Cosgrove Clayton: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:652] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I am indebted to Mr Robertson as always. Mr Robertson is always on point. 
I suppose in looking at the title of this bill I am mindful of the fact that Gerry Brownlee was a teacher at the school I went to—and thankfully he never taught me. But I wonder why Mr Brownlee being a teacher of long standing has not taken a call on this bill. I inquired of Mr Power as to why that was the case—and I express sympathy for Mr Brownlee—and Mr Power informed me that Mr Brownlee has an ailment. He has sore knees to quote Mr Power. I assume that is because he has been down on them for most of the last 48 hours begging for forgiveness from the Deputy Prime Minister Mr English for the shambolic way this House has been managed. 
Never I am told by learned members of long standing behind me has a Leader of the House lost the confidence of the Opposition so quickly—within 4½ to 5 days. I invite Mr Brownlee—and Dr Cullen could inform me whether there is a precedent we could set—to take a call from the sitting position so that he does not have to exercise his cartilage too badly and so that he can make what would be a valuable contribution as a former woodwork teacher from St Bede’s who I am told used to make a very good cutting board. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: He is now the cross they bear. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes; I am sure he has the angles right on it. 
I think the title of this bill could be as some teachers in my patch have said the “School Cert for Under-sixes Bill”. The sad thing about this bill is that the National Party is in total denial. I will not re-rehearse what Mr Carter and Mr Mallard have said but we know that under National Administration Guidelines 1 and 2 there is assessment. There are standards; they have been in place for a very long time. 
This bill seems to suggest that teachers are silly and they are not. It suggests apparently that they do not assess when they do. It suggests that parents are silly and they are not. But the National Party seems to think they are. National says that parents do not engage with teachers and that teachers will not engage with parents and report to them even though that is specified in the National Administration Guidelines. 
National says there is no engagement between parents and teachers in terms of the progress and reporting of their children’s performance. That is the National Party’s thinking and it is Mrs Tolley’s thinking as she has been dragged out of the lock-up—and maybe Mr Brownlee is in charge of that. Maybe he is in charge of keeping Mrs Tolley away from the Chamber as much as possible so as not to cause that crew over there embarrassment. I wonder whether Mrs Tolley and Ms Wilkinson have conversed by carrier pigeon semaphore text message or verbally—I do not know—to clarify a position on the 90-day bill. [ 
Interruption 
] Dr Cullen makes a good point. 
Mrs Tolley has been in the Chamber and during my time in the Chamber both last night and this morning I do not think she has answered a question. The sad thing is that the provisions for assessment and standards as we know have been in place for a long time. Teachers do report to parents and parents do engage with schools on the progress of their children. But now we will have a Trojan Horse. I cannot recall which colleague used the term “Trojan Horse” but this is indeed a Trojan Horse I think so that monetary contributions to schools will follow performance. 
I think a term that the National Party used during the election campaign was that funding would follow performance. If that is combined with the dropping of zoning some schools will be ghettoised as certain schools were in the 1990s and— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Gerry would be on starvation rations. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No that would be impossible. 
If zoning is dropped and if funding then follows performance the next logical step is to go back to the bulk funding regime National put in place when it was in Government in the 1990s. I think that that is actually the hidden agenda so maybe we should call this the “Hidden Agenda Education Bill” or “Anne Tolley’s Last Stand Education Bill”. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: We don’t want them to change her. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh no—we do not want to change her although I think that Mr Peachey would have been a better education Minister out of the two of them. But there are more salacious opportunities with Mrs Tolley holding the ministerial portfolio. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: We look forward to question time. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Indeed we look forward to question time because we will be able to ask questions about the definition of a vice-chancellor or about whether Mrs Tolley knows what her name and title are. We will be able to ask some of those very basic questions such as: “What did she say to teachers?” and “Is Ms Wilkinson right or is she right?” or whatever. We can sort of tease these things out. It is a bit like Chinese water torture you know—we will just tease them out and rotisserie Mrs Tolley slowly. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: There’s less to rotisserie now of course. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Indeed. 
Hon Member 
: But we don’t want John Key to replace her—leave her alone. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Indeed—do not replace her.