Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker for this opportunity to take this call in the second reading of the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill. This bill as we know is in the name of Jan Tinetti. This bill has been through the select committee process. The Education and Workforce Committee received around 20 submissions on this bill. The purpose of this bill when it came before the select committee was to enable statements about the diversity of education provision to be included in the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities. It also stated that this will help align the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities more closely with the New Zealand Curriculum and provide an aspirational vision for the future of young New Zealanders. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Education Act 1989.The details of this bill changed substantially between the time it came to the select committee and now when we are debating the second reading of this bill. This is not because of what submitters said. Yes submitters definitely said that this was getting ahead of what is happening in the background in the education sector. So many reviews are happening and some submitters definitely said that this bill should be delayed. But it was not because of what the submitters said; it was because the member in charge of this bill decided to withdraw several subclauses in clause 4. To start with this was a typical member's bill a very small bill with the whole substance being in just one clause—that is clause 4—but now what we have is that clause 4 has also shrunk. There were seven subclauses in clause 4 and the member in charge has decided to withdraw four subclauses out of clause 4 in her member's bill. When we started with this bill—at that point we felt this was just a ballot-filler bill because there was not anything that we thought was significant in this bill. Now it's become even smaller. I also want to highlight that the Education and Workforce Committee that I chair is a very busy select committee. We are sitting on Wednesdays from 9 or quarter past 9 until half past 12 or 1—sometimes even after 1. We have been meeting in recess weeks. Some days we have been meeting after question time from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. so it's a very busy select committee. I feel that this bill was not fair for the time that the select committee spent on this bill. I'm saying this because after we closed submissions and after we heard from all submitters the member wrote a letter to the select committee asking to withdraw these four subclauses from clause 4. So that wasted the time of all the submitters. That wasted the time of the select committee because we had to take into consideration all the submissions that we received on all subclauses of clause 4.Now going forward—as I said to start with we felt that this was a ballot-filler bill with due respect to Jan Tinetti—I think that this is just going to waste our House's time going through the second reading going through the committee of the whole House and then going through the third reading. I believe that the member should have actually withdrawn the whole bill. When the Associate Minister of Education the Hon Jenny Salesa was speaking she said that this is an important bill but I can't see what reason she gave in her contribution to emphasise the importance of this bill. She also disputed the timing that we are saying is not right for this bill and that is exactly the reason that was actually given by the member when she wrote to the select committee to withdraw some of the subclauses. She said yes because there are so many reviews happening—so that's why she wants to withdraw those subclauses—which the Hon Jenny Salesa actually disputed and I don't understand why she disputed that.She also spoke about summits in Auckland and Christchurch and she said Yeah we are getting really good feedback from young people and Pacific communities and other communities." when they're talking to young people and families and schools. But this bill is not informed by those summits that happened in Auckland and Christchurch because we know that this bill was in the ballot before these summits. This bill was drawn before these summits and the select committee has been dealing with this bill for a while now. I also want to highlight that other things that are withdrawn from the bill are withdrawn because the member thinks that the timing is not right. So I'm thinking now what is left in this bill—why this component of this bill cannot wait until the whole review process and the process that the member is waiting for and getting that signal from the Minister can wait. So I think that the whole bill could have waited. The member should have withdrawn the whole bill to save the time of the House.Just to go into a bit more detail the subclauses that are withdrawn are in clause 4—these are subclauses (2) (3) (4) and (7). So that means we are left in clause 4 with subclauses (1) (5) and (6). Subclause (5) adds a new subsection new section 1A(4A) into the principal Act. This is to set out the stakeholders the Minister must make a reasonable effort to consult with. Consultation is already there for the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities. So the whole clause is redundant because consultation is already there—the consultation requirement is already there in the Act. I do not understand what the member wants to achieve by keeping that in there. Yes she wants to create a list—she wants to add stakeholders that the Minister must consult. I believe that that is getting a bit too prescriptive because when we get so prescriptive we have to make sure that we are covering all areas. But education in my view is a sector that is evolving really fast. Actually it should evolve fast because of the technological advancement. With technological advancement in my view the education sector should be an early adopter of technology. With that of course the stakeholders will change too. So does this mean that we will have to keep adding to the list of stakeholders which are going to be in this legislation? That is going to create more work for the future and I believe that it should not be that prescriptive. Yes on one side we are saying that the Minister should make a reasonable effort; on the other side we want to actually prescribe the list. I do not understand what the intention is behind prescribing this list.As I said this bill has already taken reasonable time of the select committee. I believe that the member should reconsider proceeding with the bill and actually should really consider withdrawing the whole bill and saving the time of this House.Another clause in this bill—just to highlight what's left in this bill—is about the commencement date. This is really interesting because when the bill came to us in the select committee clause 2 said that the commencement date is "3 months after the date on which it receives the Royal Assent." Now after it has come back from the select committee for this second reading the recommendation from the select committee—that is by the majority because Government members hold the majority on the select committee—Hon Member: Yeah!Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: So the recommendation is—yeah a very interesting recommendation. This shows the level of intelligence. So this was to come into force three months after the Royal assent is received. The recommendation by majority is that it should come into effect as soon as the law is passed through this bill. I'm just trying to understand what we are trying to pass through this bill because there is nothing left in this bill after the member in charge has decided to withdraw most of the subclauses which were going to make significant changes in section 1A of the Education Act.Kieran McAnulty: Great bill.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Clearly it shows—yeah I can see that they are quite embarrassed and they're trying to cover up their embarrassment through their laughter. That's OK. I understand—yeah you're really embarrassed. To add to their embarrassment I want to say that they should look at the Order Paper because this is just a time-filler bill blocking some sensible bills coming up for debate in the House because those bills are from National members and you can see how substantial those bills are. They are meaningful bills—bills that actually people care about—and those are the kinds of bills we want to spend time debating in the House. So yes I can see that members are really embarrassed but with due respect as I said before to Jan Tinetti she should really consider—seriously consider—withdrawing the whole bill. For these reasons we oppose this bill. Thank you."