Kaye NikkiHon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Look I cannot believe the speech that we have just had from the Minister of Education. He has said this is a watershed moment in New Zealand's history. I'll tell you what a watershed moment is: a watershed moment is the fact that as of today with this legislation there is an urgency application in the Waitangi Tribunal. They are a Government that claim they care about Crown-Māori relations and they are pushing through legislation for no urgent reason but to get rid of partnership schools. Here is my message to the iwi leaders of New Zealand who have backed these schools: we believe in you and we will bring partnership schools back. Under a future National Government we will bring the model back and we will expand those partnership schools. Why? Not because we believe in ideology but because we actually believe in vulnerable young people and helping kids with complex needs.It is not just the National Party that believes this; we heard from the schools. We heard from the schools not only about their achievement. We saw the Martin Jenkins report. We saw the huge independent evaluations of partnership schools. And do you know what? It isn't just the National Party that believes in these schools; it's Sir Toby Curtis it's Dame Iritana it's Lance O'Sullivan it's huge Māori leaders—the tōtaras of Māori education—who have supported these partnership schools. And do you know what? It isn't just the National Party. It's also Willie Jackson and Kelvin Davis who prior to the election said they believed in these schools. Kelvin Davis said that he would resign if these schools closed. We believe in partnership schools and it is a very sad day for New Zealand to see this legislation going through the House. It is about ideology and I am very sad for those students who have had to be put through this.I do want to acknowledge the leaders from partnership schools: Alwyn Poole Karen Poole Nick Hyde Raewyn Tīpene Roanna Bennett. I know that it's been a really tough time for you. The National Party has not trashed their reputation. We have spent months fighting for these schools to ensure that they don't close. We realise that today is effectively the legislative process to get rid of the model but we also know that we completely disagree with the Minister of Education's process around terminating the contracts—effectively publicly before the legal process but also prior to this legislation occurring. The question that we have asked for the people of New Zealand has been: what is the cost of that?So we won't take a lecture from the Minister of Education around the costs around partnership schools because there is a secret amount of compensation and deals that have gone on to transition these school to designated character schools which is not in the public domain and the estimates that we've had from the Minister and the ministry is that that could be around $30 million. So we support these schools. We know they've been through a tough time. We really hope that they are successful under the designated character model but it is not the same as a partnership school model. There are some fundamental differences. Those differences are flexibility and management and flexibility and funding.But I do want to make this point which is what we made throughout the process and again I want to quote the Prime Minister here. She said there would be a pathway for these schools if they effectively had registered teachers followed the Curriculum and had comparable funding. Well here are the facts. The facts are that just like every other school in New Zealand there is limited authority to teach. There are unregistered teachers in other schools in New Zealand. The facts are that the partnership schools were following the Curriculum. The facts are that actually the partnership schools had a comparable amount of money and it was worked out on a formula level to a State school.So the reality is that these schools and this model have gone because of the Minister's blatant ideology not because of what's best for schools. The Labour Party has continued to spread misinformation about the model. National will bring these schools back because we fundamentally believe not only in the iwi leaders who have gone behind these schools; we believe in the people who established these schools. We believe in the fact that Martin Jenkins has said that these schools have done a good job and that's why we will bring back partnership schools.The second issue that I want to cover—again to get a lecture from the Minister of Education about ideology—is national standards. We accept—and in fact I was the Minister that put a Cabinet paper through last year—that we want to transition to a system of progression. We accept that. We put through the Cabinet paper last year to do that. But what we hoped—and what I did with that Cabinet paper—was that we could get cross-party agreement and work with schools over a two-year period to ensure that they had not only the Curriculum resources and the ICT systems to improve quality reporting for parents; but we also believe in accountability around that data.What the Minister of Education did was rip up any cross-party agreement late last year—this is effectively legislation that cleans up what he's already done. Late last year he scrapped national standards by changing the national advisory guideline. He did that without consulting a million parents. And do you know what? It might be novel to the Labour Party but we actually back parents. We actually believe that they have a right to have a say in the reporting system for their children and it's a Labour Government that took that away late last year and is now passing legislation to clean that up. It is not correct to say that somehow there's been a select committee process around national standards when they already got rid of national standards at the end of last year.So my plea to the Government my plea to all of those educators out there is to know that we do support moving to a system of progression. We believe that the teaching profession needs to be supported in the way that we do that. We believe there should be some data that comes back to the Ministry of Education for this single reason: we need to be able to stand alongside many other countries in the world and demonstrate that we have a good understanding of the nationwide picture of achievement. That is a partnership between the profession and the Government. We need to do that because we need to be able to target some of our most vulnerable young people in areas like numeracy and literacy.What the Government has done is they have moved ahead of the sector. There is now chaos and confusion in some schools because they are not clear what the status of national standards has been. And also we don't have that nationwide picture of achievement at an individual school level and that means that we're not going to be able to help some of our most vulnerable people. That is why the National Party has opposed this bill. Our plea to the Government is: stop trying to be so ideological and be so arrogant in the way that you are doing these things. Work across the House around a system of nationwide achievement. Work across the House around models like partnership schools for disadvantaged young people because we owe it to the parents of New Zealand and we owe it to the families of those children in schools like partnership schools.I do want to acknowledge that in this bill there have been a number of other changes including to the tertiary education and governance model. But I think I want to end my speech on this note: again we all come into politics to help young people. I don't know a member of this House—and it doesn't matter what side of politics you're on. Everybody thinks about how we can ensure that we have equality of opportunity? What makes me so sad about this bill is that there is so much in this that cuts to the heart of how you deliver that equality of opportunity—how you ensure that we know where those young people might not have the skills that they need to succeed in life.It is about recognising that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to education; that actually we back innovation we back iwi we back the education entrepreneurs of this world and that we accept there are multiple ways to deliver education. I'm proud to come from a party that backs private schools that backs State-integrated schools that backs partnership schools but also that believes in a strong public education system. I reject the notion that we can somehow believe only in a public education system in New Zealand.There are multiple other people who make a huge difference to the lives of New Zealanders. If we're going to continue to have that ideological debate we're going to continue to leave a group of young people behind. That is why we have been incredibly sad about this bill. We make a plea to the Government at this last hour: why have you done this? Why have you ignored the Waitangi Tribunal and the urgent claim there? Why are you scrapping these schools? We believe in partnership schools. We believe in accountability. We believe in good reporting to parents. We believe in the power of teachers and principals and this is a very sad day for New Zealand. It is a watershed moment. That Government chose ideology and not what's best for young people and we support young people.