Kaye NikkiHon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Can I again acknowledge Jenny Marcroft for bringing the bill to the House but I also want to acknowledge Tracey Martin who as Jenny has also acknowledged did the work on this bill.The first thing I want to say is that there is no doubt in my mind that every member of Parliament in this House values the teachers of New Zealand. We all know more than ever the huge role that they play in our society. So if the question was can we do some things to ensure that teachers are valued more then members on this side would absolutely support that. However that is not what this bill is about.This bill has several major flaws. If you don't believe me and you're watching the telly then read the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report by the Attorney-General the Labour Minister David Parker. He effectively has written half of my speech today. It is ironic that a party like the Labour Party which says that it supports freedom is voting for a bill that the Attorney-General the Labour Minister has said—in his words—the Bill appears to be inconsistent with s 14 of the Bill of Rights Act and the inconsistency cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act." That reason alone is a reason to vote down this bill and that's one of the major reasons as to why we'll be voting down this bill.But the other point that we want to make at the outset is that we don't believe in putting up legislation when there isn't a problem. There aren't a whole lot of people out there going out and misrepresenting themselves as teachers. We know there is already a provision within the legislation section 349 of the Education Act that deals with people who could be misrepresenting themselves. It's already in the law but there isn't a big problem here.The next point I want to make is that when you look at this bill it refers to partnership schools. It says one of the reasons that this bill has come to the House is as a result of partnership schools. Isn't that a bit ironic? Isn't it a bit ironic that we have a piece of legislation in here in part because of partnership schools when potentially New Zealand First hasn't listened to what the Labour Party is actually putting up? They have another piece of legislation before the House that is completely getting rid of the partnership schools model.So not only do we not have a problem here of a whole lot of teachers misrepresenting themselves we also have another piece of legislation in the Parliament that seeks to get rid of the partnership schools model. So it's not a reason for this bill to come to the House.But coming back to the very important New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues. I think again I do want to quote some of David Parker's—not the Ministry of Justice but the Attorney-General—report on this bill. The point that he makes in my view is not only is there not a problem not only is the Government getting rid of partnership schools so there's not even a problem there but that it will be harmful—this bill will actually be harmful. He talks in his report about the fact that you have a whole lot of people at the moment—they might be dance teachers they might be yoga teachers but they are using that word "teacher". The impact of putting a bill like this through to their lives could be quite significant.He actually says "The restriction imposed by the Bill would impose a significant limit on the ability of these people ordinarily thought of as teachers to conduct their business and describe themselves as teachers." So that is from the Labour Attorney-General. It is gobsmacking that this bill is being supported to go through the House.Another paragraph—a point that the Attorney-General makes—is that it's not just about the impact on potentially some of those people who might have a limited authority to teach but also those people that might be dance teachers or yoga teachers. He also says "Unlike other protected titles such as 'lawyer' there are numerous people who legitimately use the title 'teacher' to earn their livelihoods. Indeed the natural reading of cl 5 would also prevent any businesses using the word 'teacher' in their title—for instance if they were selling teaching supplies. The limit the Bill places on freedom of expression is significant."So not only do we have a situation that there isn't a problem here not only do we have a situation that partnership schools are being repealed so their original reason for the problem doesn't exist; we also have a situation where the Attorney-General is saying it's going to limit the ability of people to go about their ordinary lives if they are dance teachers or yoga teachers. But also there's a whole lot of other businesses in New Zealand that may have the word "teacher" in their title which the Attorney-General says could be impacted by this bill.We don't know what the costs could be or what the impact on their lives and their businesses could be. So we're very clear on this side of the House. Of course we massively value the role and the importance of teachers. We believe the way to lift the status of the profession is by doing things like supporting communities of learning by improving professional development by doing what the Education Review Office has talked about and by improving our teacher training. All of these things will make a huge and significant difference and raise the value of teachers; not a fundamentally flawed bill that restricts the basic freedom of expression of New Zealanders. That's why we will be opposing this bill."