Delahunty CatherineCATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I would just like to say that I really appreciate the process where we are having a direct dialogue and talking about these things together because we do not get much opportunity.Just briefly on cohort entry I was originally quite open to this idea as well not for administrative efficiency but because of the social aspects of children joining a group when they start school and staying with that group and building up friendships etc. But I just want to say that I am supporting Tracey Martin's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) because of the submissions. We did not hear at the Education and Science Committee from early childhood teachers or teachers in the year 1 and 2 classes of schools that this was a good idea. I was quite surprised. I thought maybe the schools would be in favour of it and that it was something that had currency but we did not hear that. We actually had no one say to us that it is a great idea that I can remember. All we heard from early childhood teachers and infant teachers—I am sure they are not called that any more—was that it was not such a good idea and that they did not think it was justified in educational terms. That did actually shift my thinking so I am pleased to support the SOP.The other aspect of it I guess that has perhaps not been covered is that I think the educational leaders of the country need to see the bottom line because parents are under enormous pressure all the time to go to work. They need to survive. So any pressure that increases the idea that your children should be in school earlier than at 5 years I do not think we should reinforce. I think that we should reinforce the idea that 5 years is the bare minimum for when kids are ready to go into the formal education system because there is a big difference between Te Whāriki and being in year 1 at school. As a grandmother I have just sort of lived through those changes with my mokopuna and I can see there is a big difference between how you are at 4 years and 10 months and how you are after 5 years and when you are ready. I just do not want us reinforcing that. So although I was initially open to it I have come around to the view after hearing the submitters that it is not the right thing to do in this legislation.On a couple of other points that the Minister of Education raised—and I really appreciate hearing from her about this—I think however we are missing the point around conventions not being in the Act. My SOP on the conventions issue and my SOP on adult and community education are there because I know that it is obvious to those who are familiar with the sector that this is implied but the point about law is that it is not about implication; it is about the ability for people to use a law when things are not going so well for them. So if it is not spelt out they cannot use the legislation. The reason that the disability sector and parents—particularly Education for All and all the groups that are advocating for children for whom the system is not working—wanted this in there is that they want the test. They really want to be able to go to the Education Act and say to a school that has actually excluded their child for reasons that become very very fraught—and I am dealing with a number of those cases and I know that the ministry is and I know how tough it is for everybody—that section 8 actually is not enough because there are behavioural dimensions in section 8 of the existing Act which means that children can be excluded on behavioural grounds when they have major learning support needs. I have lived these issues and our inquiry lived these issues. We need a test that is stronger than that in the law so that the law can be used.It is the same with adult and community education. I do not doubt for a minute that the Minister and others have a deep understanding of intergenerational lifelong learning. That is not the problem. The problem is that the sector asked us to put it into the law as a national objective so that when it comes to their negotiations around funding their negotiations around their status and for the opportunity to develop adult and community education they could say it is in the law that it is a priority. So what we see is very different from what the people in the community trying to work with the Education Act and trying to lift the status of their part of the Act see. If it is not there for them then it is not there.So that is why I have been arguing very strongly that these issues are about not just what is implicit but what is explicit and some of this debate is about that. That is where I would like to leave it for now. Thanks.