Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I rise to make a contribution on this Part 2 of the Education Amendment Bill and in doing so I want to focus in this contribution in particular on those aspects that relate to the national standards provisions that have been removed. It's worth noting right from the outset that these amendments in Part 2 of course amend the Education (Update) Amendment Act 2017. That amendment Act in 2017 was all about putting the progress and achievement of children and young people at the heart of the education system and in doing so it set out clear objectives and a clear framework which schools were to implement in order to ensure that the information they provided parents and their community about the achievement and progress of students was clear was comparable and was meaningful across the country over time.So when we turn to what this amendment in Part 2 does we see at new section 62(2) inserted by clause 21(4) new requirements around monitoring and evaluation and what that monitoring and evaluation must include. Madam Chair you will see that this monitoring and evaluation relates to curriculum policy statements and relates to the qualification system but what is not there and what this amendment removes is the requirement for the provision of a base against which the board's actual performance can be later assessed. And I want to raise this point because it goes to the heart of what national standards provide as a reporting framework for a school board which is now removed in its entirety with this legislation.Of course monitoring and evaluation is only as effective as the objective measures against which it occurs. So what we will now have if we are to read Part 2 and the amendments that it puts in place is a situation where up and down the country there will be statements of variance that vary hugely from school to school. So we see in new section 87(7)(a) inserted by clause 21(5) that any variance between the school's performance and the achievement of the school's objectives set out in its strategic plan and annual implementation plan; and (b) any matters required by regulations …". So of course the question that this raises is: what is the one true thing that schools will be reporting against? Because one school might do one form of assessment; another school might do a different form of assessment. One school might choose to report in some detail on literacy and numeracy and another school may choose not to. And so that is what is lost with these amendments.It is the systematic unpicking of that Education (Update) Amendment Act that concerns members on this side of the House because of course that was a bold piece of legislation that said "Actually let's fundamentally update our education laws to ensure the best possible information is available and that students' achievement is put at the heart of the education system." And here we have an unpicking that is of the nit-picking variety and I think adds very little on the scale that we have seen previously.I want to turn to the other amendments that we find in this Part 2. In particular we've already had some debate about the movement of the commencement date but I just want to add to that that isn't it symbolic of this Government that when it comes to progress when it comes to change what they like to offer is pushing things out further into the future. So we had a National Government come and amend an Act to put student achievement at the heart and say "Let's make sure that all this is in place by 2019." and then we had a Labour Government come in and say "Oh well we'll nit-pick around some of the details of that and we'll push it out to 2020."—entirely symbolic of a Government whose whole approach is to set up working groups have grand discussions have lots of hui but not actually get on with the important work of improving what's happening in our schools.We then have this question of what happens with boards if their strategic plan is not replaced and we have this idea that they will just continue to have effect. We have this concept that boards will be enabled to amend their strategic plans and that boards will be required to get approval from the Secretary of Education for any significant alteration.Now all of these subclauses simply go to highlight that actually a strategic plan and the planning that a board of trustees is doing on behalf of a school and its community is significant. It's significant enough that we have big expectations around how often those plans are reviewed the role of the secretary in reviewing them and we do expect that from time to time significant amendments will occur and yet it is not considered serious enough that we would have a baseline of what we expect to be reported and I find that incredibly concerning and it is these sorts of details at the expense of the big picture—[Time expired]"