, not much will change in Mrs Smith’s chemistry class. But subtle influences of bullshit te Ao Maori will come through at an ever increasing rate. And such will be leveraged to indoctrinate and promote Maori consolidation of power & influence. (And if I’m wrong, then Mataurangi Maori will be fully imposed on classes - just imagine how physics & bio will be taught then!). Just laughable & Stanford is a fool for facilitating this madness.
More people will homeschool their kids... driven by this (non-secular Maori worldview) and the ongoing RSE filth. What the teach in the name of Relationships and Sex Ed to very young children is just outrageous
I have been watching this nasty puss filled wound develop and am of the opinion that the Minister knows more about the lack of action in removing "the wonderfulness of maori" from our legislation than she is admitting to. I concur that she did not introduce the nastiness but her continued and clear avoidance of saying it would be removed suggests strongly , to me anyway, that Luxon is heavy handed in the control of not allowing his MP's the right of discussing or supporting the implementation of the removal of "the wonderfulness." Hence Stanford's continued fob off, "another minister will be looking at it" Clearly a, "Not my job and I don't want to discuss it " attitude.
Further, I suspect that Luxon and his acolytes will continue supporting the "wonderfulness" at the expence of ignoring a major election promise.. I view Luxon as untrustworthy in dealing with "the wonderfulness' as Key was.
I have, in an earlier post in this thread already made my view on the Amendment Bill clear.
HOWEVER, today I received my email copy of Act's newsletter, "free Post and for those who would not have, because they are not subscribed, I paste an extract here as it contains an "explanation" re why the Amendment Bill did not delete the offending words..
.
"..... Free Press has it on good authority that ACT argued to just remove it now. If a bill is being passed, just include the deletion in it. ACT settled for a deal of having this section explicitly included in the wider review. That is the reality of coalition Government.
We now expect that the Education Bill will pass this year, and a new bill reviewing all Treaty clauses will be introduced to Parliament early next year and passed before the election...'
.
I understand what is done, but neither understand why nor accept the explanation... especially as ."ACT settled for a deal " is mentioned. Parliamentary deals stink worse than festering wounds.
.
Accordingly my views on this "deal" are not flattering and if the wider review of the " new bill reviewing all Treaty clauses will be introduced to Parliament early next year and passed before the election..." does not remove the offending words before the election , Act shall loose my support and vote .
Great commentary thanks Peter. My opinion of Minister Erica Stanford has collapsed after a very promising start and I fear the harm she will do to the education.