Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much Madam Chair for the opportunity to take my first call on Part 2 of the Education Amendment Bill. I'd like to focus my contribution on clause 21 and in particular firstly in regards to the change of date from 1 January 2019 to 1 January 2020. I know this has been covered by a number of members on this side but the question I want to ask the Minister is: why he is making this change so late in the piece? We understand that this bill—yes it's been before Parliament throughout the year but schools and boards of trustees have been working towards 1 January 2019. They have been working towards a date which has been in law for a couple of years now. They have been putting together plans around the changes which the Education (Update) Amendment Bill put in place. As he outlined he thinks these changes aren't that significant. We would dispute that; they are significant they do make some substantial changes. So why make a change so late in the piece?The second question which follows on from that is in regards to the change in the cycle—the four-year cycle or three-year cycle. Why is he making this change when he currently has the Tomorrow's Schools review under way which will potentially make substantial changes to the ways that our boards of trustees are managed potentially how they're elected potentially how the community's involved how the school is involved—there are a range of different decisions which are being looked at as part of that review. So is this bill pre-empting that review? Is this bill making a call which that review may require further law changes towards? Is this legislation meaning that that will need to be looked at again? I think the Minister owes our schools our boards of trustees our principals the unions and our teachers and parents the opportunity to understand where he thinks this is going so that there is an understanding as to whether there may be a further change in the future and potentially back to a four-year cycle maybe to a five-year cycle which has been recommended by other members such as Erica Stanford on this side of the Chamber. So I think the Minister has some big questions to answer particularly in light of all of these reviews that he is currently undertaking in the education sector.The other contribution that I'd like to make at this stage is in regards to the changes being made in section 43 of the Education (Update) Amendment Bill—this is in clause 21(3) and (4)—which basically repeals two sections in the principal Act; that is the new section 61(b) which was put in through the Education (Update) Amendment Bill and also replaces new section 62(2) of the principal Act. Essentially what these changes do is they remove any reference to national standards in the principal Act and the reason for that would be because he's removing the whole basis of national standards. But I think the issue here which is—you know the Minister said these aren't significant changes; this is a very very significant change because this goes to the crux of how schools are monitored and how they are held to be accountable. What the changes do essentially is remove reference to national standards and change it in new section 62(2) to Monitoring and evaluating must include but is not limited to monitoring and evaluating the performance of the students in relation to—(a) any foundation curriculum policy statements and national curriculum statements in force under section 60A;". Essentially what that does is that it says well we're not going to measure schools according to national standards because we've got rid of them but we're going to measure them according to any foundation curriculum policy statements and national curriculum statements. Is the Minister satisfied that this is going to provide accountability for parents and students to ensure that they know where their child is at how their child is doing with numeracy and literacy and to ensure that they are progressing positively along the educational journey? So I challenge the Minister to actually explain to this committee why he thinks that's just some sort of minor inconsequential amendment when this is a significant part of this legislation that removes significant accountability measures from the bill."