Ogilvy Bernie: Education Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Ogilvy Bernie: Education Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18080] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to take a call in the debate on the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill. United Future will vote in favour of the bill going to the select committee. We have a number of reasons why we want to do that. 
We are very conscious that the bill is a mixture of clean-up material—minor policy changes—and some major policy initiatives. That is why we are very happy to vote for the bill to go to a select committee—so that we can deal with the wide range of items on offer in the bill. It is there that we will hear the submitters put to us their questions on and their solutions for some of the elements in the bill and it is there that we will be able to find out first-hand from the appropriate submitters on the various wide-ranging parts whether the proposed deletions and transfers from each of the Acts listed in the bill should occur in the first place. 
For example as a select committee when the bill comes before us we will need to reflect on the expertise of the School Trustees Association in terms of some of the old regulations that are modified discounted or folded into the present legislation. I will also be interested to hear from the experts on school property. I hope they will share whether the proposed changes hold any water at all. 
On top of that as I said United Future will want to be satisfied that the proposed significant policy changes or new additions to education in this bill are kosher. We will be listening and wanting to hear from the stakeholders in those areas whether they favour those matters. I am sure that most of the education sector stakeholders will want to give us their wisdom their knowledge from their workplaces and their opinions. 
I am convinced that all Kiwis or most of us have an opinion about education. After all it is a subject we all think we are experts in—one of the criteria being that we all have had an education of sorts. If we are married and have children we have seen our children go off to be educated as well. I have got to the stage now where I am seeing my grandchildren go through the same process and I now have a sharper keener perception about education my grandchildren’s growth and learning. 
United Future takes a proactive position on this bill based on the fact that there are many general components within it. We do not see in it many policies that present problems but there are some provisions that we need to scrutinise and that is why we will be very happy to see it move forward. As the Minister of Education knows and as is no secret in the House it is really hard philosophically for us to agree with some of the education policies that have been proposed in the past by the Minister. They are normally so socialistic and ideologically driven that we have always disagreed and have acted more as a brake on his madness than anything else. So for United Future to say that the bill should be scrutinised in a select committee is a step forward in that we recognise that we should work together with the Minister so that we can see something achieved in that committee. However the Minister should note that he is on notice that we will still be very inquisitive and will ask the hard questions in the committee to ensure that no social engineering takes place or is sneaked in under the radar. 
There are a few areas that we will definitely be tracking down on. One has already been mentioned by a number of speakers in the debate and that is the ID number that is being proposed for every student. The idea is that every child will be tracked through his or her school life from the age of 3 from early childhood right on through to his or her tertiary education. Possibly I imagine it would go on through to lifelong learning programmes. Children will be given a unique identity number. I have feedback that some mums and dads will no doubt see that as the most controversial part of the bill. After the huge outcry which we are all very conscious of that blocked a national ID card being introduced in New Zealand some are suspicious that this measure could be an under-the-radar-screen attempt to get a similar process going. We believe that public discussion and agreement are critical to this issue. We ask whether it is a sneaky back-door way to introduce a lost cause of earlier Governments. 
I want to touch on two or three of the advantages of the ID number provision that is laid out in the bill. One is that we are told it will make it easier to trace truants. We know that the issue of tracking truants was one of Mr Mallard’s proclaimed great centrepieces when he was in Opposition. He has ultimately failed to do anything about the issue and I am wondering whether this measure will achieve it for him at all. I have read the bill and I have no assurances that that will be the case. 
Another argument that is touted as being in favour of an ID number is that it would trace students who have dropped out of the education system. I do not know about that but I am a little bit perplexed to be honest. Would it really find such a student who is living under a bridge and smoking P? I have no idea how a number will trace a student who is hiding somewhere. So I have questions about that and it needs to be looked at in the select committee. 
Another aim touted is that it would administer the Government’s 20-hour-a-week free early education programme from 2007 onwards. The thought is that there is a possibility of double-dipping taking place or rorts going on and that by having a single number the Government will make sure it eliminates that. I have questions around how effective it will be. 
The early childhood education programme elements that are set out here are another area that we will certainly scrutinise. Education as we all know is about children learning and that is certainly not in this bill. That seems to me to be a major omission. 
Our questions do need full and complete answers. United Future recommends that the bill go to a select committee so that the committee can hear from submitters and so that we can make our assessments and modifications if necessary and bring those back to the House in 2005.