Smith Nick: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Smith Nick: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:596] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Firstly I congratulate the new Minister of Education on introducing to the House a bill that I think will have a greater positive impact on the challenges facing our nation than probably any other issue that we will consider in the course of the next 3 years of this term of Parliament. This Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill is a litmus test as to whether members of this House are prepared to sit silently by and see one in five of New Zealand children fail basic literacy and numeracy and whether we are prepared to take seriously a 50 percent increase in the number of students who are truanting from our schools. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: What rubbish! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I do not think in all honesty there is a member of this House I say to Chris Carter who can put hand on heart and say that the long tail of underachievement shown up in every piece of educational research on our schools is not a serious issue for our nation. I do not think that even Chris Carter who is interjecting in his heart of hearts really believes that that is an issue we should not be concerned about. So the question we as parliamentarians need to ask is what we should do. The truth is that it is not members of this House who stand up the front of classrooms each day and do the really important job of teaching our students but we have to ask what we can do. 
I believe in a very simple principle not just in education but in other areas as well and that is that we manage what we measure. If we are serious about lifting educational standards then we should be prepared to measure them. I reflect on one of the really hot debates in this Parliament in the 1990s which was about the issue of financial performance. This country had a disgraceful record in the management of public finances. One of the reasons was that we did not honestly report the state of our public finances. I was proud to be part of the National Government that passed the Fiscal Responsibility Act which required independent honest reporting of our public finances. That Act resulted in the years since in a substantial improvement in the state of our public finances. I say that education needs the same honest reporting. 
Other countries have grappled with the same issues. Some countries that have been concerned about their literacy and numeracy standards have passed legislation that prescribes how teachers should teach. Some countries have passed laws—we have even had such a bill in this House—that require teachers to teach by phonics. Well this Government does not agree with that. I will tell members why. We trust the professionalism of teachers and it is not for this Parliament to prescribe how teachers should teacher—whether teachers should use phonics or whole language or any of the many other proper educational debates amongst the professionals. Other Parliaments around the world have prescribed the number of hours that schools should spend on teaching literacy and numeracy. The United Kingdom prescribes that teachers spend 2 hours on it; in other countries it is 2 hours and 30 minutes. Again Anne Tolley and this Government say that no that is not the right approach. This bill says that we do not mind how teachers teach—whether it is phonics or whole language whether it is for 2 hours a day or 2 hours and 30 minutes a day—but they do need to meet a national standard. I am proud to be a part of a Government that is prepared to say just that. 
Let us look at some of the arguments—or I should say “excuses”—that have been put forward by the Labour Opposition because they speak volumes about the difference between Labour’s values and the values that are held by this Government. I was very interested to hear the new member Mr Prasad say we should not introduce this measure unless teachers agree. Are we really so lacking in leadership so prepared to let down the children of this country that unless every teacher agrees we are prepared to sit by fail the leadership test and not set the standard? I say to Mr Prasad that the responsibility of this Parliament is not to the teachers of this land but to the young people—the students the children. I tell Mr Prasad that they are the ones to whom we owe our first responsibility. 
The problem for the Labour Party is that it is captured by the teacher unions. That is one of the reasons why over the last 9 years we have gone backwards in education. Labour members are more interested in serving the needs of their mates in the teacher unions than in doing what is right for the children of this country. 
I come to the point that was raised by the member who said that the provisions in this bill are wrong in that they give the Minister the power to prescribe national standards. What a facetious argument! Why did Labour members support an Education Act that allowed the Minister of Education to prescribe the full curriculum? They say it is OK to prescribe the whole curriculum but not OK to prescribe national standards of literacy and numeracy. What a pathetic argument! 
Then we heard the arguments in opposition to the issue of assessment. I ask members opposite what their answer is to the report from the Education Review Office that 58 percent of schools in New Zealand are not providing for assessment. What is their answer? I will tell members what their answer was. After 9 years the answer we got from the Minister of Education Chris Carter was the “Wassup!” badge. Well the new Minister of Education wants more for the children of New Zealand than a “Wassup!” badge and members on this side of the House are proud to back her up. 
I want to bring this debate back to the very practical experience of a constituent who came to see me in my electorate caravan. Her child had just gone on to secondary school to Nelson College. She was horrified to learn that her son had been put on a reading recovery programme. She brought to my constituency clinic every school record— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: School report. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —school report that she had received over the last 5 years. None of those school reports gave that parent any indication that her child was falling behind. I simply say to the members opposite that we need transparent reporting of school results. I say to members opposite that providing parents with honest reports on how well their children are doing is just what they need. 
The last point I want to make in this debate is that it is interesting that not one Labour member has been prepared to talk about the truancy provisions in this bill. I will tell members why. It is because they are embarrassed by their track record. The last 9 years have seen truancy rates in this country go through the roof and they are embarrassed and ashamed— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to members that when I call a point of order I expect there to be order and I expect members to let the person who is raising the point of order to have his or her say. I do not expect there to be an increase in the barracking from both sides of the Chamber. Let us have some order. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: The member Nick Smith in his usual extravagant and outrageous manner has just claimed that none of the members on this side of the Chamber talked about truancy. I myself did as did Dr Prasad and others. Mr Smith again is not telling the truth in the Chamber. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order; that is a debating point. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I note that no Labour member has debated at any length the truancy provisions in this bill. Chris Carter should hang his head in shame. He should hang his head in shame because during his watch thousands of New Zealand young people who should have been in school receiving an education were not there and he did nothing. The fact that Labour continues to have him as its education spokesperson shows that it is soft on standards soft on truancy and an apologist for failure. I am proud to back Anne Tolley and national standards which will make a difference for this country.