Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): As a former Minister of Education I want to particularly focus in on clause 9 in Part 1 and question the Minister of Education on the ideology behind getting rid of the charter schools and replacing them with this notion of special designated character schools. My concern is that the election and the rhetoric from the Government since has been dominated by this notion that New Zealand needs to do better with our disadvantaged young people and to provide them with more opportunities in education. There's absolutely no question from this side of the House on that objective but the part that I find extraordinary and that's been so well highlighted by my colleague Nikki Kaye is that the very schools that are making such a material difference to the lives of our most disadvantaged children are those charter schools and yet for purely ideological reasons—and let's not be cute about it. Who's funded the Labour Party has resulted in them wanting to change—Hon Tracey Martin: Oh hey! Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well the member from New Zealand First interjects. Tell me I'm not correct that the teacher unions are the paymaster for the Minister in the chair and that as a pay-off want to get—Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Those allegations by the member speaking—the longest-serving member in the House—are completely out of order and unacceptable. I take offence to them and of all the people in the committee I didn't think the National Party would be talking about where money comes from today. [Interruption] CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I'm on my feet. Chris Bishop: That's outrageous. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm on my feet—OK? Let's not get too excited over what's happening in the Chamber right now. I would say to the Hon Dr Nick Smith though that I think he has crossed that line and that he should withdraw that comment. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw but I challenge the Minister: can he please give me a logical explanation as to why we would want to advance legislation that nails charter schools that even his own parliamentary colleagues accept are making a material difference in the lives of those New Zealand children that are doing the very best and which need to improve. You see I heard Willie Jackson prior to the election championing the cause of charter schools I heard Kelvin Davis championing the cause and I genuinely believed that they were here to advance the cause particularly of young Māori and what we were seeing in these charter schools making such a massive difference in children's lives. Here's the other part: why is it that the Prime Minister has refused to visit any of the charter schools when she says that she cares so much about our kids? I was Minister of Education and I was repeatedly challenged by members opposite at every single school and I did close some schools for non-performance and some that didn't have sufficient roll to be justified. I visited every single one of them. Why is it that the Prime Minister who's wanted to wear her heart on her sleeve around the issue of our disadvantaged children has not been prepared to visit the very schools that are being changed by provisions in Part 1 of this bill and is compromising the education of those children who we on this side of the House want to give opportunity to and want to break the cycle of disadvantage? I make no apologies for saying that the reason the Government is doing this has nothing to do with the welfare of children. It has nothing to do with Education" in the title of this bill. It has nothing to do with trying to address some of the social challenges that our country has. It has everything to do with the association of the current Government and their close relationship with the teacher unions who only see a single model of education even where that fails kids. That's why members on this side of the House take such strong objection to the provisions in this bill that actually are bad for children and actually are going to make it more difficult for New Zealand to find the solutions to find the innovation and to do the work that's going to make the difference for those children's education that this Parliament owes more than anyone for. So I just want to hear from the Minister in the chair: give me a good reason. If it's not because of the close association with the teacher unions give me one good reason why we should be getting rid of these schools and imposing these extra constraints on them when the record is quite clear that they are giving a better result for our children."