Lees-Galloway Iain: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:665] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the third reading debate on the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill. It seems quite appropriate for me as a new member to be talking about education because the passage of this bill through Parliament in the last few hours has been quite an education to me. 
Hon Member 
: It’s about process. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Yes; process. Even though this bill has been shunted through under urgency I have come to understand that the process has its benefits. 
When we first sat down and looked at this bill we thought it was nothing. We thought it was flimflam; we thought it was a space-filler. We thought that the Government was so desperate to look like it was doing something that it had put down something quite innocuous that it could rush through and it would look like it had its action plan. It would look like its priority action plan was under way. Mr Twyford called it a hologram. It looked like it was something but there was nothing there. But Mr Twyford called it something else as well. He called it a Trojan Horse and that is what it is. As the onion has been peeled away layer by layer as this bill is progressed quickly through Parliament we have come to realise that this bill is something more. It is not just flimflam; it actually has a secret hidden agenda. 
This bill does two things. Firstly it lays down the foundation for a complete change in the way we look at the education system in this country. It lays down the foundation for league tables. It lays down the foundation for greater privatisation—the ACT Party is looking forward to it. It lays down the foundation for widening the gap between poor schools and rich schools. It lays down the foundation for stigmatising the children of low-decile schools. It lays down the foundation to publish teacher by teacher results and to make those available. It is blazing a trail for a major restructure in the way our education system works in this country. 
The bill does something else. The second thing it does is demonise good parents. It is sending a message. We have heard a lot from the Government about sending a message. Personally when I want to send a message I might send a text I might send an email or if I am feeling a bit nostalgic I might nip down to New Zealand Post and send a message that way. But now I have found out that there is a new way. If I want to send a message I will go and see Simon Power or Anne Tolley or I might go and see Heather Roy and I will get them to write a piece of legislation for me. 
This bill is sending a message all right; it is sending a message to New Zealand that there is an underclass of bad parents out there who need to be fined and whom we need to go after with prosecutions. The message is that they are bad parents who have no interest in their children’s education and that they need to be told off. They need to be told off for their bad behaviour. Let us think about what is really going on in families with truant children. 
Let us look into the future and think about what the situation might be. Let us think about a solo mum with three kids. Let us suppose that all the kids are now at school. She might have one at intermediate school and a couple at primary school. They are all at school now so it is no more domestic purposes benefit for her now is it. She has to get off the domestic purposes benefit and she has to get work. She could not get work that fitted around school hours but she had to take something because her domestic purposes benefit was on the line; she would be in trouble if she did not take what was on offer. She manages to get the little one to primary school but the kid who is at intermediate school has to go alone because mum has to get herself to work. 
She then finds out that through no fault of her own her eldest child is truanting. The school calls her up. It wants to see her doing something about it; otherwise she will be in line for a fine. What does she do? She has managed to get that new job and she has been given a “take it or leave it” offer of a 90-day probation period. She is sitting there at work. What does she do? Does she leap up and sort out what is happening with her child and face being sacked on the spot or does she stay there and risk a fine and more important does she risk her child not achieving at school because that child is truant a situation that has come about because she is under so much pressure at work? Will that be the situation we see as a result of the raft of legislation we are seeing pushed through this place? 
A family in such a situation might be a working family that as a result of the tax bill we have seen will have their taxes go up. This working family might have two parents who are both working and who are under the same pressure so they have no time for their family and no time to pay attention to what is going on in their family. 
I know that the National Party is not too keen on research. We saw that with the taxation bill as well but National has told us I do not know how many times to be very careful when we start citing research. So I went in search of something that National members may think has some substance. I found a report to the US Department of Justice—hardly what one would call a soft left-wing organisation. The report talks a lot about the role of prosecution and the role of fines in amongst a discussion of a raft of other initiatives to do with truancy. It talks about four correlates of truancy: family factors school factors economic influences and student variables. 
The first one family factors—which is actually the only one that I think could possibly be what the Government is trying to deal with in respect of this legislation—includes a lack of guidance or parental supervision domestic violence poverty drug or alcohol abuse in the home lack of awareness of attendance laws and differing attitudes towards education. How on earth will putting the paddy wagon at the bottom of the cliff deal with these issues? If the Government were serious about truancy it would not have this bill going through under urgency and it would not make this measure its first priority. It might be something the Government put in the mix but it would be looking at domestic violence and poverty trying to deal with drug and alcohol abuse trying to deal with a lack of understanding of attendance laws and trying to deal with differing attitudes towards education. 
This bill is the most Draconian option the Government has. Why has it gone with the most Draconian option? It is because it wants New Zealand to believe that there is an underclass of bad parents out there. It wants us to be able to point the finger and say: “It’s your fault parents that your children are not getting to school.” 
Let us consider some of the school factors. These include school climate issues such as school size; attitudes of teachers other students and administrators; and inflexibility in meeting the diverse cultural and learning styles of the students. Inflexibility in meeting the diverse cultures and learning styles of the students—what could be more inflexible than bringing in national standards? What could be more inflexible than that? If we were really serious about dealing with truancy then we would be looking at that. But no we are going in the opposite direction. It is back to the future; we are in reverse—full on. 
Economic influences mentioned in the report include employed students single-parent homes high mobility rates parents who hold multiple jobs and the lack of affordable transportation and childcare. The Green Party member talked a lot about the minimum wage and investing in communities. In fact I have canvassed educators in Palmerston North and I will tell members what one of them said. I asked him what he would do about truancy and he said he would do what the Labour Party would do. I said: “Say that again?” and he repeated that he would do what the Labour Party would do. I asked him what he meant and he said he meant investing in families. He talked about early intervention and not putting the paddy wagon at the bottom of the cliff. He talked about putting the fence at the top of the cliff and getting on with the job of dealing with the problem—not trying to find someone to blame for the problem. 
Student variables include drug and alcohol abuse lack of understanding of attendance laws lack of social confidence mental health difficulties and poor physical health. These are the things we should be talking about if we are talking about truancy. It is not about fining parents or trying to demonise someone and it is not about trying to go out there and say “Parents of New Zealand you are doing a bad job and the nanny National Government is coming to get you.”