Rurawhe AdrianADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare otirā tēnā tātou katoa. Well this has been an interesting discussion or debate tonight. We have heard about He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata he tangata he tangata." Well if that was correct then why is it that the New Zealand Principals' Federation in its submission to the Education and Science Committee said the following: "On the surface they might be described as a collection of ill-conceived baseless changes which lack any intelligent rationale. They might otherwise be described as changes without openly expressed rationale yet intended to enable further expansion of certain policies and direction." That is coming from one of the most important education organisations in our country. That is what it has got to say about it.So why is it then if we can quote such whakataukī in this House that we do not uphold it and listen to this New Zealand Principals' Federation? Why is that? Why do we not listen also to its supplementary submission where it says it has not had the opportunity to consult widely amongst principals because there is only a 2-week period for submissions on Supplementary Order Paper 176? We have heard from other members and I support what the member Tracey Martin had to say on the process—that it was totally inappropriate for the Government majority members to try to stop this consultation.So I ask the question again: if people are so important why are we not giving them enough time to consult with their constituents so that they can make a more effective and widely consulted-on submission to the select committee? We might actually have better outcomes if we used better processes. I pose that question for the House to consider. Not only the Principals' Federation but others as well who submitted—there were many submissions on this. Of course only those submitters were advised personally or by letter that there was another part to this legislation that had not been considered by the select committee or given the opportunity by organisations to make submissions on it.Within that the main issue was around trainee teachers. I ask the question again: he aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata he tangata he tangata. Well what about the children who are in front of those trainee teachers? Are we putting them front and centre of this discussion? From my point of view no we are not. We are putting other dynamics front and centre in that discussion.I go back to what the Principals' Federation has said—that it is to enable the expansion of certain policies and direction. I also ask about the charter schools because I remember reading quotes when charter schools were first proposed. I think what we have got is quite different from what was even being proposed back then. But that is one of the areas that has been in this bill a policy and direction that has been expanded so now tertiary institutes are able to sponsor charter schools. I have got to ask myself in reading through all of these things—because we have not been given a rationale as a number of submitters have pointed out—as to why we are taking this overall direction through this bill. I think that these changes collectively do exactly what the New Zealand Principals' Federation say they do.I think that in opposing this bill we are quite right to oppose this bill. It takes New Zealand down a track in terms of education and actually not only education. Let us look at the principals managing more than one school. Principals are seen as professional leaders of their schools. Not only that; quite often they are one of the leaders of their community. They are required to have good relationships with their families with iwi with whānau and with a number of groups within their communities. Under this bill they will be expected to do that perhaps amongst three or four communities. That kind of tells me that within each of their communities they are going to get only part of the attention of that one principal. We have to ask again what does that do to small communities? What does that do across a number of communities? Well I think that diminishes their role as professional leaders not only of their school but also leadership roles within their community.I also question as a number of submitters did is there really a need for this? Are we fixing something that does not really exist? As others have pointed out there already exists opportunity for principals to manage more than one school so why are we going down this track? I think again it is to perpetuate and fulfil the expansion of certain policies.Hon Hekia Parata: That's what Governments do.ADRIAN RURAWHE: Yes OK then. Absolutely. Governments should do that but they should tell the country what they are doing not do it by stealth by making several changes within a bill like this and not actually saying what the overall effect to the education system and our society is going to be. That is a fundamental issue around what is happening in this bill.I suggest that Minister Parata and members opposite actually go and read the submissions properly because they are really serious ones. I think we do both the New Zealand public and the submitters an injustice by not taking seriously their submissions on this bill.I agree with the points made about opening schools being able to alter school hours. That would be great if you can alter all the bus timetables as well say particularly in a provincial area where schoolchildren catch buses to school—that would be great as well. I am not convinced. Again some of the submissions that I sat in on I heard there were concerns about such things as families that have children who go to a number of different schools and trying to align all of those along with extracurricular activities and along with all the other issues that families have to cope with. There are a lot of families out there that are trying to cope with poverty. These changes do not address and do not help them. In fact they probably make it more difficult for children to attend school if their siblings are attending other schools that have different hours.We can make fun of what I am saying but I am saying to the House that this House needs to consider more carefully these issues. It gives me no pleasure at all actually to be standing speaking on this bill. We could be speaking on much better legislation than what we have in front of us. Nō reira tēnā tātou katoa."