Lee Denise; Williams PotoEDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)First ReadingDebate resumed from 20 September.DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): It is my pleasure to continue where I left off on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). One of the points I was making when I was last speaking was my confusion and this side of the House's confusion that these particular changes weren't absorbed into what I would call the Education Amendment Bill (No 1)". It's not called that of course. But in fact this week has been confusing for me whether I was going to speak on this on Tuesday or Wednesday and now here it is Thursday—what a confusing week. The way the House has been run or "mis-run" if that's a word—it has been a real shambles this week to try to understand what's been up what's been out with urgency with extended hours and 15 minutes a pop here. It has been a real dysfunction junction—there are no two ways about that.I also want to pick up where I left off on two words I used "confusion" and "hypocrisy" in regard to one primary purpose of this particular bill and that is in regard to giving the Minister of Education direction over the Education Council. So what this bill does is it requires the council to consult the Minister prior to making changes to teacher qualification requirements or registration criteria and of course the Minister—him or her—can issue a direction relating to the Education Council.Now the hypocrisy with this is—and everyone on the Education and Workforce Committee will know this—there was huge vigorous debate the rallying cry from the other side of the House around the independence of the Teaching Council and how much they should be honoured and adhered to and looked after and debated and nurtured and here we are in the first reading for this bill which does the opposite. It gives the Minister the ability to issue a direction to that same council. How can you have that on the one hand and increased independence on the other? How can we have gone through hours of debate nurturing and fostering this so-called independence when here we are doing the exact opposite?I query why a Minister of this Government feels the need to do this and I also would like to ask the question: where's the trust in the profession? Where's the trust in the Teaching Council—because we now know it's named the Teaching Council. And I'd also like to ask a third question: how do we think the unions feel about this? Will the unions look forward to another Government of another hue and will they still continue to like the fact that a Minister can issue a direction in relation to the Education Council? Let's see what the unions say in the select committee process should this pass. I'll be sitting there listening very closely to what they might say in regard to this bill.I would also like to point out that we had two members on the other side—Mark Patterson and Jamie Strange—when we were in that Teaching Council debate refer to what they said was a conspiracy theory around on the one hand giving independence and on the other hand taking it away. Well again here we are this afternoon doing exactly what they called a conspiracy. It's not a theory; it's a reality it's a fact and that's what we're doing here right now. I will touch on two other points that the bill brings into play. One is making student safety a registration criteria for private schools. So what the bill does is it amends the Education Act 1989 to include a new registration criteria for private schools which requires that they are a safe physical and emotional place for students. Now while we here on this side of the House would support logical and reasonable criteria and limits around student safety—of course we would do that; that's just the right thing to do—it's not clear to us at all what has led to the Minister progressing these changes. It's not clear at all why these changes have been drafted into this initial take on this bill. We're potentially supportive of having the Education Review Office provide greater scrutiny but we're also very cautious around how it looks like cancellation of registration of private schools will become—with the passage of this should it take place—too easy. Why and how has that come about? Where is the evidence that this is actually an issue for private schools? Now I want to switch over to the regulatory impact statement in regards to this point where it states that there is "no evidence"—this is in the impact statement—"of harm arising from the status quo unless changes could result in unnecessary cost." So you've already got a caution there. It says in the impact statement there is "no evidence of the level of bullying and other forms of physical and emotional harm that it is better or worse in private schools." So we've got some serious caution being laid here—again something else that we'll be paying attention to through the select committee process should this pass. If there is no evidence for this where have these changes come from? What is behind the Minister's intention to insert this in the No. 2 bill? The third thing that I want to touch on is the cohorts around 5-year-olds. So whereas the National Party allowed changes for a small group of students to start school a maximum of eight weeks before their fifth birthday—we saw that as allowing flexibility and choice; it was a pragmatic and a practical flexible arrangement for parents; it made sense—this particular bill allows cohorts but only after they have turned five. Where's the flexibility in that? It's not there.The other thing that this bill does is basically take backwards communities of online learning. There's going to be reduced options for students currently enrolled in distance learning and much reduced options around accrediting providers offering that valuable online tuition. These changes are unnecessary and we do not support them. We'd like to know why they're here.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call—Jamie Strange you have five minutes."