Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I just want to start by replying to a couple of those very interesting comments from the member across the other side of the Chamber Jo Luxton. The first comment which was made was: this is going to send a message. Well it's a very expensive message. Maybe New Zealand Post might be interested in that because they might need a bit of help. Is that message going to be sent in the post? I'm not sure but it's a $700000 message—a very expensive message. Then she said It's about democracy." Well we've got a bill here which does change the name of the Education Council to the Teachers Council and then—Jo Luxton: Teaching. Teaching Council.SIMEON BROWN: Sorry? The Teachers Council that's right.Jo Luxton: Teaching. SIMEON BROWN: Teachers. Oh right sorry. The "Education (Teachers Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill". I hope I got that right. Jo Luxton: No.SIMEON BROWN: Anyway. Maybe I need—anyway I won't go there. This is about democracy so why do we have to change the name as well? I guess this is a core question. I've got some questions for the Minister. Why are we changing the name? Let's put aside the arguments. We've got arguments as to why we oppose the bill but I'd like to know why we have to then also change the name. It's a $700000 bill to change the name so why are we doing that on top of all the other changes? Even if we put aside all of the arguments that we have on this side of the Chamber over all of the other changes which are made why do we have to go ahead and change the name? I'd like to ask the Minister what advice from officials she has received in regards to the cost of changing the name. How much is it going to cost? The Education and Workforce Committee has had evidence presented by the Education Council that says it will cost around $700000 to change the name. I'd like to ask the Minister what advice she has received from officials as to what that cost will be. Does she agree with the evidence provided to the committee about the cost which has been given to the committee by the Education Council? And then the next question is: does the Minister believe that that cost is justified? Because well we can put aside the arguments here but does the Minister believe that that argument is justified? So I was having a read of the "Education (Teachers Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill"—the commentary. It says there: "Clause 4 of the bill as introduced would amend section 348 of the Act changing the name of Education Council of Aotearoa … to the [Teachers] Council of Aotearoa. We recommend by majority amending clause 4 and inserting clause 4A to change the name of the council … This would better reflect the bicultural nature of this country." So is that the reason why the Minister thinks this change is required? Is that the only reason? That's the only reason that we actually see here in the report from the select committee which was voted on by the majority of Government members. Is that the only reason that the Minister can use to justify changing the name of the Education Council or are there other reasons that the Minister has? Does the Minister have—Marja Lubeck: What did the teachers tell us?SIMEON BROWN: Why don't you ask the Minister a question? I'm asking the Minister some questions right now. So I'm just waiting for the Minister to answer that question and hopefully that will inform the committee including the other members on the other side.So does the Minister feel that that cost is justified? And then my next question is: has there been a cost-benefit analysis done by officials as to this name change? Weighing up the costs and the benefits has there been a cost-benefit analysis? Has the Minister seen a cost-benefit analysis done by officials on the costs of changing this name and the benefit that it will have to the teaching profession? I guess on this side of the Chamber we look at it and say "Well look. You're changing a name." This is the first piece of legislation which this Government is getting through Parliament in regard to education policy and all it does is it changes the name and it does a few other inconsequential things. There have been arguments about this—there will be more arguments about this—but this is the first thing the Government has brought to the House and all it does is change a name. I'd like to know whether a benefit-cost analysis was done. Has there been a working group? Has there been a review? What kind of thought has been put into this? What Ministers have come together and had a think about this? What committee meetings have been attended? Who sat on those? You know I'd like to know what thought actually went into this because otherwise all we've got is one line and that doesn't cut it."