Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): Well it's going to be very difficult to live up to the high standard of that contribution by Mark Patterson—that performance which clearly didn't involve the reading of the bill or seemingly any attention paid at the Education and Workforce Committee which examined this bill.Before I go on to speak about what has adequately been described as a petty bill I do want to acknowledge Jan Tinetti whose name this bill is in. I want to acknowledge the role she played as a principal at Merivale School in Tauranga because in that role of course she was doing important things for New Zealand's children and for the education system. In fact it is for that reason that I am particularly disappointed by this bill because it would be my hope that someone with that education experience and that front-line opportunity would be aware of some of the very significant challenges we do in fact have in our schools. They would be aware of the one in 10 children still leaving school with no qualifications at all the one in four Māori school-leavers who leave without NCEA level 2 the people who have come to me to say that their access to resources for children with high health needs is inadequate or the people talking about the inadequate support for those with additional learning needs. But no this bill doesn't address that.Before I move on to talk about the substance of what is in this bill can I also just take a moment to acknowledge this the 125th anniversary of women's suffrage. It is humbling for me to be here as the 149th female member of the New Zealand Parliament. I have to say that until this morning when I was gifted this brooch and had the opportunity to shake the hands of Dame Jenny Shipley and Dame Ann Hercus I had not quite comprehended just how few women have had the opportunity I have tonight to speak in this House. That is a great opportunity and one that I take seriously. In fact I think every 10-minute contribution in this House should be taken seriously because when we are in this Parliament we are given the ability to talk about issues of great importance to the country.Unfortunately this bill is not one of those. When it was introduced Jan Tinetti was clear in her first reading speech about what its goal was. It was to 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." Well I'm sorry for Jan Tinetti but all of the clauses relating to those goals have been gutted from this bill. They are gone. The reason they are gone I am told is because in fact this bill is—it's a new term something I haven't learnt as a parliamentarian yet but which I have learnt today—what is called a ballot-stuffer or a stocking filler. It's a bill in fact designed to take the time of this House in debate that doesn't further the objectives of the education system or further the interests of New Zealanders. It's a bill simply designed to take the time of this House so that National Party members' bills which would progress those goals are not advanced through the Parliament. I think that is to the shame of members opposite that they would fill this House's time with a bill like that.So what does—Hon Kris Faafoi: Oh you've forgotten your ones.NICOLA WILLIS: —the bill actually do? It's been clear in the debate tonight Mr Faafoi that the members on your side not only haven't read the bill as it's been presented to the House but weren't listening at select committee when Jan Tinetti said in a letter "I want to remove all of the provisions that suggest a rewrite of the NELP." She wrote us a letter and she said "Actually that whole suggestion I had about rewriting the words I have decided is actually a really bad idea because we had said as a Government that we were going to consult in good faith about what those provisions should be." So she said "Let's get rid of all of that." She also said "Let's get rid of the bit where I said that in fact the National Education and Learning Priorities statement should be a disallowable instrument. No I'm not going to do that any more."In fact all that remains in this bill after the extensive time at select committee after the first reading debate is a list of organisations that must be consulted when a future National Education and Learning Priorities (NELP) statement is developed. As members on this side have pointed out that might be interesting if there were currently no consultation requirements but the Act currently has the same consultation requirements as the Minister of Education is required to take for the tertiary education strategy—something that members opposite don't seem to have taken any issue with. In fact it allows the Minister incredibly broad scope to consult with who he or she believes is fit and should be consulted with. So it's almost a statement of a lack of confidence in Minister Hipkins—that one of his own members tries to progress a bill that makes it very clear explicitly who he must consult with as if they would not be consulted otherwise.Let's actually examine who the bodies are that are to be consulted. In addition to children and young people we have a whole list of "bodies representing the interests of"—and we've got everyone. We've got teachers we've got principals we've got governing bodies of schools we've got early childhood services we've got parents we've got the disability community we've got support staff and we've got Māori education organisations Pacific education organisations State integrated schools and designated character schools. But what is not in that list is the need to consult with actual parents—the parents who actually volunteer on the school boards who are actually members of the parent teacher associations and who are the people who send their children to school each day. I'll tell you what I think they would say if they were consulted. What they would say is "It is not going to advance New Zealand's education system to lengthen the consultation list in the education bill." They would say "That is not what I want Parliament to focus its time on." They would say "I don't think Jan Tinetti that the thing that is most important is that the Minister has a prescriptive list of who he consults with." What parents would say is "Get on with improving the fact that our education system still fails to deliver for far too many children." The debates we have had in this House that most fulsomely deal with that issue are debates where the members opposite are revoking the very innovation we have had in the education system—revoking the partnership schools that have been helpful.So we turn to this bill and we ask ourselves what the effect will be. What Mark Patterson said—and I cannot wait until it is election campaign 2020 and I can remind voters that what New Zealand First believes is that the way to help bring New Zealand up the achievement tables internationally the way to improve the well-being of New Zealand children is to have a list of organisations that need to be consulted with when a NELP is promulgated. That is what Mark Patterson and the New Zealand First Party believe is needed to improve the quality of our education system. It would be farcical if it weren't true but it is true and that is what we have just heard 10 minutes of debate about—the wonderful impact on well-being and achievement we will get from a prescriptive consultation list. That is I think incredibly disappointing because right here and now the world is experiencing a digital revolution. We have a changing world of work. We have children with more behavioural and learning needs than ever before and what members opposite think the House should spend its time on is an education bill designed to change the consultation requirements.I want to take a brief moment to examine what was to be in this bill but which we decided at select committee should be removed or rather what the Minister I think decided should be removed and which the member then agreed should be removed. The proposed changes I think give us an indication of what this bill was trying to achieve but will no longer be able to achieve. There was a particular word that Jan Tinetti wanted removed and that word was "excellence".The sentence she didn't like was the sentence in section 1A(3) that read "(a) to focus on helping each child and young person to attain educational excellence to the best of his or her potential;". She said that that sentence with that horrible word "excellence" should be removed and replaced with a sentence that says "(a) to provide learning experiences that support children … to reach potential and a system that aims to achieve equitable outcomes for all;".So I would suggest that when these groups are consulted as this bill suggests what they will be being consulted on is whether in our education system in the future we should get rid of excellence and focus on equitable. I think that this would have been a more constructive debate in the House if Jan Tinetti had told us what she really thinks and the only way we're really going to find out what members opposite really think is when their 14 reviews that they have under way in education report back. So it is a small mercy that this bill doesn't force upon the Education Act 1989 a complete change in the purpose of education yet but it is farcical for members opposite to pretend that this will do anything at all to lift educational achievement to change the life of a single child or to improve the achievement of a single school or that it aligns in any way with the issues that matter to everyday parents and New Zealanders who use our schools and use our education system. It is not a bill befitting of the time of this House and I am disappointed to have had to address it."