Kaye Nikki; Wood Michael; Mallard TrevorHon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Mr Speaker can I start by congratulating you on becoming Speaker. I do want to clear one thing up. A very long time ago we were due to race each other around Lake Taupō and I've never been able to say this to you but it is not correct that I threw myself off a bicycle and broke my leg to not race you. I do know your cycling prowess and I hope that you have the opportunity to cycle.Secondly can I just acknowledge what my honourable colleagues the Hon Judith Collins and the Hon Amy Adams have talked about in terms of pay equity. I was the other day with one of the leaders in this movement and I think it is a very sad day that one of the first actions of our woman Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is to remove this piece of legislation with the motion that we have before us. There have been comments made regarding the lack of women in the executive and I just think that we should reflect on that.The second thing though—I do have two specific bills that I have direct questions for the Leader of the House on and I think he needs to answer them. He is the Leader of the House but he is also Minister of Education. My questions relate to the education portfolio. The first one is regarding the Education (Public Good not Profit from Charter Schools) Amendment Bill.Now just to give you a bit of context—this is a very important point. I actually believe the Government has made a significant error here. You see in the Speech from the Throne by the Prime Minister she was very clear. She said there would be no charter schools. Now let's remember what we're dealing with here. We are dealing with a thousand children in New Zealand some of which are our most disadvantaged children. They've had a history of not achieving. And we heard from the Prime Minister what a caring kind Government she would lead but this is one of the first acts: to potentially get rid of a charter school. But the question that I have for the Leader of the House is given that the Labour Party and the New Zealand First Party campaigned on repealing the legislation why do we have a bill—even though I don't agree with this bill—that actually keeps partnership schools and amends them to be not-for-profit because the Government's been clear the legislation will be gone and it feels like that would be a redundant use of the Parliament's time to have a bill that amends potential legislation that's supposed to go.So it's either a genuine mistake or the second option is that this is part of a secret agenda to ride roughshod over the review that the Minister has said is happening. So we had this awkward situation over the weekend whereby I had conversations with these schools who are worried sick who found out in the paper that their schools may not go ahead. Mr Hipkins told journalist Jo Moir—a very good journalist—that they would not go ahead. They found out—they didn't have any conversations with the Minister or the ministry and then he backtracked. So is this legislation—and I think the Leader of the House needs to be really clear. It's fine if he says it's a mistake. We'll all agree to take it off the Order Paper. But he has said there's a review happening. This bill rides roughshod over that review so I would like to hear from the Leader of the House.The third option that is potentially happening here which I think is really concerning—and I've had a text from one of the partnership schools just recently about this—is that this is going to be used as a vehicle before Christmas to get rid of these partnership schools without due process. The Government promised a case by case negotiation for these schools—and this is a very important procedural point. We need to understand these points from the Leader of the House because there are those three options there.Anyway look can I move on to another piece of legislation in the motion. So the other one is the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill. Now with regard to this bill which I think has previously been in the Hon Ruth Dyson's name what's very clear to me—and again I know the Government's had a lot to deal with and they're very busy and there's just the potential that they missed this thing out but this bill is clearly redundant. I know they weren't watching in June but we already have implemented in the last Government the code of ethics and that was consulted with the education profession. It's already done. So I would argue this bill is redundant and it's a waste of the House's time and we need to hear from the Leader of the House. I know that you know it's been a very rushed period but we've potentially not only got a bill that amends a piece of legislation that they want to get rid of but we've now got a bill that is redundant. So I think we need to hear answers from the Leader of the House and the Minister of Education on these issues.And finally I just want to finish on partnership schools to remind this House why it is very important to be debating this motion and this particular piece of legislation. The detail of this legislation and the text that I just got from Vanguard Military School is that it effectively is a piece of legislation for one school. Every other school does not make a profit. So what the Government is saying is that it's a good thing to use up the House's time for a piece of legislation that affects and wipes out one school and I've just had a text from Vanguard Military School saying exactly that. The Minister is effectively putting up a piece of legislation if he wants it to continue that wipes out one school.Why is this happening? I hope that it's a mistake and I hope that he can give us some clarity because we have more than a thousand children and their parents who are desperate to know what is happening. We don't know the detail of the review. We don't know who's doing the review. We don't know when it will be finished. We've asked questions about this. We also don't know what it means in terms of the cost to the taxpayers. These people have contracts. Not only don't we know what the cost will be but we have members on the other side of the House who have previously made very significant bold statements about the need for these schools to continue. This is children's lives at risk and they need to know. Parents are asking me. They are saying We've only got a few weeks left in the school year and we need some form of clarity about what is happening. Are we turning up to school next year?" This is really significant for those thousand children. So again I just want to finish by saying we heard from the Speech from the Throne about a kind and caring Government that wanted to combat child poverty. But one of their first acts is to put before the Parliament some legislation that wipes out Vanguard Military School and really puts at risk the futures of a whole lot of vulnerable kids.MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I move that the motion now be put.Hon Members: He got it wrong.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I'm on my feet. I think someone could possibly for the member write out the appropriate wording."