Kaye NikkiHon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Look I'm actually not pleased to have to rise and oppose this legislation in the House. I'm just on the back of actually about 70 meetings across New Zealand and the message from New Zealanders is Let's hear a Parliament that puts children at the centre of decisions that are made." Tonight this evening we have a bill that is incredibly ideological. The reality is we know that for the first year-and-a-half of this Government a large part of the agenda has been dismantling everything that National did rather than putting children at the heart of it. Let's look at each aspect of this bill and ask that fundamental question.Let's start with cohort entry. The reality is it is the parent that comes up to me that wants flexible work that was looking at—potentially days or weeks before their child's fifth birthday—enabling their child to be able to have the benefit of forming greater relationships with other children in cohort entry literally at a maximum of eight weeks. When you did the modelling for many children maybe a week or two. That is the reality. And why are we here? We're here because of ideology.Now we have a fundamental shift. It is a principled shift in New Zealand a country that enabled children to start their children at the age of five. That no longer exists for those schools in the future that adopt cohort entry because under this legislation—and I do take the point in terms of mid-point and we have more cohort entry now that is available—there will be some children that will not have that right under the bill that this Minister has put through the House. That is the reality.The other point that I want to make is again the reality is there are a lot of working parents for which what they've argued for is a recognition that for some children—not for every child; it might be a small number of children—it makes sense for them to start a few days or a few weeks before their fifth birthday and National supported them. It's sad that we're in a situation and we're literally having to pass legislation because the Minister doesn't want those parents to be able to have their fundamental rights upheld in this House.The other core ideological aspect of this bill is around the Education Council. I'll tell you what doing 70 meetings across New Zealand I heard the passionate pleas by principals by teachers who said "Nikki please do not let us be overtaken by these hubs. We don't want our independence as professionals to be dictated by officials." So we had the Minister who stood up and made passionate speeches in Opposition about how he was going to deliver independence for the profession and then we had this proposal creeping along outside of this Government that is arguing to take over the profession. Then he has the gall to pass some legislation before this that goes on about how much we're going to give the profession all of this independence and then whammy: he puts this bill in the House that says "We're going to tell you what to do." That's the reality—that's the reality.They can talk all they want about the composition of the profession and the council; this little clause that slipped into this bill and I know because I've spoken to the teachers I've spoken to the unions—they were not expecting that and what occurred in this bill. The reality is this is a Government that talks a big talk around the autonomy of principals and teachers but it walks a completely opposite line. We see that in this bill around the provisions in terms of the Education Council and we see it in the Tomorrow's Schools proposals that are currently on the table with the independent task force.There have been some improvements in the Education and Workforce Committee. I want to acknowledge that and I want to thank all of the members of the select committee who contributed to that. One of the core aspects of the improvements in the bill is actually to say to the Government "There has to be transparency." It is correct that some of the members of the select committee said "We don't agree with the level of State control that this Government is trying to put on teachers but if you're going to do it then actually you need to be transparent and put it through the House of Representatives."Another aspect of this bill again where we see the Government is not focused on not only the future of our education system but actually what's right for a group of young people that have been disadvantaged for a long period of time—and I can see Minister Martin looking at me. I want to pay tribute to an extraordinary New Zealander. I want to pay tribute to Rachel Whalley. I want to pay tribute to her from the Virtual Learning Network. For years she's fought with a group of other principals and teachers and I want to acknowledge—and the Minister Tracey Martin is doing a hand signal to me which is about money. But you know what? In a scheme of $100000 or $300000 that is not the future of the Virtual Learning Network.The reality is if this bill which gets rid of and scraps communities of online learning had a replacement system in place for the thousands of kids—whether I am visiting rural communities whether I'm visiting isolated islands that don't have access to certain subject areas—then maybe this Government would be able to take a decent moral stand on the future of learning for kids in isolated areas. But the reality is because it is so intensely ideological it chose not to put up an alternative regime. I understand the concerns that have been raised about ensuring that we have quality providers ensuring that we get that balance right in terms of flexibility and whether it's accredited providers in the tertiary area whether it's other subject specialists—we understand that balance. But why didn't we have a replacement system? I tell you what people are saying to me: they're saying "This Government doesn't have any ideas. They're a year and a half in. They can't put forward a decent policy to enable disadvantaged communities particularly in some rural communities to have access to the learning that they deserve". When National put in a $200 million investment to connect every school in New Zealand to ultrafast uncapped data—the reality is you have to have some models that enable the spreading of that learning. This Government has ripped it up with nothing to replace it with and I'll tell you what the sector is saying to me: "That's a mistake. They might not have agreed with this regime but that is a fundamental mistake." I want to acknowledge as I said before the Virtual Learning Network. The final other provision in this bill does relate to private schools. Now I do want to acknowledge—could anyone in this House agree with the fact that we need to as fundamental parliamentarians or people in society ensure that where there is a risk to the emotional physical mental well-being of students we can close down the school? Of course but what does the regulatory impact statement say? It doesn't say there's any evidence that we need to change the law in fact there's costs as a result of that. But let's put that aside and let's actually just agree that while there might be no evidence of this actually occurring at a principled level we are supportive of having a change that says potentially if there needs to be greater mechanisms to deal with a situation where you have real risk to physical emotional and mental well-being of students—that's fine. But the lack of detail—and my colleague Simeon Brown will talk about that tomorrow in the committee stage of the House—is important because when you look at the backdrop of this bill when you look at the fact that I've got integrated schools who I've been meeting with across New Zealand who are freaked out with what is happening in terms of Tomorrow's Schools they think that actually there is a real threat to those schools whether they're partnership schools—which obviously the Government has gotten rid of—whether they're integrated schools or private schools that this is a Government that does not believe in choice. That comes to the heart of it. I tell you what Minister Tracey Martin: when I sit down with the many parents and the kids who have additional learning needs they do want some choice actually. So the reality is on this side of the House we are a party that thinks about what is best for children rather than ideology. On the other side of the House we have a range of areas that are going through this legislation not because they are the best thing for children but because this is a Government that is more focused on dismantling the previous National Government's policies—rather than ensuring that the child who was in a rural area gets access to distant distance learning that the child whose parents want to take up a job—that child who is emotionally ready for school can start a couple of weeks or a couple of days before their fifth birthday. We actually know that there is a huge value in having independence of the profession but this is a Government that is ideological and won't do the best for children."