Search

Sexuality education is a compulsory part of The New Zealand Curriculum for state-funded schools. In 2015, the Ministry of Education has published an updated revision of their official guidelines for schools on the teaching of sexuality education. This paper employs Foucauldian discourse analysis to argue that this policy document, Sexuality Education: A Guide for Principals, Boards of Trustees, and Teachers, reflects and reproduces particular ways of knowing which constrain possibilities for socially just sexuality education. These discourses include the adoption of an intellectual approach to teaching sexuality, the mandate to measure learning objectives, and a narrow emphasis on positive sexuality. Intentions for the curriculum to deliver a holistic, socio-ecological vision of sexual health as well as one which embeds Māori values are undermined by dominant understandings of individual action which shape approaches to both sexuality and pedagogy. Furthermore, the liberal recognition of cultural, ethnic, sexual and gender diversity in the curriculum unintentionally reinscribes an unmarked white, secular, heterosexuality as the norm. This paper reflexively critiques the discursive tensions that inhibit the realisation of sexuality education in schools which meets the needs of diverse students and offers it as a possible site for social justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reviews the development of health impact assessment (HIA) in New Zealand to reveal factors which inhibited its effective institutionalisation until recently. It considers how differing views of HIA have affected the institutionalisation process, and assesses the longer-term prospects for HIA in policy- and project-level assessments. There is lack of a clear statutory mandate for considering health impacts under the Resource Management Act, although HIA and closely related health risk assessments have been carried out under other legislation, including the Biosecurity Act. Consequently, different understandings of the nature and purpose of HIA have developed, associated with different practitioner communities, often operating in isolation from other practitioners and the wider impact assessment community. The renewed effort to mobilise HIA has emphasised policy-level application in central government; the Ministry for Health now has an HIA Unit, and statutory recognition of the process is promised in the new Public Health Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]