Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Ka pai e Te Kaiwhakahaere. It's a pleasure to speak in Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. I appreciate the call and yes I do have some new material. It's specifically in regards to an amendment in my name and it seeks to amend clause 6: After clause 6(8) insert new 6(9)" which is "In Schedule 21 clause 4(a) after [the words] "neglect of duty" insert [the words] "any actions that may bring the Teaching Council into disrepute".This is of course around schedule 21 "Removal from office" and "Disqualification from office". This is the sort of thing that you speak on and you hope that things always work out and that you don't have to get to this stage in any game where someone is disqualified once having been elected or appointed. But it is necessary that we do look forward look ahead and know that sometimes these things happen. "This"—amendment in my name—"clarifies that any actions undertaken by a member of the Teaching Council which may bring the reputation of the Council into disrepute are considered just cause for removal from office. This contributes" I think "to the stated intention of the bill to lift the status and reputation of the Teaching profession."If you look at schedule 21 of the Education Act which is where the current disqualification material comes from you see that in schedule 21 under clause 3 "Removal from office (1) The Minister may revoke the appointment of a member of the Education Council at any time for just cause. (2) The revocation must be made by written notice to the member with a copy to the Education Council. (3) The written notice must state—(a) the date on which the removal takes effect which must not be earlier than the date on which the notice is received; and (b) the reasons for the removal."Now we get to the section where my amendment specifically inserts some new words. "(4) In this clause just cause—(a) includes misconduct"—and I want to come back to that word in reply to something the Minister said earlier—"inability to perform the functions of office neglect of duty"—and then this is where I think and I'm contending that we should be inserting the words "any actions that may bring the Teaching Council into disrepute" and then would carry on and say—"and breach of any of the collective duties of the board or the individual duties of members (depending on the seriousness of the breach);". It then goes on to talk about the case of a member holding a practising certificate and if they cease to hold that certificate they're disqualified. It even mentions a judge who may or may not be on the council and non-payment should you be disqualified.But what's really interesting is that—I'm on several boards: the Sir Peter Blake Marine Education and Recreation Centre; I'm a patron of Onehunga Historic Society a cadet unit and political parties and voluntary organisations—the phrase "bringing into disrepute" is quite common and I think that this is something that we should insert. It does obviously have broad coverage but that's exactly why it should be inserted. We can cover the bases and easily put in language that is common in quite a few spheres. If you look at the stated purpose of the bill which is to raise the status of the profession this would help to do that because it's another mechanism to ensure that council members don't undermine that. So if a council member undermines lifting the teachers' status because they've brought the council into disrepute this would be a good mechanism.I just want to come back to that word "misconduct". The Minister of Education raised this topic before I'd even got to speak to it and he said that this is too subjective. Well the word "misconduct" is subjective so I'm not sure that that argument stacks up. In fact I'd like to hear from the Minister: does he think that the word "misconduct" which is currently in the Act is subjective like the words "bring into disrepute" that I'm contending should be in the Act. Is "misconduct" also subjective? If it is—[Time expired]"