Kaye NikkiHon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Look—a few comments at the outset. I would though just acknowledge at the beginning of my speech that I haven't had answers from the Minister to a range of questions that I have asked that are very specific to clauses 21 and 22. Just to recap in terms of the answers that I haven't had answers to they're around both the 12-month period which is going from January 2019 to January 2020 and I've also asked about this issue of shifting from two board members to effectively a board member and a principal. So I do want answers around that. One of the things I also want to deal with in this speech and the reason I would say to Madam Chair this is so important is that while people might think Well these are minor amendments." this is about 2500 schools and what the accountability framework is for those schools. So one word does matter. The process does matter.I want to come back to a part of that process that is about in the event that the board want to amend their strategic planning framework the way that they go through that process with the Secretary for Education what a significant issue is and when it needs to be consulted. This is really important because it cuts to the heart of an aspect of our education system which is that boards are the masters of their own destiny. We now are writing into law a process that does involve the secretary having greater power in my view. I think we should have an explanation from the Minister about what his interpretation is of the word "significant" because that cuts to the heart of how often we think that boards are going to be told by the Ministry of Education "Well you need to go out and consult on this." That is important because that means it's community time. As I say I completely support Denise Lee's very specific amendment around changing that word but this is another issue. This cuts to the heart of the word "significant" and what that actually means because that will determine how many boards are effectively being rejected by the ministry and may need to go out and consult. So I would like the Minister to answer whether he's had any advice on that.The other thing I want to say specifically around that is it's not uncommon in our education system for the Secretary for Education to delegate that power. We know how busy she is: we've got 2500 schools. At the moment part of the whole aspect of these provisions is now timing it to this three-year cycle which does mean that we are compacting a process whereby we may have approval of the strategic planning frameworks. So what I am worried about is just to understand whether the Minister has sought advice as to whether the secretary may delegate that power—whether he thinks that's likely. You know what it's like: we get all of these strategic planning frameworks trying to be signed off at the same time. Is there an issue there in terms of workload and should we be considering actually whether we should be having an amendment right now to make it explicitly clear that the secretary could delegate that to a deputy secretary?I think the other thing that I did want to raise specifically around the strategic plan and the transition that we've got under clause 21 and 21(13) is that this again cuts to the heart of exactly what the transition is. I do note that through the select committee process we had this discussion about the statement of variance and what will actually occur as of January 2020 if for schools effectively their charter becomes their strategic planning framework. So if we have a situation where a school hasn't met its objectives and targets around achievement or potentially well-being what do we actually think is going to happen there? Is it the case that some schools are going to get off scot-free in terms of not being able to report around major variances? Can the Minister give an absolute assurance to the committee that every community can expect at the changeover of that transition to see that variance? Again there's been a little bit of confusion in the Education and Workforce Committee about whether there will be a mandatory requirement for that to occur. Again I'm looking at one of the provisions here—[Time expired]"