Brown Simeon; Tolley AnneSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much Madam Assistant Speaker. I would like to also start my speech by acknowledging the 125th anniversary of Suffrage Day here in New Zealand and the time when women won the vote. I think it's an important moment in our country's history and an incredibly proud one and one that I'm incredibly proud of today. I also have been reflecting as this debate's been going on on some of the women principals in my electorate of Pakuranga who do a fantastic job educating our students and our learners. I thought I'd acknowledge one from our primary school Carol Dickinson from Riverina Primary School who is the new principal there—she does a fantastic job—Linda Harvie at Farm Cove Intermediate School and Louise Addison at Edgewater College who was appointed earlier this year. These are three fantastic educationalists in the Pakuranga electorate and I'm privileged to be able to work alongside them and the work that they do.Let me get to the bill that we're debating here tonight which is the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill. We've heard lots of speeches from the Government side about how important this bill is. I think one of the really interesting comments from Chlöe Swarbrick and the Green Party was that this bill has evolved through select committee stage. Well I've got news for her. It's actually devolved because if people listening at home wanted to take a moment to have a look at the bill they'd realise how much of the bill has actually been crossed out by the member in charge of the bill. It used to have new section 1A(4) (5) (6) and (7) in clause 4 and they've just gone—just gone. Just cross them out. We've just taken them out because the unions turned up and said Well this bill shouldn't be going ahead." and she listened partially. She listened to half of what they said which was "Get rid of the bill." Well she just crossed out most of it and put a little bit less in there. But actually the message that they were giving to her—and I thought it was actually the best message I've heard from the unions in my whole year in Parliament—is "Get rid of this bill." The message is still there for the other side of the House: take the opportunity and get rid of this embarrassment of a piece of legislation which does nothing.I'd like to bring to the House a different point from what my colleagues have been saying. We have been criticising the member in charge of this bill and I do acknowledge Jan Tinetti. It is a fortunate thing to have a bill brought before Parliament and to be able to progress it through. I've got one myself and I'm enjoying being part of that process. However I would like to just make a point in that Jan Tinetti should be acknowledged for all the hard work that she has done on this bill because we know that there are reviews for Africa going on in the education sector trying to discuss what the vision should be and what we should be aiming to do over the next 30 years. Actually if you read what's been crossed out she's done a good job of trying to make a first attempt—she's done a good job making a first attempt. She's even tried to define what the education learning priorities for the country should be: "to provide learning experiences that support children and young people to reach their potential and a system that aims to achieve equitable outcomes for all;" and that's actually not very different from what we had in the legislation and what's currently in the law but she has given it a crack.So the point I'm trying to make is she should be given far more credit for the work that she's done on the first reading and in drafting this piece of legislation and she's doing the work of multiple reviews. But we've got reviews going out there now to try and define that and to define how that should be implemented and all of the other bits which have been crossed out: "resilience determination confidence"—all of these great words as part of the education learning system which she has come up with and which she put in the bill but which now have been crossed out and which sadly will not be going any further. But these are the issues that we should be debating here tonight.I just come back to the point—it was made earlier by one of my colleagues and I think it was the Hon Tim Macindoe who was an Associate Minister of Education and a very good one. The point he was making was that when we go out and visit schools—when I go and visit schools in my electorate in Pakuranga—we don't get people coming up to us and saying "Oh you need to change that National Education and Learning Priorities part of the Education Act. That's our number one priority." or "You need to make sure that bodies representing the interests of—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Not me.SIMEON BROWN: Sorry Madam Assistant Speaker. "That's the number one priority." or "You need to make sure there's a long list"—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): No. Not me.SIMEON BROWN: "That's our"—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Not me.SIMEON BROWN: I didn't say "you" sorry.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): You did.SIMEON BROWN: They don't come up and say "Well we need to make sure that we include a long list of bodies which are listed as being in the consultation". They don't say that. They say "We do need to invest in our teacher-aides. We do need to invest in ensuring that we have good quality teachers. We do need to invest in making sure there's adequate learning support available for the children who require it." Those are the issues which are raised when we visit schools and when we talk to principals and when we talk to teachers and we talk to parents. They don't come up to us and I haven't got a long line of people out my office door saying "You've got to change the National Education Learning Priorities." That's not what we get coming and lining up at our door but here we are in Parliament debating legislation which makes inconsequential changes to the National Education and Learning Priorities.Let me get to some of this. So "The Minister must make reasonable efforts". We've heard Minister Jenny Salesa come up and say—and I think Chlöe Swarbrick made the same point—that this will require the Minister to consult. Well I've got news for the other side of the House: the bill as it stands says "the Minister must make reasonable efforts to consult." There's a big difference between "must consult" and "must make reasonable efforts to consult." because we know what will happen is the Minister will just keep doing what the Minister keeps on doing. So will the Government members take responsibility for their words and amend this even further cross some more words out and make it so that the Minister must consult because that's what they've stood up in the House—that's what they're telling New Zealanders. No doubt that's what they're going up and down the country and saying: "We've got this one piece of legislation which is going to make a huge difference. It's going to mean the Minister must consult." Well it's not what the bill says. So I'd like the next member who stands up on the Government's side to clarify what they're saying and get the record straight on this issue.Marja Lubeck: Such conspiracy!SIMEON BROWN: Well I'm taking this issue so seriously because it's a serious matter that the Government is wasting the House's time with rather than getting on and fixing the real issues which the House's time should be used to do. This bill makes so many inconsequential changes.Then we heard from Chlöe Swarbrick that this involves parents and she said that with some sort of disdain which I thought was very unfortunate. But it says here in the bill in new section 1A(4A) in clause 4 that "national bodies representing the interests of parents;" must be consulted. It doesn't say "consult with parents"; it just says "national bodies representing the interests of parents;".Dan Bidois: Like unions.SIMEON BROWN: So is that—are unions? Can the members on the other side as Dan Bidois very appropriately asks—does that mean unions? Because I think that's something—or is there a union for that? That's a question that I'd like the members on the other side to answer because this bill does not clarify does not make it clear that parents will be consulted. It doesn't mean that parents have a requirement to be consulted. It just says "national bodies representing the interests of parents" and I think that's great. I think it's good. There are bodies which represent parents and I think they do a great job. But why can't parents also be consulted? If we're going to have a big long list of everyone who's going to be consulted why can't parents also be on that list?I think the members on the other side of the House need to clarify whether they're going to make a change—whether they actually back parents as being part of the education of their children and the significant role that parents up and down our country play in the role of parenting but also in educating children supporting their schools and supporting the good work that teachers do in supporting children's learning. So members on the other side of the House are misrepresenting the very bill which has so little in to be misrepresented. There's so little in this bill to be misrepresented but they've managed to find enough to misrepresent here in the House tonight.One of the last changes that this bill makes—it says in new section 1A(5A) in clause 4 "A minor change under subsection (5) is limited to a technical short and uncontroversial amendment that does not change or extend the policy of the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities." Well that summarises the entirety of this bill. It's a minor change it's technical it's short it's uncontroversial—well it is controversial because it's a waste of this House's time—and it does not change or extend the policy of the National Education and Learning Priorities because they ripped out the guts of the bill they got rid of it and now we're here wasting our time when we could be actually solving some of the real issues facing the education system in New Zealand. Thank you.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand this is a split call."