Willis Nicola; Hipkins ChrisNICOLA WILLIS (National): I'm going to ask another couple of questions but before I do so I do want to note the circumstances in which we're analysing the 637-page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 544 that landed on the Table today. Those circumstances are that we have had on this side of the Chamber less than a day to look through the entire SOP and I have to say the more I look at it in detail the more questions I have. So this may be one call but I'm going to pack in a few questions. I would ask the Minister first why it is that an SOP of such detail wasn't one that he felt any need to engage with us on. I stand in big footsteps in the form of Nikki Kaye who was our previous education spokesperson and I know she had a history of effective engagement with the Minister and I hope that where we can work together to progress the interests of New Zealand's children and school system that we will do so. Certainly putting an SOP of this magnitude down on the Table without any engagement prior isn't consistent with that. So my question first is about the new powers that are given to the Secretary for Education under new clause 612D to direct education entities. Now as I read it these relate to when there is an epidemic notice in force. What I would like to understand is how the Minister sees these provisions operating under alert levels: i.e. what COVID alert levels could these provisions potentially be used under? I do want to note how significant the provisions are. They can be used for example for private training establishments—so not simply for State-run institutions but also for privately run institutions—and the powers include operating controlling and managing the entity. So in the case of private training establishments we are talking about the Government taking over the operation control and management of a private business. So I would very much like to understand the Minister's thinking here in terms of in what circumstances these powers might be used and why it's thought that they're appropriate noting of course we have just come through alert levels that are very serious and at no point was there a question that I was aware of publicly that the Minister of Education required additional powers to take over the operation of private training establishments universities or other educational entities. So these are significant powers. The powers also include directing the body of that entity to comply with requirements as to the opening or the closing of that entity for physical attendance or instruction. This is an interesting point for me because here in Wellington Victoria University did make a choice that it would restrict the amount of face-to-face instruction that was occurring and there was some ambiguity about whether that would continue into different alert levels. So I'd ask the Minister again: does he anticipate a situation in which the Government would direct a university or other education entity as to the way it would provide instruction? And what again would be the criteria and circumstances in which the Minister would do that? So I have many more questions I could ask about this clause but I think given it's only landed in Parliament today—the powers appear very significant—it does bear some addressing. The second area that I have questions about relates to new clause 71A and again is in relation to enrolment schemes. Frankly I'll admit it I'm a bit confused about what this clause means and I'd just like the Minister to clear it up for me because I want to know how subclauses (1) and (2) interact. The way I read subclause (1) it tells me that a Secretary for Education can allow for an enrolment scheme to exist that allows essentially siblings to attend the same school as their siblings even though they no longer live in zone for that school. But what I want to understand is: is that an automatic allowance or is it something that each sibling or each family has to apply to the Secretary for Education for or is it simply permitted? Because in subclause (2) we have that before granting an authorisation the Secretary must be satisfied that it's in the best interests of the school and local community and can be managed within the existing school network.That concerns me because it implies that there will be circumstances in which the secretary would reject the application of a sibling wishing to attend the same school as their siblings. This is a circumstance that occurs fairly regularly in our communities as families move from one neighbourhood to another but wish to keep their children at school together. The idea that every family would have to apply to the Ministry of Education for the right to do that does worry me somewhat. So I'm hoping the Minister can clear it up and tell me I'm wrong. So if the Minister could address those two issues I'd be most appreciative.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Absolutely. Look with regard to the 630-page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) having been in Opposition I do understand the concern that the member raises about that. The vast majority of the SOP is basically a reprint of the bill with additional amendments included in it. So it's not 630 pages of new amendments. What's been interesting about the process of this legislation is quite a lot's happened since when the bill was first introduced and sent off to select committee. So a big set of the amendments are incorporating the vocational education reforms that Parliament's already passed. Of course they had not been passed when the bill was first introduced. So it actually updates the bill to reflect changes that Parliament has subsequently already agreed to.Similarly with the epidemic notice provisions that the member refers to Parliament has actually already passed those provisions. We did that during that crazy period where Parliament passed a number of laws in response to COVID-19. So the changes in this bill simply bring those provisions that we passed in relation to COVID-19 into the current bill. Although the original set of provisions was specific to the one epidemic notice around COVID-19 this extends that to subsequent epidemic notices that may be issued. The reason for that is just a prudent one: we don't know when an epidemic may happen and we do need to have the ability to respond to those things. The most common issue that I think we were concerned about were schools or early childhood services refusing to close when we needed them to close for public health reasons. So the ability to be able to do something about that was the motivation behind putting those in place. Now of course what we saw during the COVID-19 alert level escalation if you like was a huge degree of cooperation from the entire educational community and as a result we didn't need to use any of the powers that are there. So these are really just sort of safeguarding for the future in a way that I hope no Minister will ever have to use in the future. I think as long as we see the type of cooperation that we did—bearing in mind you know COVID-19 is one epidemic. There's the potential for any number of other public health - related issues where an epidemic notice may be issued and we do need to be prepared for those.With regard to enrolment schemes new clause 71A that the member raised this basically codifies existing practice that isn't strictly speaking allowed under the law and it's what's called grandparenting. So where an enrolment scheme changes if there's one sibling in what would now be an area outside of the zone the Ministry of Education have always worked with schools to ensure that any siblings could be included in the school's enrolment. Strictly speaking under current law that's not allowed. So this basically just brings the law up to align with the current practice. So it is designed to ensure that what we do now and what we have been doing for a very long time—I think since enrolment schemes were first introduced in the late 1990s—it allows for that current practice to continue. There was one other issue that got raised earlier on which I neglected to get to and I think it might have been Tim Macindoe or someone who was raising questions about the entry provisions with regard to home-based early childhood education and the powers to go into a home. I've had my own kids in home-based early childhood education so I'm well familiar with the model; it's one that I support. They are of course places of business. They would only be able to enter into a part of that home where the education was taking place and it would be for the purposes of welfare check and quality control and so on.Hon Tim Macindoe: The concern is being able to do it without a warrant.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well the issue is that it's a place of business. If someone is using their home as a place of business where they are being paid by the State to care for a child then actually we've got a duty around ensuring that the welfare of that child is being maintained and that there are sufficient quality controls in place.