edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Adams Amy: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Adams Amy: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:704] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise today to take a call in support of the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill—a bill that stands up for the most defenceless members of our society. Society is sickened by the abuse of our children and it has been heartening to sit here this afternoon and listen to the debate in this House and hear the unanimity with which this House has condemned those sorts of actions. Abuse of our children is abhorrent and it will not be tolerated. In fact the only real dissension or points of difference that I have heard in this debate this afternoon have focused on two small points. One is the criticism that the bill will not stop abuse and the second is the question of whether it is needed under existing law. I want to speak to those two matters today. 
I comment that in law and order we have of course two things to do. We first have to work to prevent harm—and that is the most important goal—but equally we must also ensure that those who commit crime are properly punished. That is the part that this bill seeks to achieve; its primary focus is not in the category of working to deter harm. Having said that I do not accept that it is entirely outside of that category because all sentencing does have some deterrent effect—but that is not the primary purpose of the bill. The bill will though help deliver tougher sentences and that is why it is important. Even though New Zealand has such a high degree of offending against children the current Sentencing Act does not have any express guidance for the courts to deal with violence against or abuse of children under 14. That is why this bill is important and that is why it will make a difference to the sentences that are handed down to child offenders. 
We accept that the bill is not a silver bullet. This will not magically cure the problems of society but it is—as members have heard already today—the first part of our plan to deal with these issues. I think it is an important part of that plan. I was fortunate during my legal training to have the opportunity to work as junior counsel for children. I think we would all agree that these cases are some of the most difficult emotionally and legally to deal with in the courts. It is a matter that we take incredibly seriously. But the first step in that is making sure that we have appropriate responses to violent offences against children and by having specific aggravating factors built into the Sentencing Act we will see that flowing through into the sentences that are handed down in these cases. It obliges the court to take account of these matters in its sentencing and in that respect it is an absolutely necessary part of the legal system. I just wanted to take a short call today to make those points. I join with the other members of this House in commending this bill to the House. Thank you. 
Bill read a third time.
Garrett David: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Garrett David: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:702] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 My first contribution to this debate on the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill was a hope that in this kind of situation there could be a multi-partisan approach to pass this bill and that is indeed what has happened. I think there has been some very useful comment from all sides. ACT began in the first reading by supporting this bill along with all the other parties and we end by doing exactly the same thing. We disagree somewhat with the previous speaker Dr Russel Norman that it may be of no account at all. No one thinks that it is the whole solution but if only one potential child basher is given some pause for thought over this coming festive season then we will have done something good today. We support it.
King Annette: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
King Annette: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:700] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I do not intend to delay this House for long at all. I do not think there is any need to draw out this debate as I think everything has been said. Today we have seen the House at its best because we have come to an agreement across the Chamber around the broad issue of addressing child abuse in New Zealand. I think the most positive thing to come out of this debate is the hand that has now been stretched out by the Minister Simon Power in saying that he too would like to work across party lines on child abuse. We will have to see how that manifests itself. 
I say to the Minister that I look forward to addressing the other legislation that he intends to introduce next year. Labour may not agree with that legislation but we look forward to his introducing it and giving this House the opportunity to debate it and send it to a select committee where the public can have a say on it. I believe that the only way we will solve an issue as complicated as child abuse—and for that matter I say to the Minister family violence—is to have a bigger conversation with New Zealanders. As much as we would like to fix the problem as politicians and as much as we can put ambulances at the bottom of the cliff—and we can have our legislation our education and our prevention programmes—unless we have buy-in from the community and a belief that we can do something about it we will be beating our gums for years to come. 
So it is important in terms of any moves we make that we bring the wider community alongside us. That community is not just the community of people who are poor or sole parents. Child abuse and family violence can happen in the home on the hill with the flashest car in the driveway. We know that these issues exist right throughout the community. We also know that some families have risk factors associated with them. In those cases if we intervene early enough and have the right programmes in place we could make a huge difference to preventing some of the tragic cases that we are all so familiar with. 
I say to the Minister that this bill will pass its third reading shortly and receive its Royal assent on Monday—along with the other one no doubt. We acknowledge that this measure will not stop these cases but it will do no harm. At least it has started a debate on this issue. There is much more to do. I hope that this is not the end of the debate on this issue and that we will take it further for the good of the children in this country.
Borrows Chester: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Borrows Chester: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:699] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is good to be able to come to the end of the transition of the proposed Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill into enactment and to know that there is the widest of support for it across the House. It is important to bring in pieces of legislation that are precise that address narrowly certain issues and that add to a collective of legislation that actually deals with the problem—if not in a strictly preventive sense at least by addressing the problem as it is within society. 
It is interesting to be here on a Saturday under urgency dealing with this bill. Many investigators around the country are dealing with exactly this kind of tragic circumstance whether it is child homicide or child beating or some other form of neglect. They are working very hard on these things. There is nothing worse than to go through the legal process then not obtain a result; to see a 4 5 6 or 7-year-old muster up the courage to give evidence against an abuser only to find that a conviction is not obtained. It is important to give the judiciary the tools to be able to deal adequately with these offences when a conviction is obtained and to deal with them in a way that is more in keeping with society’s reflection on them. 
In closing I would like to say that I look forward to seeing over the next little while a bipartisan approach to what we all know and that is the fact that in this country we can identify the at-risk foetus. We know that the child who grows up to fail in the areas of health welfare education and law and order is born to a woman who has children at a very young age and may have up to three pregnancies before she is 20; we know she left school with very few qualifications if any; we know she works in a low-wage occupation or is on a benefit; we know there is very little engagement whatsoever with any positive role models in her life; we know she smokes tobacco; we know she is dependent on alcohol and some other substance; and we know that if we can identify the father he comes from the same demographic. When we have all this knowledge when we live in an age when we can put spacecraft on Mars we must address this issue. The willingness of members of Parliament to vote together on this small piece of legislation and to pledge to work together on the much broader problem before us is very comforting and should be comforting to those listening and those who will reflect on the passing of this bill today. Thank you.
Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:699] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I want to make just a short contribution to this debate. Firstly I commend the Minister for his management and conduct of this issue. I think he has a reputation both as a member of the Opposition and now as a member of the Government as a person who deals with issues very honourably. That stands in stark contrast to what we have seen from one or two of his colleagues in the last 5 days. But that being the case let us continue on with the season to be jolly. 
This is a serious issue and I just reiterate as all members have done that we share the same emotion in terms of the revulsion we feel for the conduct perpetrated by some people against children. But I make the point that the Government has not outlined one factual example of aggravating conduct under this legislation that is not already catered for as aggravating conduct under existing legislation. Given that that is the case one wonders what the purpose of this legislation is. 
I hope the Government will place as much emphasis as possible on examining resourcing and dealing with the causes of this behaviour against children because I believe—and I think we all believe—that in doing so we can prevent these tragedies from occurring prevent injury and ultimately prevent the loss of life. This legislation alone by the Minister’s own admission and those of others will not alter what has occurred. I want to reiterate Professor Hall’s comments and I think it would be valuable for the Minister to perhaps have a conversation with Professor Hall who is probably New Zealand’s foremost authority on sentencing. He has made the point that this legislation is window dressing. 
I close by reiterating the comments of my leader Phil Goff who said that we stand ready as an Opposition to work cooperatively constructively and positively with the Government where appropriate viable and workable solutions are put up by it. That does not mean we will agree on every particular detail of those solutions but we acknowledge that this is an issue of moment and that this is an issue that is far too important to play politics with. I thank the Minister for his conduct and I hope some of his colleagues will mirror his example. We commend the bill to the House.
Turei Metiria: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Turei Metiria: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:697] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
:  
I appreciate the comments made by the Minister of Justice Simon Power and the seriousness with which he has taken my concerns. I still think there may be some room for misinterpretation of that provision in practice but assuming that if there was such a misinterpretation at some point in the future it could be dealt with in other ways I think it will be worthwhile to withdraw Supplementary Order Paper 2 in my name at this stage in the spirit of the whole of the Parliament supporting the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill. I think there is no need for anyone to take any divisions or votes because we all agree on the importance of the legislation and because the issue is taken seriously. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Supplementary Order Paper 2 in the name of Metiria Turei has been withdrawn. 
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:696] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Bearing in mind the nature of the debate that has occurred we are not going to labour the point but I just want to raise a couple of very short points with the Minister. The first is whether he could briefly go into a little more detail in respect of Ms Turei’s Supplementary Order Paper. I have talked to the cross benches about the ramifications of the points that she made which I think are very valuable points. The second point I wanted to touch on and again I mean this in a genuine way is whether the Minister could perhaps provide some of the rationale if he will behind the new points and the new factors that are raised here because we do still make the point to him that there is duplication. I would be interested from his officials’ point of view in a little more detail to address the points that Mr Parker raised as he went through and did some legal analysis because Mr Parker’s thesis was that there is no difference here. As a third point I would make the plea—I suspect I will not get a response today but being an eternal Irish optimist— 
Hon Simon Power 
: As am I. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Indeed. I would just ask him whether he is prepared to speak again briefly about the parole legislation and whether he will give us some sort of time frame if he is not prepared to trigger it as we have invited him to do whether he would be prepared to offer some brief explanation as to what he proposes to do around that parole issue; whether he is going to bring some new ideas or new legislation to the Parliament—if so when and what that would be—or whether he is prepared again to acquiesce to our request to trigger it. Because I say in conclusion that that will have a real and significant impact on the safety of New Zealanders unlike the two pieces of law and order legislation that we have dealt with in the last 48 hours.
Guy Nathan: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Guy Nathan: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:696] 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave of the Committee for the four clauses to be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Garrett David: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Garrett David: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:695] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I will take a very short call just to address that one point which seems to be the only one that is still causing any debate at all and that is the role of select committees. I am not experienced of course with the mechanics of select committees and I find that the select committee process is extremely important. But I think members have lost sight of the fact that this is a sentencing bill. It is to use the left’s terminology a bottom of the cliff measure. Members from all sides of the House have agreed that it is not going to prevent these things happening sadly and that it is a reactive not a proactive measure—that is all correct. Although the select committee process is an extremely positive thing where there is any kind of debate about causes all that could have been achieved by sending this bill to a select committee in my view was delay. All that could possibly have come out of it were five factors for judges to take into account none of them silly or unreasonable. So all that could possibly have come out of a select committee after potentially a great deal of time were another five or 10 factors. What would that have added to the legislation? In my view it would have added nothing aside from delay. 
The Government says that it has introduced the legislation at this time to get it in place prior to the holiday period which sadly for many people is not just a time of rejoicing. We all know that the rate of family violence goes up during the supposed festive season so this is a case where sending this bill to a select committee would have been a retrograde step and an occasion for more wastage of trees and wastage of time. 
In my view this is an example where not referring a bill to select committee is not in any way taking away from the democratic process; in fact it is enhancing it in that something is getting done that does not require public input. Factors for judges do not require public input really in this kind of situation and select committee referral would have resulted in the bill perhaps not being reported back until the middle of next year. So in this case and in this kind of situation I think that the select committee process can be seen as non-enhancing. 
Bill read a second time.
Bridges Simon: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Bridges Simon: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:687] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is my privilege to speak on the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill—as someone who has had the humbling and gut-wrenching task of prosecuting and sentencing many for child abuse in its variety of forms. One point that is perhaps less thought of which occurs to me is a potential application in relation to this amendment bill and focuses on the central point that the abuse of children comes in a variety of forms. This legislation may well enable courts—and I emphasis that it absolutely will be for the courts; and I agree with the Hon David Parker that judges are wiser than most of us—to deal with the increasing problem of the so-called “P babies” whom courts deal with directly and indirectly. This problem occurs when defenceless babies through no fault of their own are subjected night after night to P cook-ups in the same houses that they sleep in. It seems to me that those babies will be suffering under subclause 9A(2)(b) “serious or long-term physical or psychological effect” and in terms of 9A(1) they will certainly be neglected. That potential application is far more than window dressing and it will enable courts to deal with that issue. This could make a difference in sentencing and it would indeed be very positive. There may well be other types of cases where this law can be used by the courts for the protection of children and I am sure that no one in this House would disagree with that application and would not vote for it. 
Bill read a first time.
Collins Judith: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Collins Judith: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:682] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 The honourable member who has just resumed her seat Rahui Katene has made a very good point I believe in relation to the constant naming of children in this area. Certainly I quite often think about how hard it must be for the extended family of children who have been harmed and for those people who are quite innocent of any wrongdoing themselves to constantly have their family names used in the media and in this Parliament. 
I will take just a couple of minutes to deal with some of the issues raised by the Labour-Green Opposition. There has been some talk today about the need for a select committee to look at this bill. I disagree. This bill is actually not about what causes an adult to hurt or kill a child; it is about the sentencing of people in relation to this area. It is not about what we can do to stop people doing this; it is about what we will do with them when they do. So really we do not need a select committee process in order to send a signal to the judiciary and to the public that we have heard the message of the public. We campaigned on this particular area during the last election and the public has said that they want some action in terms of sentencing. That is the reason we are bringing this bill in under urgency before Christmas—to legislate for that as fast as possible. That is what the public of New Zealand has asked us to do. 
When we look at some of the areas around how or why people offend in this way we can look at some of the things that have been shown to make a positive difference. Family Start and the Home Interaction Programme for Parents and Youngsters were all started under a National Government in the 1990s. In addition Social Workers in Schools is another initiative of the National Government of the 1990s which the former Government—which is now in Opposition—took up as well and supported. But so often when children are killed there are so many people who know about what is going on including people in the health sector the education sector neighbours—as we have heard—family members and others. So often I think we tend to dwell on what they could have done differently. That is a good thing for us to consider. But this bill is not about that. 
This bill is about those who commit the crime. It is about time I think that we also stopped and said: “Actually no matter what else the rest of us can do to alert the authorities or to take action at the end of the day these children are killed because an adult or some adults decided to do that.” It is about time they have to face up to the consequences of their actions. This bill will not as has been said stop children from being killed. It does however go some way to valuing our children a little more than we have in the past.
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:671] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4. 
Bill read a third time. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 65 Noes 57.
Tisch Lindsay: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:670] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before we proceed to the vote there is a voting correction to be made under Standing Order 148(2). The result of the vote on the question that the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill be read a first time was incorrectly announced. The correct result is Ayes 66 Noes 46.
Guy Nathan: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Guy Nathan: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:670] 
NATHAN GUY (National—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to support the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill an excellent Government bill.
Kaye Nikki: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Kaye Nikki: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:670] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I rise to support the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill and I am delighted to be here today to do so. I acknowledge the contributions of all members in this House—on both sides—to the debate so far. I also acknowledge the many people in this Chamber with experience in education; not just the former teachers and former principals but the parents who have the basic right to know how their children are doing. This measure is about parents having access to information about their children and I am proud as the member of Parliament for Auckland Central to be part of a Government that is giving parents that information. I am proud to support this legislation and proud to be delivering on another promise of this fantastic National Government. 
The other important aspect of the bill that I want to speak to today is the truancy provisions. Thirty thousand kids in New Zealand do not make it through the school gate—that is right; 30000 kids a day do not make it through the school gate—and under the previous Government the problem got worse. Over a period of 6 years more and more kids did not make it through the school gate. We believe in these kids. We are going to do everything in our power to make sure they make it through the school gate. 
Let us deal with the aspect that we are passing this legislation through the House under urgency. The reason we are passing this legislation under urgency is that unlike those members we think it is a priority to do something about truancy. We campaigned on it and we are delivering to parents like the parents in the gallery today the right to know how their kids are doing at school. We are delivering to those 30000 kids who are the future of New Zealand; it is their right to go through the school gate and we will get them to go through it. I support this legislation.
Parata Hekia: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Parata Hekia: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:667] 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou huri noa e te Whare. As I said in my maiden speech I have high expectations of what is possible. I have greater faith in the schools and teachers than the Opposition does because there are more good teachers than there are poor ones. But there are poor ones and poor teachers will teach to the tests because poor teachers have always done that. The good teachers teach to the particular student and are happy to be involved in assessment so that their teaching and learning improves. If we are prepared to attribute student success to a successful teacher then we should be equally prepared to draw the same link when failure is the outcome. If decile rankings condemn students to failure as the Opposition seems to suggest then I am one of those condemned students as are my children and nieces and nephews all of whom have been at low-decile schools. We had good teachers; that was the difference. 
If the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill exposes that the profession has a mindset of failure towards decile rankings which are purely a funding mechanism then we will have done a service to our children. There has been wilful misunderstanding on the Opposition side of the House on the distinction between national standards and national testing. It is already being done. Why is the Opposition happy with national standards and national testing for secondary schools in the National Certificate of Educational Achievement? It is too late to find out then that our kids have come from their primary schools and are functionally illiterate and cannot count. 
This bill is about the belief we have at least on this side of the House in the right of all New Zealand students to be given the best personalised learning rather than being masked by those who are being successful. This bill is directed at achievement and participation. This bill is about lifting the citizenship chances of all New Zealanders. This bill is about believing in common enterprise between teachers parents and the Government for the best interests of every New Zealander. We can lead the world to change and not be stopped by what other countries could not or cannot do. I congratulate the Minister of Education on her ambition for our education system and I commend this bill to the House. Tena koutou.
King Colin: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
King Colin: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:664] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 On 8 November 2008 New Zealanders voted for a brighter future and this Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill lays an appropriate foundation for that inasmuch as it covers two vital aspects: the national standards and truancy. If members look at the explanatory note of the bill they will see that the national standards will not impose enormous amounts of workload on our schools as is being argued by members from across the floor. 
The explanatory note talks about using existing assessment tools. I think that is quite appropriate because the Education Review Office tells us that 56 percent of schools are not using those existing assessment tools adequately so this bill becomes very important. It also sets out the requirement for plain language reporting back to mums and dads and to carers. That is very important because about 50 percent of schools are not doing that. 
I will just address for a couple of seconds a comment that the member Clayton Cosgrove and others made—that this requirement can be handled within existing regulations. I would point out to the member that it has been in the regulations for a long time and that the implicit expression has not achieved what is desired by members on this side of the House. Therefore we will state it explicitly within the primary legislation. That is what this bill achieves so members should bear that in mind. 
We have to work harder to make sure that we raise educational standards. Mums dads and carers are part of that; teachers are part of that; and setting understandable standards and expectations is part of that. 
In regard to truancy that had grown by 40 percent under Labour. The fine of $3000 at the extreme end is a deterrent that will be applied to wilful offenders only. There is community responsibility here and we must remember that this bill is a very important foundation on which to build a brighter better education system in the future. That is what mum and dad Kiwi voters voted for on 8 November—a brighter future. They want a brighter future for their children. Thank you very much.
Peachey Allan: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Peachey Allan: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:658] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 We have had the soft bigotry of low expectations about our children from that side of the House. What is it about the dogma of socialism the creed of socialism that forces the Labour Party and its Green allies to tell over a fifth of New Zealand’s children that you cannot be expected to learn? They say: “We will vote against the best prospect you have had in a generation to have the opportunity to learn to read to write and to do mathematics so that you can take your place as a full and contributing member of our community and to our economy.” What is it about socialist creed and dogma that means a fifth of our children have to fail? 
I listened with interest to the Green Party list member Metiria Turei quoting left-wing leafy suburb American academics on the schools left behind. I know some of these people. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s 45th in the world the worst in the Western World the United States under that policy; the worst. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I am coming to Mr Mallard shortly. Let me tell you that when you go into the slums and the ghettos— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just reminding you of your exhortation to us before we started today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made a good point. I do not like members’ speeches being interrupted but they should remember that when they say “you” they are bringing the Speaker into the debate. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I do apologise. It is a lack of practice. 
When people go into the slums in the American cities and meet the mothers of children who as a result of the No Child Left Behind policy have been moved to a school where children can learn after attending a school that for two generations has failed children those mothers say: “Mister please don’t let them make my child go back to that school.” What is it about the socialist creed and dogma that means that members on that side of the House have argued today that a group of our children should be left stranded in schools in which they are not learning? 
Ten years ago on 26 March 1998 the  
Evening Post 
 stated: “Primary school students could sit national tests regardless of which major political party is in power. … proposals by Labour education spokesman Trevor Mallard.” This is what Mr Mallard said and can I express the hope that he will get up in a minute and explain himself: “the results would show which schools failed to teach children at the required level and principals could tell which teachers were not up to scratch.” 
This debate has been dominated by the soft bigotry of low expectations by the socialists.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:654] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Education (School Enrolment and Attendance) Amendment Bill and the Education (Literacy and Numeracy Standards) Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 3.
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:654] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4. 
Clause 3 agreed to.
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:653] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:653] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:653] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4. 
Motion agreed to.
Kaye Nikki: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Kaye Nikki: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:653] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Robertson H V Ross: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:651] 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I was just going to remind you that National moved the wrong motion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is one of the reasons it was overruled.
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:651] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I move that this question now be put. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Clayton Cosgrove.
Turei Metiria: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Turei Metiria: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:650] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a report entitled “No Child Left Behind and the Rise of Neoliberal Education Policies”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there anyone opposed? There is. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: I seek leave to table a second document entitled “The Growth of High-Stakes Testing in the US: Accountability Markets and the Decline in Educational Quality” 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought. There is opposition.
Goodhew Jo: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:650] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:643] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(3)Section 60A is amended by adding the following subsection: 
(3)Before publishing any national standards under section 60A(1)(ba) the Minister must— 
(a)Publish in the  
Gazette 
 and in such newspapers as the Minister considers appropriate a notice setting out the proposed national standards; and 
(b)Give interested persons a reasonable time to make representations about the proposed national standards; and 
(c)Consult such persons and groups as the Minister considers appropriate.
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:643] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(2)National standards published under section 60A(1)(ba) are regulations for the purposes of the Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989 and the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989.
Lee Melissa: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Lee Melissa: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:643] 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:642] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will take one more call.
Turei Metiria: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Turei Metiria: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:642] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to table two documents at this stage. The first is a report entitled “Exacerbating inequality: the failed promise of the No Child Left Behind Act”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: I seek leave to table a second research report which is entitled “Testing and Social Stratification in American Education”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Macindoe Tim: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Macindoe Tim: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:640] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The debate has been quite relevant so far and I have been impressed with the contributions being made.
Quinn Paul: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Quinn Paul: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:638] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tolley Anne: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Tolley Anne: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:636] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I would like to have just a quick word because I get the impression from Opposition members that they are rather confused. They have been saying that we do not need this bill because we already have it there is nothing new there and we are already doing it. I again acknowledge the very thoughtful contribution from Mr Davis. His is a welcome voice in this debate. However unfortunately not all principals are as thoughtful and competent as Mr Davis has shown in this Chamber that he is. 
We have to wonder why the previous Minister went out to the media yesterday and said “We cannot support this legislation because of its content.” If the content is something we are already doing how can he vote against it? The Opposition needs to think through the processes. I say again to Mr Davis that he has done a fantastic job at his school and we want every single school to have that same opportunity. In 2007 the Education Review Office told us that unfortunately 56 percent of our schools are not doing that. We are setting these standards because we want every child to have that opportunity. It is very interesting that the previous Minister of Education Chris Carter said that if Labour gets back into Government he would repeal this law and would not have educational standards for children. That is what a Labour Government would do in the future. 
I remind Opposition members that while they are trying to make up their minds whether something we are already doing is a bad idea a former Minister of Education Trevor Mallard himself said that “A national system of benchmark testing was needed so principals and teachers could significantly raise standards in schools and help New Zealand to regain its status as a world leader in education. Mr Mallard said standards testing was necessary to improve the delivery of education.” Mr Mallard said that. He said that if he were Minister of Education “trial testing would have started this year.” Well why do not those members make up their minds? I cannot believe that on the one hand they are saying that we are already doing it but on the other hand they are voting against it.
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:628] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:628] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand Labour 43; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 57; Green Party 4; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:627] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand Labour 43; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 57; Green Party 4; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to clause 5 be agreed to: 
Penalty for irregular attendance 
(1)Section 29(1) is amended by inserting after “the offence has occurred” “ or in cases where the parent has assisted the person to commit the offence a fine not exceeding an amount calculated at the rate of $30 for every school day for which the offence has occurred.” 
(2)Section 29(2) is amended by inserting after “second or subsequent offence” “ or in cases where the parent has assisted the person to commit the offence $300 for a first offence against the subsection (or section 120(1) of the Education Act 1964) or $3000 for a second or subsequent offence.”
Guy Nathan: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Guy Nathan: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:623] 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.