Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you Madam Chair for this opportunity. That was a very interesting contribution from the Minister of Education. In my experience I have not seen a member's bill that is as tiny as this with due respect to the member in charge. Clause 1 in this bill is the title clause and of course when you put a bill in the ballot you need some kind of title so there is a title in this bill which is good. Clause 2 is about the commencement date and yes when you have a bill in the ballot you need some commencement date and so that qualifies. Clause 3 is about the Act that it is going to amend. So yes the member has identified an Act that she wants to amend and then clause 4 is the actual amendment. As the Minister said yeah it's about changing words like good" to "positive". He gave so much emphasis to those words and for me good is positive and positive is good. If there is that big a difference then the other point he used from this morning's debate was about "must" and "may" and the difference between two words. If these words are so important then why didn't the Minister accept that Supplementary Order Paper that was put forward by us by—Hon Tim Macindoe: What a good question. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Yes. He didn't want to answer that but in this bill it becomes really important—that kind of change of wording. So this bill as I said is the most negligible kind of bill that I have seen as a member's bill. Yes we have to dissect it down to that level of wording. As we heard from Hon Chris Hipkins it is about consultation. So it's removing that phrase "must include consultation with—". The new wording is "The Minister must make reasonable efforts to consult—". Now when we see these words "reasonable efforts" to me it's diluting the importance of consultation because consultation was already there in the legislation. So when you put "reasonable efforts" what does that mean? We really want to understand what that means. For example if the Minister's office sends some form of communication to one of these bodies or representative organisations and does not receive a response would that qualify as being a reasonable effort? Another example: if a Minister sends a communication and receives a reply back with some days and times that work for that body and the Minister is not available on those would that qualify as being a reasonable effort? So we really want to understand what "reasonable efforts" means in this. To me it appears that it's just diluting the importance of consultation and then yes you can keep listing the number of bodies or organisations. It doesn't matter because there is no strict obligation for the Minister to actually consult these organisations and bodies. Then—interesting again—are some other words that this bill is to change. This is where "national representative organisations" changes to "national bodies representing the interests". Then of course the Minister went through each and every body that is listed in this bill because there is nothing else in this bill other than this clause 4 which inserts a new section 1A(4A). But I was really sitting here and waiting for the Minister to come up to where it says "national bodies representing the interests of Māori education organisations;" and he said the Māori voice is not heard. Yes the Māori voice is definitely not heard and I fully understand that because this morning we were standing here screaming loudly that Māori leaders are saying that partnership schools should be retained. So if I use this as an example for this bill where this bill says that national bodies representing the interests of Māori education organisations will be taken care of then this example of senior Māori educators coming forward and saying that we want to protect the interests of 1500 Māori students that are in partnership schools—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! That bill is not under debate right now. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The Minister spent half of his time in the first five minutes talking about this morning's debate and you did not object to the Minister. I am using this as an example in a similar manner to the way that the Minister used this morning's debate as an example in this debate. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The difference between the Minister's discussion and yours is that he was talking specifically to this bill. You are introducing material from the bill that we debated at committee stage this morning. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Sorry Madam Chair but with due respect I don't agree because I'm talking about national bodies representing the interests of Māori education organisations which is very much part of this bill and I'm using that as an example. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That is appropriate; the reference to partnership schools is not. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: But Madam Chair that's an example that I'm using because Māori educators have represented their interests. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I will allow the member to continue. I'd just ask the member in the interests of remaining within the context of this bill just to consider her arguments. Thank you. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: I am Madam Chair. So that is an example I have used where yes we have to hear what the Māori voice is as the Minister said but this morning we heard that the Māori voice was completely neglected. So will that example that we had qualify as national bodies representing the interests of Māori education organisations? That is another question that I have for the member in charge of this bill. So yes there are several questions. We want to understand what "interests" means and to what extent that interest goes. So this example that I gave: would that qualify under this legislation as the interest of Māori education providers and what does "reasonable efforts" mean? Because to me it looks like it's diluting the importance of consultation."