Moroney Sue: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Moroney Sue: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15620] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak in the second reading of the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). I thank the previous speaker the chairperson of the Education and Science Committee Allan Peachey. He does a very fine job in the chair. He was right when he said we did have a very strong sense of cooperation on our committee particularly when the ministry wanted to bring some late information into this amendment bill. Even though we are the Opposition we felt that these issues were important and appropriate for this bill so we accorded the Government our agreement to make sure that those issues were addressed. 
But we find ourselves debating this bill under urgency. That is kind of ironic really because although we were prepared to give the Government the time on the select committee to actually address some issues that came late to the table we now find that we are using urgency time in Parliament to debate a standard bill that should go through under the normal processes. However here we are debating it under urgency. 
I want to focus on the part of the bill that impacts on the shadow portfolio that I am involved in early childhood education because there are substantial changes in relation to the lowering of standards for limited-attendance centres. As I think other members have already said limited-attendance centres are described in this bill as being the sorts of facilities that we might use when we go to the gym or the shopping centre. They are defined in the bill as being early childhood education settings where children will not be for any longer than 2 hours in 1 day. I think people will imagine the sorts of settings that those places are in. But lowering early childhood education standards for our very vulnerable children is a bit of the theme with this Government: 
I will just read from a very very good submission that the select committee received on this bill on the matter of limited-attendance centres. It was from the Human Rights Commission. I want to read its actual words because they tell us about the human rights aspects that are under threat with the passing of this bill which is one of the main reasons why Labour opposes it. The Human Rights Commission said it “is concerned due regard does not appear to have been given to the vulnerability of babies infants and young children attending LACs and the steps required to ensure their physical and emotional safety and wellbeing. … The commission understands there is doubt as to whether staff in LACs would be required to undergo a police vetting check.” Of course these are not its words but what we found when we closely questioned officials about that is that this bill completely does away with the requirement for police vetting checks for those centres. 
The Human Rights Commission said “We welcome the Minister’s reassurance during the Bill’s First Reading that it was not the Bill’s intention to remove police vetting.” but of course we know now that that intention was not followed through. The Human Rights Commission went on to say “We strongly recommend that such checks remain mandatory for any staff member who has unsupervised access to young children and that the Select Committee identifies what measures are necessary to enforce such a requirement.” 
There were members of the select committee who did exactly what the Human Rights Commission asked for. They were the members of the Labour Party and of the Green Party and those issues are detailed in the I am sad to say minority reports in the report-back from the select committee. Although the Human Rights Commission asked the entire select committee to identify measures that were necessary to look after vulnerable children only the Labour Party and the Green Party were determined to make a stand on that issue. 
The submission went on to state: “The commission would be concerned if deregulation of LACs reflected any perception that caring for a group of young children is unskilled work with few responsibilities or that it does not require training.” But of course that is the view of the National Government and we know that not only because of this bill but because of its determination to reduce the number of qualified staff in the early childhood education sector right across the board. In the Budget this year one of the largest cuts to any portfolio was to early childhood education and that cut was meted out in particular to centres that dared to go after the goal that Labour had set when it was previously in Government—having 100 percent of the staff qualified. But John Key and Anne Tolley have said our children in New Zealand do not need or deserve to have 100 percent of the staff qualified. They say the children do not matter and it is good enough for 80 percent of the staff to be qualified. 
We see exactly that attitude coming through in this bill. The National members do not understand that those young children are engaged in early childhood education. They see early childhood education as being glorified babysitting. That is why they have taken the knife to qualified teaching staff in early childhood education centres and it is why they have moved to completely remove any standards and any form of regulation from these limited-attendance centres. 
The Human Rights Commission went on to outline the safeguards that it wanted to ensure were in place. It wanted someone who is qualified in first aid to be available at all times. The Government members on the select committee did not see fit to do that. It wanted sufficient staff to be available including cover for times when a staff member may need to locate a parent urgently. The Government members did not see fit to do that for limited-attendance centres. The Human Rights Commission wanted as a bare minimum staff to be aware of relevant child protection and abuse protocols. The Government members would not even agree to that. The last minimum that the Human Rights Commission wanted was for adequate records to be kept so that staff could ensure that children did not attend more than 2 hours a day. The Government members on the select committee could not even agree to that as a very very basic level of protection for preschool children. 
The Human Rights Commission gave a very well-thought-out submission but unfortunately for the majority of the select committee the Government members it fell on completely deaf ears. It fell on completely deaf ears because this Government fundamentally does not believe in the value of early childhood education. Government members do not understand that the commission was in fact saying there is a vulnerability on the part of babies infants and young children. They think they do not deserve protection but parents and families look to the Government for that protection. 
I believe that in a country like New Zealand a country that has always had very high educational standards when parents drop off their children at a limited-attendance centre in a creche a gym or a shopping centre they will expect some minimum standards to be set for the people who are charged with looking after their children. Parents will expect in a country like New Zealand that the Government has the courage to make sure their children are be safe and that at the very least there will be police checks and as my colleague Trevor Mallard said a line of sight for example. Those are just some very basic things that ensure the protection of young children when they are away from their parents or their primary caregivers—that is not too much to ask. They are very very basic standards but the Government members could not even bring themselves to recommend them. 
I do not think it is too extreme to say Government members are potentially leaving these babies these infants and these children at the hands of potential sex abusers whom the police already know about. What will the Government’s response be when something happens? I would like to say “if something happens” but I think my colleague Trevor Mallard is right to say the people who operate in this field will look for these opportunities. They will see this gap and they will know that they can have access to young children who are unsupervised by their parents without having to face a police vetting check. I think the Government members should think very seriously about the vulnerability of children and the position that they are putting them in. I really do hope that during the Committee stage we can find that there is some heart on the National benches.