Lee Denise; Rurawhe AdrianDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I wish to rise to take a call to highlight two purposes of the bill today. They're not highlights but here I go anyway: one is the removal of provisions relating to national standards so that national standards cannot be reinstated in the future and the other is the repeal of the charter school provisions.On the removal of national standards the bill states that it paves the way for work with experts and stakeholders to develop a new system." Well nothing in the legislation actually starts this process or even creates a framework for that process. The Secretary for Education—and those who are on the select committee with me across the way will know she said this—confirmed it this week: they have not designed a system. Once again this is an ideologically driven reversal of a past National Government policy with nothing to replace it. Every time I debate in this House it seems to be the common theme from the new Government: scrap it and leave it blank. They've scrapped the $50 million East-West Link process—where's the big idea to solve congestion? They've scrapped pay equity legislation—no easy process to negotiate now for women. Where's the big idea there? They've scrapped targets to keep the Public Service accountable—nothing to replace that either. In this House we get technical we get legal and we get detailed but today we're getting personal. My daughters were in primary school when national standards came in. I went on the school board that year. My reports from my daughters were arbitrary and they were casual and then with national standards they went to uniform consistent and comparative. As parents we know that we wanted—and we still do today—both overall teacher judgment but also cohesive nationwide content direction. That's what parents want.And what of deleting the charter school model? The State school system works but it is inevitable that some kids will slip through. They're struggling. What of them? Who will catch them nurture them? Who will give a damn and show them a different way of being successful and achieving? So what's the real reason that Labour are closing them? Have Labour not seen the results from these schools? Pass rates turn-around school attendance new-found respect—the list goes on but listen to actual parents and I quote: "My son was changed from academically directionless to successful."; "an absolute lifesaver for my daughter. She thought she wasn't smart and that she wouldn't have a future and that she wasn't good enough. It was a miracle."The bill also provides "transitional" arrangements to allow time for negotiations about the future of these schools that are already operating. Well you only have to do a small amount of research really skim the surface to see that this is more of a stick than a carrot approach. The Minister of Education released a press release when he introduced the bill that said "My preferred option is to explore early termination of contracts by mutual agreement." There's no ambiguity in that statement. It is clear what the Minister's intentions are and we shouldn't fall for the charade that the Government will give these schools the same ones that are helping give so much value to students failed by the State any alternative option other than shutting down. It all ends the same way. The press release also said "I am reserving my right to issue a notice of 'termination for convenience' ". What interesting and appalling language to use. Convenient for who—students or the Minister?When it comes to charter schools it's really quite simple: if it ain't broke don't fix it. These schools work; they just don't work for the unions. Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): A five-minute call—I call Marja Lubeck."