Delahunty CatherineCATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Yes just on that point—because I think it is really critical—maybe some of these people are raising issues around whether it is saying You may not leave." versus "You cannot leave." to the child. I am actually strongly of the view that some of our students—especially those with learning support needs—take things very literally but I actually could accept the way Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 250 is written myself. I think that it is OK but I am also aware that other people do not accept that and so I am interested in whether there is any room to kind of look at "cannot" versus "may not" because we do not want our kids to think they cannot physically leave a room. That is the whole point of getting rid of seclusion.I guess what the teachers are saying to us is "Sometimes we want the authority to say 'You may not leave this room.'" but I hear the Minister on the issue of this having been talked through in terms of the legal implications and I just hope that it does not end up being a legal battle over the words "may not" which are not in the clause and "cannot" which is there at the moment. But I am taking a child's rights approach.Just on the issue of seclusion I have Supplementary Order Paper 308 which just goes a little bit further because I am very passionate about this. It is rightly removing the issue of seclusion and the opportunity to use seclusion which is different from time out. We found out that a larger number of schools than we realised were doing it. I have a Supplementary Order Paper that talks about providing some alternatives in the law.I know there are guidelines and there has been discussion but families came to the Education and Science Committee and said that "If you take away seclusion which we really want you to do please give us something in the law so that we can go back when things go wrong or we can encourage schools." So my alternative is that we should have nationally funded and compulsory professional development that equips schools and boards of trustees with the ability to identify and implement alternatives to the seclusion of a student or child as defined in the legislation and supports schools and boards of trustees to understand fully inclusive practice as a human rights issue for every child.We know that there is huge diversity in schools' understanding of inclusion at the moment. We know that there is great professional development but it is opt-in so it is not compulsory. We know that initial teacher education—our young teachers have had less than 3 hours in a 3-year degree on what inclusion is. We are taking away something that is very wrong and that we really need to get rid of—and I am all for it—but we really need to make sure that the schools know what to do next legally. I know the guidelines will help but I really think that unless we actually commit to how—we must really seriously connect to this professional development process and that is about boards of trustees as well schools. It is about understanding fully. If you understand the fully inclusive practice of inclusion then you have an alternative to seclusion.Right now I think we are taking away something that should never have happened but I am not sure that schools—and I have seen some of this in the media—are very clear about what to do. So sending them a guideline will work only as well as their understanding of that guideline. If there is no compulsory professional development to understand what inclusion is from a human rights perspective because that school has not sent its teachers to the 'tips for autism' course or has not had that professional development and has not seen it as a priority—it is for those schools that I have put up this SOP so that we actually cover off everything. I am all for this. Let us get rid of this abhorrent approach but let us make sure that there is an alternative strategy so that schools do not feel that they have got nowhere to go.So I will be interested in whether we need to do anything about the "may not"/"cannot" stuff. I am also interested in the views of people and the Minister in the chair Hekia Parata on my SOP because alternative support is absolutely critical. Thank you."