Prasad Rajen: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Prasad Rajen: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:626] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 This particular provision is for me primarily and largely about vulnerable families and we need to factor them into the programme we are now debating. As we increase penalties for the most vulnerable we must know that it is serious for them and everyone from our side has already spoken out about that. We need to be clear that we understand when those punitive measures are to be triggered. They have to be triggered at the right time particularly for vulnerable families. In order to ensure that we have the trigger points right we ought to take much more advice than we have taken at the present time. 
The Minister Anne Tolley said earlier that she was relying on 2001 research on the effects of this which the ministry or someone else might have done. However I say to the Minister that she ought to rely on contemporary evidence and that contemporary evidence comes from the people who are not teachers but are working in schools right now and who are working with these vulnerable families. 
I was part of a group that pioneered school social work in this country. We placed social workers in schools for a good reason—to help and work with vulnerable families. I would like to hear from those social workers. What are they saying? What is their advice? What have they found out so far what works and what does not work? I think we ought to bring that into the consideration of this particular clause. 
I agree with Mr Te Ururoa Flavell when he talked about the experience from Hawaii. As I understood from what he said they were talking about involving parents and having a continuum of services. I did not hear him talk about punitive measures; I heard him talk about measures that enable people to participate. So simply increasing the fine will not address what is perceived as an important problem at the present time. I think the House should have the benefit of those people who have the experience and who know the conditions under which optimal assistance can be provided to families. The provisions in clauses 5 and 6 do not do that. 
These considerations are important because the families likely to get caught out for the non-attendance of their children come from the lower economic and vulnerable levels of society. They are likely to be families on a low income or families with irregular work and more important are likely to have many many social issues. Those issues need to be understood and heard. We need to know what other factors must be considered in those sorts of provisions so that changes can be made. 
I ask members to consider for a moment these different conditions. If it were a family like mine then working with the school would be quite easy. But consider the family that I talked about in my maiden speech; a family with disability in the home and difficulties with three children. If those kinds of families which are coping with inordinate difficulties in the home are fined or face a prosecution how does that help them? The system the Government has designed in clauses 5 and 6 will punish them. When I worked with those families it was the bringing together of all of their needs and using the power of the State and the provisions that could be made that made a difference in the life of those families. It will not be done by punishing them with fines. I urge the Minister to send this bill to the select committee so that the experts can come along and improve on the proposals. This is a one-shot act of conscience only; it satisfies those people who want to punish. 
The Minister is acting in an authoritative way but these provisions are not authoritative. What will make the Minister authoritative is to take the best evidence take the right experience from those who work with such families. We have worked with those families in the past ourselves and having worked with them intensively I say we need to understand their experiences and what will help. It simply satisfies the expectations of a different sector of society who believe that only by punishing the vulnerable will we will improve their life situation. There is no evidence of that. We will develop a dog-eat-dog society but we want to avoid that. If we listen to those with experience we will avoid that happening.