Pettis Jill: Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18523] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 There has been a very good debate this evening on this bill. I agree with Simon Power’s final statement and with much of what he said during his contribution. I think everybody in this House wants to ensure that our children are safe at school and have the best educational opportunities possible. 
But having a responsibility within the education sector whether one is a teacher board member member of the parent teacher association friend of the school or member of whatever organisation is onerous. Although a number of concerns have been expressed this evening by members who have contributed to the debate I suspect that whether the school is large or small most board of trustee members are generally pretty aware of what are unacceptable behaviours that may be exhibited by other board members and are usually awake to any odd behaviour of other board members. So in some respects although it is certainly worthwhile having this bill go through to a select committee I would be prepared to wager that most board members would exercise a sort of self-governing self-disciplining role through observing the behaviours of other board members. 
I think many members in this House have served several years on school committees and boards of trustees. I have served probably 16 years I think on a school committee or a board of trustees. In fact our children were at university and I was still on a board of trustees! It is a worthwhile experience. With the advent of Tomorrow’s Schools we have board of trustees whose role is much more responsible and onerous than that of the former school committee situation. It brings issues of responsibility like the employment of staff with it. 
One of the comments that has been made by other members is that although this bill has merit—and I am sure that the debate in the select committee will be very interesting—it is a bit like that phrase about using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I think the intention behind Mr Brownlee’s bill is well founded but I suspect he has had a lot of correspondence from people in the wider New Zealand community who are interested in education who have read the first draft of his bill and who have given him information that he may not have had when he first drafted it. I say that because the other aspect that was also mentioned earlier on tonight is that it is not always easy to get people to stand. If it is a requirement that criminal offending be declared before people can go on boards of trustees I think we will have a heck of a job getting people to stand. Even if the offence certainly would not fall into the sex offence category not everyone wants to declare that when he or she was 15 he or she pinched a chocolate bar from a dairy or did something even less serious than that. I know we have legislation whereby people who have led a blameless life for a number of years will be able to have their convictions expunged—the Clean Slate Bill—but there are still some people who are very very conscious of the fact that in their “misspent youth” they did something wrong and they do not want to go anywhere near a process whereby they have to declare they pinched a Moro bar from a dairy when they were 16 and thought they were 10 feet high and bulletproof. 
 That is where the aspect of this bill being a case of our using a sledgehammer to crack a nut needs to be considered. There is provision already within the Education Act of 1989 whereby police vetting of all staff including teacher-aides and those who may work closely with pupils is already taking place. 
I support this bill and wish the member well. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Education and Science Committee.referred to Education and Science Committee