Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity. On this legislation from the very first reading we have been explaining our concerns and our reasons why we oppose this legislation. In the first reading we said that we hoped that we would get the opportunity to address our concerns in the select committee process. But that didn't happen. Just now I've heard the Minister saying that there'll be some Supplementary Order Papers but still all our concerns are not going to be addressed through those Supplementary Order Papers—but that is for the later stage. But for now in the second reading of the Education and Training Bill I'm taking this call to oppose this bill. We oppose this legislation. As I said there are several reasons and we are hoping that these concerns will be addressed which didn't get addressed in the select committee process. In the select committee process though we had a very good discussion on this legislation. I want to acknowledge each and every one that submitted. We received 574 submissions and we had the opportunity to hear from 90 submitters so that was really good. So there was a lot of engagement a lot of discussion about this legislation. We know that this legislation is not only a compilation of other legislation that have things to do with the education sector but also to implement the final report of the Tomorrow's Schools Review Independent Taskforce into law. So this is the Government's response to that report that through this legislation will be implemented into legislation. So it does more than just compiling various education legislation in this legislation. So there are several concerns. Number one I would like to—as the Minister of Education said about physical force and physical restraint these terms which are being changed and also religious education provisions in this legislation—they came up quite often in the select committee process. Definitely the discussion around physical restraint versus physical force was a prominent one. In my view this change of these words from physical restraint" to "physical force" has actually revived this debate. So until now in my view the education sector was quite settled about the understanding of what "physical restraint"—or in other words if we call it "force"—means in the education sector. But now reviving this debate might send a signal which might not be the signal that we want to send through this legislation. The other concern that we have is: how are our educators going to get training or understanding of what this physical force will actually mean? So yes "physical force" was defined in the select committee process and the definition looks good. But still we have concerns about how this would practically be applied if educators have to apply physical force. Yes the Secretary for Education will be coming up with guidelines and rules and in the select committee process we made it clear that the secretary will be required to consult with young people. Young people's voices are important in this and also young people that have special needs and also organisations that provide services to people with special needs. But that may not be sufficient so we have concerns because this debate has been revived because of this change in words that has come up in this legislation. Then in the early childhood education sector we have concerns about the system that this legislation is going to set for applying for an approval to get a licence to provide early childhood education. In this the Minister will be required to provide an approval to an entity to apply for a licence. So yes some concerns were addressed in the select committee process. We know as the legislation was proposed the Minister is required to take into consideration the demographics what is already there what is not there and also the need of that community. But then we added the need of children in the select committee process and also as the Minister is required to look at if the applicant is a fit and proper person or persons but the criteria were not described in the legislation that has been clarified. The third thing is about if somebody gets the approval but holds on to that approval doesn't proceed to the next level. Then what happens? Because the Minister will have the impression that the Minister has given 10 or 15 approvals in that area so thinking that they will have progressed to the next stage that is to provide the service. If that hasn't happened how do we control that? So that has been managed by putting a timeline there. But we still have concerns because this is going to add another layer and also the Minister may not have that kind of good grasp of what is needed in the community. This needs to be community-led and early childhood education providers they know they do their assessment before they come up with their proposal. If there is a company that is a well-known name in the early childhood sector then it might be easier for them to get the approval. How will it work for somebody who is new and wants to enter in this sector? So we don't have that clarification in this legislation because we don't want hurdles for people that want to enter into the early childhood education sector. Then the other concern we still have is about educational achievement because now educational achievement becomes one of the accountability factors for boards of trustees. So this is a very important point for us because as a mum when I sent my boys to school I wanted to see how their school was doing and I wanted to see my kids were able to achieve an education. Obviously sports were attached to that but education was the main focus for me for my children. I'm sure parents out there they want to see that their children are achieving an education when you know that is the main expectation. So we would have liked to see that educational achievement is actually the prime accountability factor for the boards of trustees not one of the four accountability factors for boards of trustees. In my view what this has done is this legislation as it is proposed is going to dilute that educational achievement accountability factor. So education in schools is important and we all understand that education is the key to success. We all want to see that every child is able to get education is able to do well in their life so educational achievement—getting that diluted—is not something that we like in this legislation.We just heard from the Minister that there is going to be a Supplementary Order Paper in the committee of the whole House but that we will consider when it is tabled. But this is about awarding NCEA overseas. So our education sector is highly regarded internationally. We know we get so many international students come here. They gain a New Zealand qualification. We also know that around 80 percent of these students they leave they go to other places use this education that began here in New Zealand to make their life. Yes a small proportion they will follow that pathway to residency as well because the provision is available so they try to take up that provision too. But for NCEA not to be awarded overseas as is proposed in this legislation putting those restrictions and making it available only for people that are from here and it not being awarded overseas in my view is a step that is going to take us back. Our export education sector has hugely supported our economy and we want to continue to see that. This is a sector which is highly regarded and continues to support our economy. We want to build on the sector not minimise the sector but as it is proposed it appears that it is actually not going to support it in the sense that we want to see it supported to support our economy. So we have concerns about this and especially in the context of COVID. Even during this legislation when we were dealing with this bill in the select committee process these 90 submitters that appeared before the select committee some of them appeared here in Wellington some appeared through video link. So now people are getting used to using technology getting used to connecting while they're away distance learning should be becoming kind of a part of learning nowadays. We all need to adopt technology. We all need to see how technology can be used. And awarding NCEA overseas actually is something that we seriously should look into. So we are really looking forward to seeing what the Minister is proposing through the Supplementary Order Paper but what I understand is that it is going to be up until 2022 as the Minister said. Also he said it is going to be on a case by case basis. So it's important for us to understand what that case by case basis means and how that case will be evaluated for awarding NCEA overseas and what will be the criteria for that. So these are some of the reasons that I've listed why we cannot support this legislation. Thank you Mr Speaker."