Mallard Trevor: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10646] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I know this is a relatively narrow debate. Clauses 1 and 2 relate to the title and commencement date of the Education Amendment Bill. As we consider these clauses it is important that we consider the title of the legislation which is the Education Amendment Act 2009. I wonder about the habit of this Committee in relation to truth in legislation. I know that the ACT Party is very much for truth in legislation but unfortunately we have a bill whose title clause says it will be the Education Amendment Act 2009. I am not sure whether there is a proposal on the part of the Minister of Education—I have looked on the Table and I have found no amendment from the Minister—to amend the title of the bill to the “Education Amendment Act 2010”. 
It is worth focusing a little on what has happened here. I think the process at the Education and Science Committee was very good. I say to Allan Peachey that I thought he chaired the select committee well in its consideration of this bill. He got it through that committee in good time. If his work was appreciated even a little bit—well if his work was appreciated then he would be the Minister of Education—then I think the bill would have come back to the House and been passed through its remaining stages and we would have been able to have an Education Amendment Act 2009 but unfortunately it is now 2010. 
The other point I make to the senior Government whip is that this bill could have gone through its Committee stage in about 10 minutes. We moved a number of amendments in order to filibuster it. We hoped that the Minister would consider a particular issue and change her mind on it. We have debated Part 2 across some hours in the hope that the Maori Party would focus on it. But a large amount of parliamentary time has been used on a bill that I think it is fair to say everyone who understands it and who has considered it carefully other than the Green Party is voting for. The bill would have gone through quite quickly and would still have been entitled the Education Amendment Act 2009 as the title clause indicates. 
I do not think there is much argument around the commencement date. The legislation comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. I would be interested though in the Minister’s view of the title. Does she propose to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to correct the title of the bill? 
Chris Tremain 
: Probably not. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: She does not? She does not intend to correct it. I have got into a little trouble before for using the word “fib” in the Chamber and associating it with a Minister but I think— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Do not go there. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I am not. But I should say that the House as a whole should not— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Committee. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well the bill will go back to the House; the Committee will report to the House. We should not be passing a bill that contains an untruth right in the very first or second line. I think that a few things in the bill could have been improved— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Has she signed it? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Probably 37 times. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: She signed every line. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well we have certainly seen one paper that was like that. I say to my colleague that we wondered why there had been a slight accumulation of paper in the Minister’s office. But now we have seen the results of the Official Information Act request. We see that time after time even on the same page this Minister feels an obligation to—in very careful childish script—sign her name. I presume that it is not a stamp. It might be a stamp; Mike Moore had a stamp. Mike Moore had a stamp that might have been appropriate. I am not absolutely certain whether I can share with members the total detail of that stamp but I think Mr Chairman that as an agricultural gentleman you would appreciate that Mr Moore used a word that was associated with the bovine species. When he received paper from either officials or his caucus colleagues that he disagreed with— 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This member is a longstanding member of the House. He began his speech by saying that the debate on the title was a narrow debate but now he is going on about bovine species which has nothing to with the title of the bill. I ask you to bring him to order so that we can get on with this particular debate please. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I just clarify for members that it is in order to say that the bill contains an inaccuracy. To go into matters of bovine species or to indicate fibs or anything else of that nature is quite out of order. I ask the member to continue. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: On that point I think the Mayor of Invercargill wrote a book— 
Chris Hipkins 
: That’s right he did. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He did. He wrote a book.  
Jellybeans  
was the second part of its title— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I asked the member to direct his comments towards what is a very tight debate on clauses 1 and 2. I do not think that we need to include the Mayor of Invercargill fine gentleman though he is. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What about the next mayor—will the next mayor write a book? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No she sang a song. I am beginning to wonder as my colleagues get ready to assist me in this—Mr Hipkins—whether the senior Government whip would have preferred to seek leave to raise the House a little earlier. 
I am making a point and it is a relatively easy point. I would like an assurance that the Minister will take a call on this matter sort it out and indicate whether she intends to get the bill cleaned up so that it reflects the truth and is accurate and so that her lack of diligence in getting this bill through can be corrected in at least a minor way in order to indicate to the Committee that this legislation is current. If she does not do it then I am sure that eventually the Clerk’s Office will come along behind her. I am sure that it will sweep up after her clean up after her clean the streets and tidy things up in the way that it normally does for a Minister who makes a mess of things in a bill. It will probably be regarded as a minor technical amendment of the sort that the Clerk’s Office is allowed to correct maybe with another printing of the bill before the third reading. I think even if it went through its third reading in its current form it would be one of those areas where it would be allowable for the Clerk’s Office to change the year but I am not sure. 
Therefore it is important that we have some assurance from the Minister that the date in the title clause “This Act is the Education Amendment Act 2009.” will be corrected in some way. At the moment it is inaccurate. It cannot possibly be the Education Amendment Act 2009; it can be the Education Amendment Act 2010. It is a relatively easy matter; one would have thought that the Minister could answer it. She could have put a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table. She has indicated that she does not want to take a call on the matter. I would much prefer her to take a call and clarify it. Then we could move on to clause 2 the commencement clause. 
I ask the Chairman whether we are debating the two clauses together. We are; that is good. In the next set of calls I am sure I will be able to get on to that clause. But as she is not taking a call there continues to be a question. If it is to be the Education Amendment Act 2010 will it be the Education Amendment Act 2010 (No 1)? I understand there is to be another Education Amendment Act 2010. Or is it her intention when that legislation comes in to give the subsequent legislation a different name? Will it be called the “Undoing of Zoning Act” or the “Operational Funding for Taking the Top 5 Percent and the Bottom 25 Percent of Kids from School to School Act? Will it be the “Education (Introduction of Vouchers) Amendment Act”? There could be a number of areas. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You have made the point to that member a number of times. He is a very experienced member of the House. This bill has nothing in it about vouchers or zoning. We are debating the first two clauses: the title and the commencement. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The point is upheld. The member should refer to clauses 1 and 2 of this bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am. As I do so I wonder whether my colleagues are drafting amendments to the bill that make that clear. For example it could be called the “Education (This Has Nothing to Do with the Introduction of Vouchers) Amendment Bill 2010”.