Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take this call. We're in Part 2. It's my first call on Part 2 and I have an amendment that I wish to speak to. It's one of those amendments where you could possibly say What's in a word?"—and in this regard a lot. It seeks to amend clause 21(13). In new section 9A(2) in clause 21(13) replace the word "may" with "must". So there's the word but wait until you hear my rationale around replacing the "must".Tamati Coffey: Give it to us Denise.DENISE LEE: I'm going to give it to you. It's going to be good. It's very weighty—very weighty.What this amendment does is it ensures that when amending the strategic plan of a board—so this is very important—the board "must" consult with the community not "may" consult with the community. Now that is weighty and we've got nodding heads on the other side of the committee. The board must consult with the community not may. It's not just the community either to the other members on that side of the committee; it's also staff and students and all this must take place before that approval of the strategic plan be given by the secretary.Now if we just step back a little bit at a higher level I guess you could say what this is doing is—and we're obviously on the part where we're looking at amendments to the Education (Update) Amendment Act of 2017. So that's where this takes place. In that particular Act "In section 158(2) [and] after the new clause 9 of schedule 6 of the principal Act"—that's where in this current bill that we're debating this morning—there is an insertion that's about strategic plans. It says in new section 9A(1) in clause 21(13) "A board may amend its strategic plan but if a proposed amendment is significant the board must obtain the Secretary's approval of the amendment before amending the plan."So this is new. And while I agree with the intent here that if an amendment to a strategic plan has enough gravity—I guess you could say—that it's going to require the secretary to look it over that's a good principle I think. But I do have a query and a question for the Minister of Education around the word "significant". How will it be deemed to be significant? What's that bar? Where's the test? Where's the line if a proposed amendment is "significant" to warrant the secretary stepping in at that stage and approving the amendment? It's a query. While I think the intent is right it could be quite interesting and variable to determine where "significance" kicks in.Now back to my one word change. New section 9A(2) says "Before approving an amendment the Secretary may require the board to consult the school community staff students or any other person or body [that they deem] should be [considered]." Why is it "may"? Shouldn't it be "must": "the Secretary must consult". Now this is a one word change of absolute gravity and gravitas right? Why should it be "may" consult? Of course it should be "must" consult. If you look through all of the education bills that we've debated over the last couple of months—and indeed the content of this—you will see scattered all throughout the principle of consultation.We've heard members on the other side of the House speak strongly vigorously and often on principles of democracy. To my mind is coming the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Act and how much the other side of the committee really underscored the principles of consultation. Well here we are. We've got a chance—right here right now—to agree that if the secretary deems that the bar is such that they should step in and be part of a school changing its strategic plan well then it should be a "must". Why would it just involve the board and the secretary? Why not—and again it's the school community the staff the students or any other person or body that the secretary considers should be consulted.I would like to underscore one last time the principle of consultation and remind the other side of the committee that it's a principle that they have said that they hold dear. I don't think that we should be apologetic about putting in the word "must". If the secretary thinks that there's something going on in a school that requires their oversight well then it should require the oversight of the all-important and very integral members that make up the school community the staff the students or any other person that the secretary sees fit.I'm hoping that when we get to voting this will be something that the other side of the committee pick up. I'm not sure they're going to pick up much else especially after—[Time expired]"