Volume 651 Week 1 - Tuesday 9 December 2008(continued on Saturday 13 December 2008) 
Volume 651 Week 1 - Tuesday 9 December 2008(continued on Saturday 13 December 2008) 
[Volume:651;Page:615] 
Tuesday 9 December 2008 
( 
continued on Saturday 13 December 2008 
) 
Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 1 School enrolment and attendance ( 
continued 
)  
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I pick up from where I left off last night. I was talking about the importance of the democratic process and of the importance of the Minister Anne Tolley answering the questions that have been put to her by my colleague Grant Robertson and other members of the Labour Party. We should bear in mind that this bill has not been through the select committee process. The public has not had a chance to have a say on it. Teachers parents and boards of trustees also never had that chance. So the Minister should write down the questions we have put to her. She should pay attention to what we have to say and she should stand up and answer our questions. 
We all agree that truancy is a bad thing. We all want the kids to be in the classroom and learning but we have yet to be convinced about the way this bill will make a difference. For the Minister’s benefit I will run through some of the questions we raised last night. One of the most important questions asked what consideration had been given to whether increasing the fines would make any difference. The explanatory note of the bill states that there is a low rate of prosecutions under the current law and under the current level of fines so we need to consider both the reason for this and the resources that are given to boards of trustees to take these prosecutions in the first place. Is it that schools are not prosecuting parents because they do not have any support to do so? I suspect that that is a good part of the problem. How will this bill increase resources to school boards of trustees? The explanatory note states that boards are unaware of their ability to prosecute under the Act. What steps are going to be taken to remedy that? What information will the Minister be giving school boards of trustees about the current provisions and the new changes? What resources are schools going to get? 
The second issue is that this bill increases the powers of the Secretary for Education but we have no information about how that will be implemented. I draw the Committee’s attention to some of the things said about that in the explanatory note. One of them is: “The Secretary for Education’s ability to take prosecutions will enable the Ministry of Education to intervene when schools are not taking action to deal with chronic parent-condoned truanting. These changes will not incur significant costs for schools.” But presumably someone is going to have to pay for them. They will have to be paid for somehow. At a time when the Government has put a sinking lid on expenditure by Government departments we are going to load a few more responsibilities on them. So much for cutting red tape! 
Furthermore the explanatory note states: “Increased prosecution activity may impose new costs on the Court system.” What satisfaction can the House take that the court system will be given the resources needed in order to be able to do that? The explanatory note also states: “There is some risk that prosecutions for non-attendance may be pursued inappropriately with parents being unnecessarily exposed to the threat of serious financial sanctions.” 
Hon Member 
: Good parents. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is right. These are good parents who could be exposed to serious financial sanctions. The bill itself says that. What protections are going to be put in place? What guarantee are parents going to have that their kids have not been at school before they find themselves standing in the dock? In order for that to happen schools need the resources to be able to tell parents that their kids are not attending school. What is the Minister going to do to make sure that the schools actually get the resources they will need? 
This bill takes a very punitive approach to student attendance. It does nothing—absolutely nothing—to turn schools into places where students want to go; it simply threatens to punish them and their parents if they do not actually arrive at school. I want to know how this fits within the Government’s wider agenda for education. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 We are here on Saturday under urgency because the Maori Party the ACT Party and the National Party have agreed to push through legislation that fundamentally affects many New Zealanders across our country and those New Zealanders have not had a say on any of it. This Government expects that it can rush through legislation that affects ordinary New Zealanders without letting parents or schools have a say on it and without even bothering about what they think. 
So in rising to speak to Part 1 of this Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions as well. I think the point was well made by Grant Robertson when he asked why there has been no ability for parents to have a say on how a punitive step will actually affect their ability to support their children in education. After all we all want our kids to do well in the school system. We all want them to achieve. We all support schools lifting their game to support our children. But it is about quality teaching and creating a learning environment and that is not what this bill does. This measure takes a punitive step against parents. 
I absolutely agree with Chris Carter: good parents should not be punished by imposing punitive actions such as a fine system. Why? Let us think about common examples in our communities—real examples. For example a woman with three children whose husband has left her may be on the domestic purposes benefit. Will a punitive step actually help her to support her children in their education? She is putting kai on the table and has it in the cupboard. She supports education. Is she totally responsible for what her child does because there are issues of dysfunction in her family that perhaps are not being addressed? What does the Minister say? She says “Let’s fine her. Let’s fine that solo mum whose child does not turn up to school because his father has not been in his life and has not taken an interest in his education. Let’s just fine her.” There are already exacerbating pressures on a family like that. 
This legislation will do nothing to support those mums who want their children to be educated in our communities and that is what this Government has not done. It has not really looked at the implications of a punitive system on vulnerable families who will need support not only from the community and the schools but from us as legislators to ensure that when we apply legislation it will have a positive effect out there in our communities. I do not think that a punitive step really reaches out to the families who will be affected. 
Has the Minister asked herself why truancy is happening in our communities? This is a difficult issue and we are taking it seriously. Truancy is a very serious issue in all our communities because we all know that if kids are at school for longer they are more likely to achieve. But why does truancy exist? I put that question to the Minister. Dr Pita Sharples spoke in this Chamber about this particular issue and he knows very well that if we were to compare mainstream schools with kura kaupapa and wharekura we would find there is a higher rate of truancy overall in mainstream schools than in kura kaupapa and wharekura. Why? Every one of those kura kaupapa and wharekura schools will say that it is because teachers make the difference in the learning environment in terms of valuing the students and who they are. 
If we talk to parents of children attending mainstream schools about the issues of why truancy exists—if we bother to talk to them—we will often hear them say that it is because their children do not feel valued especially Maori students and perhaps Pacific students. Dr Pita Sharples raised the issue himself. A number of the truants we are talking about are in alternative education centres. When we talk to those children and ask them why they are in alternative education centres they will say “The teacher couldn’t even be bothered with me. I was just a number—couldn’t even say my name properly. I didn’t even bother going to school because the teachers don’t value who I am.” That is what students will tell us. 
So when the Minister takes an approach like the one that has been taken in respect of this bill—a very punitive approach—she actually fails to recognise the number of other issues around the help that families need in order to be able to support their children’s education. The Minister needs to take a call on this because it is a very very important question. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: She won’t take a call. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: No she will not take a call but she needs to. She needs to take a call because a punitive measure such as this will punish good parents who want to support their children’s education. Those parents must be supported in doing that. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The question that has to be asked about this Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill is how it will improve educational outcomes which surely should be the purpose of the bill. A bill should not come into the House for purely ideological reasons. There should be some reason one would hope why the bill will actually improve educational outcomes. 
We have quite a lot of information about children who do not go to school or who have very poor outcomes from our education system. One of the things we know most of all is that they live in poverty and they are more likely to be Maori. We know that children who are missing school are more likely to come from difficult backgrounds. 
I am quite interested in the relationship between this bill and the 90-day bill. If a parent is working a couple of part-time jobs in order to pay the bills and he or she gets a new part-time job and finds out that his or her child is truanting from school what choice does that parent have at that point? The choices are either to take some time off work to sort out what is happening because the child is missing school or stay at work. If that parent stays at work and does not deal with the problem of the child not going to school the Government will come in and say “We’re going to whack a $3000 fine on you because your child is missing school.” 
Let us say that the parent decides on the alternative of not going to work and asks the boss for the day off to try to sort out the problem of the child missing school. Let us say that the parent is within the 90-day period where he or she can be sacked at will. That parent knows because of the new legislation that has just been passed that if he or she takes time off work during those 90 days to do something about the child who is truanting from school the employer can sack him or her at will. The employer will say: “Oh that’s one of those useless workers who tries to make sure their child gets an education. I don’t want one of those workers; I will just sack that worker at will.” 
How will fining those workers $3000 help them to deal with the problem in front of them of trying to put food on the table pay the rent while their child is missing school and meet the principal and teachers to find out what the problem is? If they do those things the employer can say “Well you’re obviously not the kind of employee we want in our workplace and we can give you the sack because the National Government has just given us the right to sack people who try to make sure their kids go to school.” Well thanks to the National Government people are caught between a rock and a hard place. 
How does this bill help people who are in those kinds of difficult real-life situations—not pretend ideological situations because let us face it this measure is just an ideological burp—deal with the problem of trying to get their kids to go to school when they are in a 90-day period in a new job? Has the Government thought about how these two pieces of law which it has been ramming through the House—and we are sitting on a Saturday now—might interact when it comes to real people living in the real world who are not sitting on Ministers’ salaries but are actually doing their best by their kids and paying their way? Has the Government thought about how these laws might work together? 
What about the parent who works two jobs because the minimum wage is so low and has kids who are truanting? The fact that the minimum wage is so low puts enormous pressure on parents. These are the real issues faced by parents whose kids are not going to school. They have to have more than one job in order to pay the bills instead of having the time they need to pay attention to their kids. 
If this was a family-friendly Government surely its first priority would be to make sure that parents have enough time to spend with their kids in order to make sure they are not truanting from school. What about the fund to insulate housing that National has now said it is not going ahead with—the $1 billion to help insulate cold damp houses? We know kids get out of the habit of going to school when they get sick. They get sick when they live in cold damp houses. They get glue ear they have poor educational outcomes because they cannot hear what the teacher is saying they get isolated and alienated from their school they do not want to be there and they get sick. What do we do? We could insulate the houses so kids do not get sick so often but instead we say “Oh no that would be bad—we wouldn’t want to do that. Let’s get rid of that billion-dollar fund that was going to insulate houses so kids could actually get to school more often. That might help reduce truancy but we do not want to do that; we’ll get rid of that as well.” 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I will make a couple of points in relation to some of the comments that have been made so far. I firstly refer to the rather eloquent speech made last night by the previous Minister of Education the Hon Chris Carter. He talked about what his Labour Government had done and talked about the many measures it took to address truancy. He asked why there was not more in this Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill to address truancy. Well in a way he is right because all the measures he was talking about are other ways of addressing truancy and we have indicated in our policy that we support many of those initiatives. We intend to bring in more initiatives and we have made some more funding available. However none of those initiatives require legislation which is why they are not in this bill before the Committee. 
But it is interesting that for all the previous Minister said about what his Government had done for truancy he was unable at any time to tell us exactly how many truancy officers are out there on the ground in New Zealand. He clearly did not want to know. Under his watch truancy grew in this country by 41 percent—a 41 percent increase occurred under all those initiatives he was talking about last night and that was with all those dollars that had been put in. At any one time under that previous Minister’s watch 30000 children could be missing from school. That is the record of the previous Minister. 
The question has been asked as to whether prosecutions work and whether there has been any research. Well there has been some research here in New Zealand. Back in 2004 under the previous Labour Government the ministry ran a streamlined truancy prosecution trial. The results of that trial showed that the threat of prosecution where it was used appropriately had amazing effects. In fact out of 30 families who were threatened with prosecution for persistent and wilful recidivist truancy only one family was prosecuted—only one out of 30. The threat of prosecution has an effect on those parents who are wilfully supporting recidivist truancy and they are the people whom we are targeting with this measure. 
The last point I will make is this. If raising the fines and making the penalties for wilful truancy more serious in this country is such a bad thing then why have two former Labour education Ministers talked about raising the fines over the last 4 years? All Labour did was to talk about it; it never did it. Well this Government is doing it. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Is this not interesting? Here we are on a Saturday in this maniac burst of pseudo-urgency considering poorly thought-through bills. We are setting aside the proper processes of Parliament and conveying the impression of urgency and the impression of action—the impression of government. We fiddle while the world burns. Is this a serious response in anybody’s book to the international economic crisis? Kiwi mums and dads at home or at work this morning are feeling apprehensive about the future of their jobs and more apprehensive after the passing of the 90-day “hire and fire at will” bill. They are at home and feeling apprehensive about their ability to pay the bills and what are we doing? Pinging them with fines for truancy. 
So why are we doing this? No one likes truancy. We have as the previous speaker admitted put in a raft of policies to address it and we have been making progress. But is it not interesting that the party that decried nanny Statism and the erosion of civil liberty—the imposition of solutions against the many to address the problems of the few—is now addressing this with a blanket law to fine parents for something that none of us including most parents would want to see? 
Achievement does not equal compulsory testing attendance does not equal compulsory fining and a safe society does not simplistically equal tougher sentences. Those things are apparent rather than real. They are worthy goals but they are tokenistic solutions. They give the impression of action rather than being real action. 
I picked up this bill off the Table and thought I must have picked up an amendment. But no this is the whole bill—an introduction and one page of measures. We are setting aside the select committee process to pass flimflam. This is flimflam. This is not policy this is not government; this is complete procedural and policy nonsense. 
The reason we are here on Saturday is that this is an abuse of Parliament. If anybody at home was in doubt Anne Tolley proved it. She first recognised the range of measures that our Government put through. She then said that this new Government had a range of things it wanted to do on truancy. OK I ask where they are and moreover I ask why those measures are not in the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill. If the Government does not have them ready yet I ask why this so-called bill is on the Table. Why is it on the Table being considered under urgency when apparently most of what the Government is going to do is not here? Why does the Government not tell the public what it is going to do? It cannot possibly be this bill because this bill is a joke. 
I think the public knows that this bill is not a solution; it is the impression of a solution. It is not a policy; it is the impression of a policy. This is not government; it is the impression of a Government. The difference between National and Labour is that we take the public seriously and we give them the honour of knowing that they can tell the difference between good policy and bad policy. They know this is a joke and an excuse for government while the world burns and the new Government is really trying to work out what to do. The Government is here to convey the impression of urgency without having anything real to put through because it wants to look like an action-oriented Government whereas in fact this is not real action. In the world around us the Americans are debating the bail-out of the auto industry the British are restructuring their banking system Australia has just announced another major stimulus package and what is our Government doing? It is fining parents for truancy as if that is going to change the world and as if that merits urgency. I say to members opposite that they are here today because they are abusing Parliament and the public. Members opposite may give the impression of being a Government but we will most definitely be a real Opposition. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. Kia ora tatou i tenei ra. I really enjoyed last night’s debate. There were some great contributions from across the House and it was pleasing in terms of Maori education to hear contributions from my own co-leader Pita Sharples; from Mr Kelvin Davis who came from a practical point of view; from Hekia Parata who has been involved in a number of initiatives in respect of Maori education; from Metiria Turei; and also from Parekura Horomia. It was great to know that although we might speak across the House from different perspectives in the end as Maori and as those involved in education we acknowledge the importance of education to each of us. There was a huge wealth of experience in the House last night and all of us being here today clearly shows that we take education seriously. 
I want firstly to recommend the report from the Education and Science Committee in February of this year. New members should have a look at that report because firstly it contains 2 years of work and secondly a huge amount of discussion came to the table. I acknowledge the contribution of the late Brian Donnelly who led that select committee. I think it would be good if this Parliament picked up on the recommendations of that 2-year report. What was it all about? The title of the report was  
Inquiry into 
making the schooling system work for every child 
. I suppose that title recognises that the system does not necessarily fit all students. 
I suspect that Part 1 of the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill—“School enrolment and attendance”—is an effort to get students to go to school. The problem is that the recommendations in this part may well result in parents having to pay fines for their children not showing up but they do not address the fundamental problem. I have some sympathy with the Supplementary Order Paper lodged by the previous Minister of Education Mr Chris Carter but we will consider it down the line. 
Is there a truancy problem? Hell yeah! We do not have to go very far to know that. I do not think that having select committee hearings about whether there is or is not a truancy problem will do very much. There is enough evidence around to tell us that there is a problem and indeed previous administrations have recognised that by way of providing truancy officers the Waitakere truancy project the truancy from school research project and the text messaging project which I understand Mr Mallard was part of initiating. Is there a truancy problem? Yes and we have to acknowledge that. 
As other members have said it is likely that Maori and Pasifika students are participants in truancy. As I said at the Education and Science Committee truancy is a sign of a bigger issue. It is likely that those who are involved in truancy are also involved in the poverty trap and their families are not likely in the end to be able to pay the fines included in this part of the bill. Truancy can be viewed as a sign that the school and/or the system as a whole is not making a connection with the students. We acknowledge that the Te Kotahitanga project was recognition by the previous Government that the teacher making a connection with the students is a very important element of our education—and Mr Davis took that angle last night. We say that that project needs to be developed in light of Part 1. Of course the downside for us at the time was that the Te Kotahitanga money was taken from the manaaki tauira project which was indeed a valuable putea or pool of money available to assist Maori students in the tertiary sector. 
I will confirm some figures in terms of truancy rates. In 2002 truancy rates were 3.6 percent for Maori 1 percent for Pakeha and 2.9 percent for Pasifika students. In 2004 those rates were 3.7 percent 1.2 percent and 3.7 percent and in 2006 they were 4.5 percent 1.3 percent and 1.4 percent. Clearly those who are suffering at the notion of attending school are more probably Maori and Pasifika. 
Is there a better way? Perhaps a lead could be taken from a project that was developed in Hawaii called the Truancy Reduction Demonstration Project. Rather than our saying let us just fine parents I tried to look for some sort of solution that had come out of research. I did some research and found that in Hawaii a project had been developed to combat truancy. The project identified five key elements to addressing the issue of truancy: parent and guardian involvement; a continuum of services including meaningful supports incentives and consequences; collaboration with community resources such as law enforcement mental health mentoring and social services; school building - level administration support and commitment to maintaining youth in the educational mainstream; and finally ongoing evaluation including meaningful and relevant outcome data geared towards increasing productive factors and reducing risk. I suppose those are wide-ranging points but truancy is not limited to Aotearoa; it is a factor across the world. Will introducing high fines to deal with this issue make a difference? It seems to me that it will not and the research does not really say that. 
In terms of addressing that matter I have lodged a Supplementary Order Paper and I look for support for it from across the House. Basically it separates the two issues in this bill to allow the issue of truancy to be dealt with by itself and the assessment issue to be dealt with by itself in the belief that upping the fines may not necessarily in the end deal with the issue. If it is about getting our tamariki and our students to go to school putting up fines which may well affect only the parents and not those students will not deal with the bigger issue. The bigger issue is building the relationship between tamariki and the school and indeed as Mr Davis pointed out the teachers themselves and back the other way—between the teachers and the students. 
The Maori Party asks for a little bit more work on the part of the bill dealing with fines. We do not think it will work and we look forward to some support in the House for separation of the issues. It may well be dealt with a little further down the line but from our side of things today is not the day to deal with the issue of fines. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on this part of the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill. Truancy is an issue that everyone in the House is concerned about. It is an issue that the previous Government did much work on. It is an issue of course that this Opposition will be happy to work with the Government on if it puts before us measures that we genuinely believe will combat truancy and will not potentially make things worse. 
I start off by acknowledging Hekia Parata and her maiden statement. Her sister Apryll was my sixth-form English teacher at Lytton High School. She was a very very good English teacher. She was also my sixth-form and seventh-form dean. I am not worried to say that we were all a little bit scared of her but she was a very good teacher and it is very nice to have Hekia Parata in the House. 
One of the things that I think is important and we need to acknowledge this when we look at the statistics is that we do now track children through the ENROL system. There was a time when we really had no idea where a lot of those children were particularly the children of those families who travelled around a lot and changed schools regularly. When we consider the statistics an important part is acknowledging that we do track children now and that we have a far better idea. 
We are concerned that this bill will have no select committee process. None of the bills in this urgency motion will be referred to a select committee in order for the public and the sector to have their say. I just make a comment to Mr Flavell who has just resumed his seat. The reason we are concerned about that is not that we do not think there is a truancy problem but that we do not know whether this bill is the solution. We believe that the sector should have the opportunity to have its say because the bill might make things worse—we never know. If a family that is burdened with debt gets another fine on top of that when they are desperately trying to hold it together it might actually make things worse. That is why we believe this bill should have gone to a select committee. 
I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Anne Tolley what evidence she has that parents who cannot afford the fines now will be able to afford them when they are greater and what difference increasing them will make. If those families are throwing up their hands now and saying they cannot do it then why will making those fines so much more burdensome make a difference in those families? If it will make a difference and the Minister can show us the evidence then why not make the fine $10000 or $100000 for parents whose children truant? I ask why we do not do that if the level of fine is what is important. 
I think the problem is that we have been told that other measures are coming but this bill is putting the cart before the horse. We do not know what those measures are. We do not know how they will fit in with the raising of the fines and how it will make a difference. [ 
Interruption 
] Maybe Mr King can tell us what these extra measures are. All the evidence we have seen this week so far under urgency is that this Government will pursue policies that hurt the most vulnerable families. We have seen tax increases for our low-income families. We have seen an employment relations bill that will take away rights at work for members of those families who are the most vulnerable in the first 90 days of employment. 
I ask the Minister to consider this scenario. Let us suppose a mother is working two or three jobs trying to hold her family together. It is hard to be a parent and try to hold the family together at the same time especially for a solo parent. Let us say that she is in her first 90 days of work and she gets a phone call from the school telling her that her son or daughter has not turned up and that the school does not know where the child is. What does she do? Most people would say she will go to her employer and say: “My child is the most important thing. This is the thing that matters most so I will leave here go home and try to find out where my child is and get that child to school.” By doing that she flags to her employer that this might be an ongoing issue. This parent might be constantly called away from work and what can that employer do in the first 90 days of that job? 
Let us remember that hundreds of thousands of people change jobs every few months. They are mostly low-income people who go from part-time job to part-time job and who work a lot in the hospitality industry and in other areas where there is a high turnover. 
That employer now thinks that he or she has someone here who will want a lot of time off because this mother obviously has a kid who is in trouble or will truant a lot even if that is not the case. All the employer has to say is: “Don’t come Monday.” Under the legislation passed in this House under urgency where the public had no chance to have a say all the employer has to say is: “Don’t come Monday.” The employer does not have to give a reason. 
Kate Wilkinson the Minister of Labour might say that the mother can take a human rights complaint because she is parent and that situation is unfair. Well she cannot do that because how will she prove that she was fired because her child was a problem at school and because she is a solo parent? She cannot prove that. All the employer has to say is: “I am sorry. You do not look happy in your work. Don’t come Monday.” 
I want to know whether the Minister is connecting these dots. I ask whether she is connecting the dots between the policies we have seen this week under urgency which disadvantage our poorest families and give them no security at work and the scrapping of a billion-dollar fund—as my colleague Dr Russel Norman has pointed out—that would have meant more healthy homes and more kids at school. 
I want to raise another issue and that is about a blog about a parent with a child with autism. 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I was not going to speak in this Chamber until I had given my maiden speech because that is the ancient tradition of this esteemed institution and I wanted to honour that. So to those who have gone before me I do apologise. But last night I sat in this House and listened with growing anger and frustration to the utter drivel spouting from the mouths of members on the Government benches and I felt I had to break my own rules on a topic that is so important it warrants it. 
I listened to Mr Peachey lecture us about educational achievement. That member was the headmaster of one New Zealand’s largest schools but it was also one of New Zealand’s wealthiest. His students knew about aspiration. They grew up with education— 
Allan Peachey 
: Don’t talk rubbish! Get it right! 
STUART NASH 
: —because their parents read them stories at night I say to Mr Peachey. They had full tummies when they went to school. They went there in clean clothes they understood education they had a healthy lunch and they had a great attitude. I say to Mr Peachy that his students’ greatest problem these days is where to park their cars when they get to school. [ 
Interruption 
] You may have been able to get away with bullying your students and your staff but you cannot do that here. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member cannot use the word “you” as he is bringing the Chair into the debate. Also members should please keep the tone down. Interjections are fine but members should keep the tone down. 
STUART NASH 
: Then Todd McClay lectured us about 9 years of a Labour Government when he was not even in the country then. Todd McClay said in his maiden speech: “ ‘I have two ears and one mouth. I will be able to listen’ ”. Then last night he said he had talked to thousands of people in Murupara. What did he do? Did he talk or listen? He did not listen. Of course the people in Murupara want better for their children; we all do. But Mr McClay and Mr Peachey completely missed the point. [ 
Interruption 
] The member wants to talk about educational achievement. Well I tell him that I am in the throes of completing a masters thesis on tertiary education economic transformation and education. So I know a little about that. 
The arrogance of not taking this bill to a select committee astounds and appals me. Democracy is the foundation stone of this country; “demos” means people and “-cracy” means rule. The select committee process allows democracy to be expressed. Democracy was the model first used in ancient Greece when Solon founded the first democratic State over 3000 years ago. How dare the Government dishonour that tradition when proposing social legislation? We may represent the people but it is our duty to give them the right to speak and be heard. Does Anne Tolley understand that? [ 
Interruption 
] The issue is not about her; it is about listening to the people who gave her the mandate to represent them. I say to Mr Quinn— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know the member is a new member but we are debating Part 1 of the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill which deals with the issue of truancy. I have listened to the member very carefully and I have not heard any reference to the bill at all. We have had a great socialistic lecture about all sorts of things but I think Mr Chairman that you should require the member—particularly as this part has been debated for some time—to address Part 1. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The point is well made by the member. We are looking specifically at Part. I ask the member to confine his comments to that. But I bring to members’ attention Speakers’ ruling 57/3 which relates to interjections. It states: “(1) Interjections in debate are out of order unless they are rare and reasonable; (2) occasional interruption by way of interjection is in order if relevant;”. I just draw members’ attention to Speakers’ ruling 57/3. 
STUART NASH 
: Let us talk about truancy. Is that a decile 10 - school problem? Does Remuera Primary School have a truancy problem a truancy issue? No. Truancy is not an educational problem; it is a social-economic problem. Of course parents want what is best for their kids. They want them to be educated but instead of low-income parents reading stories to their children at night I tell Mr Peachey those parents are cleaning his office and they are delivering Mr McClay’s newspaper at 5 a.m. At 7.30 a.m. they are heading out to work in their day job I tell Mrs Tolley. National’s tax cuts for the top 32 percent of income earners have made matters worse. Truancy is an issue because desperate parents cannot find the time and money to put food on the table let alone books in homes. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Excuses—more excuses. 
STUART NASH 
: Then that Government is going to fine them a month and a half’s salary. Does Mr Smith think that will help? No. I tell the Minister in the chair Anne Tolley to start addressing the issues see where the failures lie and understand the demographics of failure. It is not in Epsom or on the North Shore; it is in our poorest communities where people are struggling with everyday issues of life. What are you doing about it? Nothing! 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member cannot use the word “you”. He should talk about the person by using his or her name or by using the term “the member”. That might be the easiest way to do it. As soon as you mention “you” it refers to the presiding officer at the time so I ask the member to please take that point on board. 
STUART NASH 
: I apologise—I apologise. The Minister should go and hold a select committee meeting in the Mangere community centre take Mr Sio with her and hold the meeting at a time when people can attend between shifts. 
I will tell members this: at least Labour endeavoured to address what we know was the problem through Working for Families and increasing the minimum wage significantly during its time—measures that the National Party voted against every time. National should address the cause of truancy and raise the minimum wage under urgency. That will help educational achievement not this legislation. I dare the National Government to address the issue of the minimum wage. Let us do that under urgency—address the minimum wage. Truancy is a social-economic problem not an educational problem. It is not an educational problem. The Government should go and hold a select committee meeting in the Mangere community centre. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I start by saying that the goals of what the Government is proposing are quite laudable. Truancy is not a joke. We all agree with that; everybody on every side of the House agrees with that. And we are starting from a reasonable base. 
As the explanatory note of the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill says: “The schooling system supports educational success for many students and by international standards a high proportion of New Zealand’s students achieve at levels comparable to the best in the world. The system however is not serving all students well with 14 percent”—not one in five—“of students leaving …” without achieving good standards of numeracy and literacy. So we are starting from a good base and it is laudable that the Government wants to do better. We all want to do better. That is great but there is debate about how we do better. Because the Government has decided to get up on its high horse—its high Trojan horse—draw its sword and crusade this legislation through Parliament under urgency there is no opportunity for that debate. 
We are not hearing from principals we are not hearing from teachers we are not hearing from students we are not hearing from parents we are not hearing from truancy officers we are not hearing from the police and we are not hearing from the truants. That would be a good place to start would it not? How about we go and talk to the truants? That would be a good place to start. But we do not get to hear from any of those people because the Government is ramming this legislation through under urgency. Here we are on a Saturday. I could be back in my electorate listening to people. I have had to cancel four engagements today. One of them was at a school. I could have been listening to teachers and students talking about this issue. But no we are here under urgency because the Government is so keen to look as if it is doing something. 
So let us hear from principals; let us give some of them a chance to speak up. The President of the Secondary Principals’ Association Peter Gall said in the  
New Zealand Herald  
yesterday: “Parents are very much in the same boat as schools struggling to ensure the kids are in school … Unless the truancy is condoned it would not be right to prosecute the parents.” The Edgewater College principal Allan Vester in the  
Howick and Pakuranga Times 
 on 13 November said that any worthwhile plan introduced by the ministry needs a lot more than an increase in the level of fines. “Very few cases go to prosecution and that type of long term truancy is very uncommon.” He argued that what is needed are more resources for schools to follow up with families of students who miss more than the average days in situations where there is not a major medical issue. That is what those principals are saying; that is what they are telling us. But the Government insists on ramming this bill through anyway. 
I decided that it would be a good idea to listen to my constituents so I made a few phone calls yesterday. I canvassed a few educators in Palmerston North and managed to get hold of a couple of them even at such short notice. Do members know what? The first person I spoke— 
Nathan Guy 
: Ring Maharey? What’s he up to? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: He is a vice-chancellor and I know what he does. The first educator I spoke to was a principal of a primary school. I explained what the Government was suggesting in the way of putting up fines. I asked her whether she thought that was a good idea. Well when she had stopped laughing and when she had managed to compose and control herself she asked me a simple question: “What’s the point?”. I ask the Minister in the chair Anne Tolley: “What’s the point?”. The Minister had trouble writing down all the questions my colleague Grant Robertson had last night so I have a simple easy question for her: “What’s the point?”. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Get the children to school. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: The member says that it is to get the children to school but where is the evidence to show that putting up fines will actually achieve that? That is what we want to achieve but how will putting up fines actually achieve it? The Minister has said that the threat of prosecution is enough. The threat of prosecution is already enough. A thousand dollars is already a lot of money. I am not fundamentally opposed to the Government putting up the amount; that is not a problem. But what difference will it make? A thousand dollars is a lot of money and the threat of prosecution already works and this is what we have got. 
The Minister says that the Government has a priority plan of action. What is the first priority? She says that a range of options are available yet the first priority is to punish parents. The first priority is to go after parents and to punish poor parents—the ones who are struggling. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 This particular provision is for me primarily and largely about vulnerable families and we need to factor them into the programme we are now debating. As we increase penalties for the most vulnerable we must know that it is serious for them and everyone from our side has already spoken out about that. We need to be clear that we understand when those punitive measures are to be triggered. They have to be triggered at the right time particularly for vulnerable families. In order to ensure that we have the trigger points right we ought to take much more advice than we have taken at the present time. 
The Minister Anne Tolley said earlier that she was relying on 2001 research on the effects of this which the ministry or someone else might have done. However I say to the Minister that she ought to rely on contemporary evidence and that contemporary evidence comes from the people who are not teachers but are working in schools right now and who are working with these vulnerable families. 
I was part of a group that pioneered school social work in this country. We placed social workers in schools for a good reason—to help and work with vulnerable families. I would like to hear from those social workers. What are they saying? What is their advice? What have they found out so far what works and what does not work? I think we ought to bring that into the consideration of this particular clause. 
I agree with Mr Te Ururoa Flavell when he talked about the experience from Hawaii. As I understood from what he said they were talking about involving parents and having a continuum of services. I did not hear him talk about punitive measures; I heard him talk about measures that enable people to participate. So simply increasing the fine will not address what is perceived as an important problem at the present time. I think the House should have the benefit of those people who have the experience and who know the conditions under which optimal assistance can be provided to families. The provisions in clauses 5 and 6 do not do that. 
These considerations are important because the families likely to get caught out for the non-attendance of their children come from the lower economic and vulnerable levels of society. They are likely to be families on a low income or families with irregular work and more important are likely to have many many social issues. Those issues need to be understood and heard. We need to know what other factors must be considered in those sorts of provisions so that changes can be made. 
I ask members to consider for a moment these different conditions. If it were a family like mine then working with the school would be quite easy. But consider the family that I talked about in my maiden speech; a family with disability in the home and difficulties with three children. If those kinds of families which are coping with inordinate difficulties in the home are fined or face a prosecution how does that help them? The system the Government has designed in clauses 5 and 6 will punish them. When I worked with those families it was the bringing together of all of their needs and using the power of the State and the provisions that could be made that made a difference in the life of those families. It will not be done by punishing them with fines. I urge the Minister to send this bill to the select committee so that the experts can come along and improve on the proposals. This is a one-shot act of conscience only; it satisfies those people who want to punish. 
The Minister is acting in an authoritative way but these provisions are not authoritative. What will make the Minister authoritative is to take the best evidence take the right experience from those who work with such families. We have worked with those families in the past ourselves and having worked with them intensively I say we need to understand their experiences and what will help. It simply satisfies the expectations of a different sector of society who believe that only by punishing the vulnerable will we will improve their life situation. There is no evidence of that. We will develop a dog-eat-dog society but we want to avoid that. If we listen to those with experience we will avoid that happening. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
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 4 be agreed to: 
To omit this clause and substitute the following clause: 
Penalty for failure to enrol 
Section 24(1) is amended by inserting after “a fine not exceeding $1000 “ or in cases where the parent has actively contributed to the person not being enrolled a fine not exceeding $3000.” 
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.” 
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. 
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. 
Part 2 Literacy and numeracy standards 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 We have been debating this education bill for about 2½ hours and I think there is a consensus in the Committee that literacy and numeracy standards for students in our schools are things we all desire but the question that the Labour Party asks is this: how does this bill do anything about lifting literacy and numeracy standards in schools? 
We heard the new Minister of Education saying that somehow national standards would make a difference. Well we have explained more than once about the national administration guidelines that govern all schools. I personally think the Minister has never heard of them and knows nothing about them. I want to tell her as many members of the House have already done that schools are required under those guidelines to do exactly what she says the national standards will do. So we ask ourselves—as the public and certainly all members on this side of the Chamber are asking—what the point of this bill is. If these things are already happening why are we doing it? Labour members have explained already why we think the Minister is doing this. We think the Minister is doing this so that she can create competition between schools. 
League tables will be an inevitable result if this legislation becomes law. It is about introducing for the first time ever the concept that primary schools would be able to compare their results with other primary schools and that individuals would be able to compare their results with those of other individuals. It is not that a 5-year-old should know this or a 7-year-old should know that—that is already required in schools. It is already happening in schools. We have the benchmarks; we have the progressions. We have asTTle tests whereby the individual achievement of pupils is recorded and is available to parents and it is required by the national administration guidelines in schools to be available to parents. The Education Review Office checks it every 3 years. So what is the point? The point is a right-wing agenda in education. 
The scariest speech I have heard in this whole debate was that of the Associate Minister of Education Heather Roy who started to talk about what I think is behind this legislation. She talked about choice. She talked about competition. She talked about reshaping New Zealand education. That is a truly scary prospect. 
Let us remind ourselves of what happened when we came into Government in 1999. We inherited an education system that was absolutely demoralised. Not only was it full of decaying buildings through the neglect of the property programme but schools were set up in competition with each other and bulk funding had divided the profession and demoralised education. We had a crumbling education system. The Labour Government doubled the funding. We put in $5.5 billion extra. We put $3.4 billion into school property and we put all sorts of amazing programmes into schools to lift literacy and numeracy. We employed 6000 teachers above what was required by roll growth. 
Those are the practical things that one has to do to lift numeracy and literacy in schools. It is not about slogans; it is actually about an ideology of making sure that public education is just that—available to all the public—and that the neighbourhood school is a quality school that any parent would be pleased to send their child to. As many of our members from provincial and rural areas know the school is the centre of a provincial community and it should be a quality learning place where quality teaching and learning takes place and where literacy and numeracy levels are lifting for all students. 
New Zealand education after 9 years of Labour is world class. It is cutting edge. During the time that I was the Minister of Education—and during the time of my two predecessors Trevor Mallard and Steve Maharey in that portfolio—international visitor after international visitor came to New Zealand to look at our education system. They asked why New Zealand 15-year-olds score best in the English-speaking world in literacy and numeracy. How is it that New Zealand education has been cutting edge with everything from Marie Clay and the reading recovery programme to Professor Hattie with his asTTle programme at Auckland University rolling out into our schools? 
International educationalists ask why New Zealand schools are so good. I will tell members why they are good. It is because we have poured resources into our schools in the last 9 years; we have had a culture in New Zealand of collaboration in our schools a culture of innovation; and we have a curriculum developed under a Labour Government that is flexible enough to cater for individual creativity among teachers and educators and to allow for local flavours within those core competencies. We have an education system that is cutting edge. It is an education system that I as Minister was incredibly proud of. I was incredibly proud of what New Zealand teachers were doing in our schools. 
Yes we do have a tail in education. I have been the first to admit that. When we were in Government we were the first to admit it. Indeed that is why we rolled out the decile rating system. That is why we poured money into those low-decile schools. That is where the challenge is for lifting literacy and numeracy. That is where we have to make the difference to pick up the tail. We have to lift up that 14 percent of young New Zealanders who are leaving school with no qualifications and those large groups of students in low-decile schools who are not reading at their chronological age not only for their own potential but for the potential of our country. 
Maori and Pasifika students figure highly in underachievers in New Zealand education. The global picture is that New Zealand education is first-class—world class. Within that global picture there is a specific problem: how do we lift up those underachievers—the tail—for their sake and for all our sakes? We can do that only through resourcing. Slogans will not work. National standards or league tables for primary schools will not work. Making children in primary schools focus on a one-off test will not work. 
What are the dangers of a one-off test? Well those of us who are teachers—I was a teacher for many years; and on the National side I can see Hekia Parata and Mr Peachey who have both been teachers—know that a test is a one-off event. A child may be sick or may have had something happen at home or he or she could be freaked out by the pressure and tension of the test. It is a snapshot of that moment on that day for that child. It is not cumulative and it does not show the progress of a child over a period of time. 
We have moved in secondary schools from that one-off School Certificate and university entrance approach—an exam—to the National Certificate of Educational Achievement which is a cumulative assessment process. That is a modern effective system. Indeed young people are coming out of the system with a true picture of their quality. If we go to national standards for primary schools we will fall back into that old problem of the snapshot for kids. 
A number of my colleagues have talked about the experiences of other countries that have done that. We will no doubt hear some more in the next couple of hours. In the United States there is the No Child Left Behind policy. What it has actually done is leave the education system behind. The American education system performs worst in the English-speaking world and it has got worse under the right-wing Bush regime. Teachers’ salaries became dependent on the result of the tests. Schools’ funding became dependent on the result of the tests. 
What was the effect in the United States of the sort of choice that Heather Roy was talking about yesterday—the ACT right-wing agenda where schools are in competition with each other? Well teachers started cheating in the test. That is well-proved now by educational researchers. The tests themselves became the criteria for teachers keeping their jobs. Low-decile schools in inner-city ghettos and the poorer suburbs of American cities were closing down or were completely restricted in their resourcing. That was the effect of the No Child Left Behind policy. 
In the UK the schools of Manchester are ranked 1 to 560. When parents looked at the rankings who was going to send their child to the 560th school on the list? Everyone wanted their child to go to the schools ranked No. 1 No. 2 or whatever but of course they could not afford to do that because they did not live in the right suburbs. That was the effect of national standards. That was the effect of having league tables between schools. 
Mrs Tolley said that this information will not be available to the public; it will be available only to the Government. Has she not heard of the Official Information Act? Does she think that schools will not with glee publish the results of their tests as they do already? With the tests that they sit—the Australasian maths test and the Cambridge International Examinations—schools love showing what success they have. Who would not? Every teacher and principal is proud of what happens at their school. The effect of that though will be to create and compound differences between low and high-deciles schools; between perceived winner and loser schools. We have had a double whammy for education: the 90-day rule which has made teachers in small schools vulnerable and now league tables for primary schools. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I have before me an interesting blog from the principal of Opotiki College—a college the Minister of Education would not be totally unfamiliar with. He makes within it some comments that are probably better not read in the Chamber. But he makes a couple of pretty succinct points. The first is that the country that has gone furthest along the line of this bill—the United States—ranks 42nd in the international Programme for International Student Assessment tests while New Zealand consistently ranks in the top five. A school in a system that spends a lot of time measuring against a standard rather than focusing on teaching and learning is one that is not succeeding. He indicates the reason for this: spending time weighing the pig does not make the pig fatter. 
The point I want to make is that as part of the learning process having regular quality assessment is important and that is what the National Administration Guidelines do. But doing more—putting it into a national testing system and having a national standard that people have to get to which is the objective of this bill—will add nothing and in my view will in fact take away from our education system. 
New Zealand has an enormous international reputation for teaching and learning especially in the literacy area. We are the home of Dame Marie Clay the person who developed reading recovery which is now the basis of many many systems internationally. We have had a lot of debate around the right way to teach reading. One of the challenges in my time as Minister of Education it might be fair to say was to get some officials within the ministry to accept that there is more than one approach to the teaching of reading and that different things work better for different young people at different times. It was therefore important not to write off particular systems which I think it is fair to say had been written off under Nick Smith and Wyatt Creech as being unfashionable old-fashioned and not working. I refer especially to phonic approaches to reading. As a teacher I say that it is not my favourite approach but there is no doubt that it works for some young people at some stages. 
I felt slightly in two minds about heading down the route taken by Nick Smith and Wyatt Creech. I was supporting the systems that were more old-fashioned. I was supporting the systems that we learnt to read by. I am not saying that they were the best systems for all kids and I am not even saying that they were the best systems for most kids most of the time but I think we got to the point where we managed to more or less drive ideology out of the ministry with this approach. We did a lot of work bringing together the best evidence on the teaching of reading. There was a lot of documentation and a lot of work now informs the teaching of teachers both by way of their professional development and also within the colleges of education. 
This is a slow process. It takes a lot of time to re-educate and to develop in a professional sense people who are teaching reading. We are actually talking about every classroom teacher including most of the teachers within secondary schools. The point I am making initially is that I think it is very important that we do not get ideological in this particular area. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 When I spoke on Part 1 of the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill last evening I lamented the fact that there was no opportunity for the general public to come to talk to Parliament about their views on these very very important issues. This is even more so in Part 2. 
There would be a lot to be gained from the Education and Science Committee hearing from people as to how they want to see these national standards put in place. What type of national standards would they be? What would they look like? What must we try to avoid? There are some things that we know we must try to avoid. We have evidence-based research from overseas that shows us exactly what we must avoid. We must avoid national testing in the way that it drives teachers to teach to a test and therefore does not allow them to use their creativity to address individual children’s needs. I am pleased to say that there is a Supplementary Order Paper that may help to ease the general public’s concerns about their lack of consultation on this bill and the legislative process to date and I want to speak in favour of this Supplementary Order Paper put forward in the name of the Hon Chris Carter. 
The purpose of the Supplementary Order Paper is to ensure consultation with the public before the Minister can publish by a notice in the  
Gazette 
 any national standards. I think that is a basic minimum requirement. I would be very very concerned if the Minister was to not support this amendment. If the National Party is not supporting this amendment then I think the intention is very clear: the Minister who has a lot of power and not very much knowledge about these issues has absolute carte blanche to go ahead and decide what these national standards will be. That could very easily turn into national testing. 
David Bennett 
: What do you know? 
SUE MORONEY 
: I am not arrogant enough to believe that I am the person with all the wisdom on this issue unlike the Minister who has rushed this legislation through the House has not asked for public submissions and has not allowed the opportunity for ordinary people like me—just parents—who might like to have a say about what the education standards might look like for my children and for other people’s children as well. We have not been able to have that opportunity so I want to speak in support of that Supplementary Order Paper and the associated Supplementary Order Paper from the Hon Chris Carter. 
The second Supplementary Order Paper will provide for greater scrutiny of national standards and the ability for them to be reviewed by treating them as regulations. I think that is a very important power a very important amendment that this House needs to consider very carefully. What if the national standards are gazetted by the Minister and they are not quite right? What would be the redress? What would be the recourse? How would we review that? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why should it be any different from the curriculum? 
SUE MORONEY 
: I say to Dr Smith that I look forward to him voting in favour of this amendment. If he believes there should be a review that there should be proper processes around this then I invite him to support the Minister’s amendment because I think it is an excellent one. I would be very very worried indeed—I think it would be a very worrying signal to the New Zealand public—if National Party members could not find it in their hearts to support these two amendments. These are the safeguarding amendments to make sure that even though we have not had a democratic process for this particularly important bill there is at least some ability for the public to have some say over what those national standards may look like and then to come back and revisit them and see whether they have worked and be able to review them. I think that is a very important part of any robust legislative process—not that this has started very well at all. It has not been robust from the start because we have not had a select committee process. 
I want to take the opportunity also to talk about a few other parties’ positions. I find it very interesting that the ACT Party the party of freedom of choice is supporting a bill that potentially forces everyone down the same pathway. They are national standards. Where is the freedom of choice argument from the ACT Party on this issue? Forcing children to go to school for goodness’ sake under Part 1! Where is the freedom of choice in that? I find the ACT Party’s position very interesting. I turn to the Maori Party’s position on national standards. Yesterday I listened very carefully to Dr Pita Sharples. He was very interesting. He talked about how mainstreaming does not work necessarily for Maori. I agree with him but forcing national standards that only the Minister will have the right to have a say on—what will that do for Maori children? 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on Part 2 and to follow my colleague Sue Moroney in reiterating that members on this side of the Chamber are concerned at the lack of process in this bill. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will you repeal it? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I say to Dr Smith that there is a bill before the House that would normally be referred to a select committee except it is being rammed through under urgency on a Saturday so that the Government can look as if it is doing something. The reason we oppose this bill is that all it does is write a blank cheque for the Minister of Education to do whatever she wants with no redress to the sector no ability for anyone to have his or her say and no ability for anyone to do anything about it if the Minister gets it wrong. The Minister says that she will go out for consultation and that is great but why does she not send this bill to a select committee which is the natural form of consultation built into this democratic process? I am sceptical about the fact that the Minister says she will consult. By doing it this way it means she can pick and choose whom she consults. It means that those who disagree with her may not be asked to have any input into this process. So I ask the Minister to support the Hon Chris Carter’s amendment—which at least says that this would be done under regulation—so the bill can go to the Regulations Review Committee if people do have concerns about it. 
The Minister says that this is not national testing. She has been quite at pains to let people know that. Of course that is where this policy started. We have to ask why everyone in the sector thinks this will include national testing if the Minister says that it will not and says that it is just about national standards. It is because anyone who knows anything in the sector—and we can read the enormous amount of commentary on the bill within the sector—knows there is no point in having national standards if we do not test to them. Standards mean nothing if we do not actually compare students with them. This bill started as national standardised testing when it was policy in the campaign. But there was such an uproar from the sector including from those who normally support the National Party that the policy got watered down and watered down. I was at election meetings with Mrs Tolley where she basically said it was not national testing; it was just standards. People would say that we do have those now so why are we replicating what we already have in relation to a Government that said it wants to reduce compliance for schools?  
I can tell members why we are doing it. It is so that the Minister and the Government can save face. They started off promising national standardised testing but they backed down hugely under enormous pressure from the sector which said that all the research showed that it did not work. The principal of Opotiki College in the Minister’s own electorate pointed that out as did a Programme for International Student Assessment test: the USA which has gone down this path is ranked 42nd; New Zealand which has not gone down this path is ranked in the top five. All the research shows that the policy does not work. But the Minister did not want to say they should just dump the policy and find something that worked so she watered it down and watered it down. It is now going to force schools to do something they are already doing—to replicate the work they are already doing—while she goes around telling them she will reduce compliance. I say to members of this Committee that no party should be voting for a bill when it does not know what the bill will do and when there is no redress for the public the sector or for any member of this House to be able to change it if it is wrong. This bill will simply be gazetted and then that is it. If it is wrong it will be tough luck. The Minister says she will consult but I do not believe that. 
I want to respond to something I heard last night from Te Ururoa Flavell who talked about the very good select committee inquiry and I was a member of that committee on that inquiry. I point out to the Maori Party that no one came along and said they wanted national standardised testing. In fact they came along and said exactly the opposite. That inquiry was a very good inquiry but if we read the report on that inquiry we remember—as I am sure the member does because he was on the select committee just as I was—that everyone who came along talked about the very good testing that is already going on in our schools. They talked about the fact that the asTTle test is giving schools a chance to measure students in a way that is relevant. Not every student comes into our education system on the same level. To set an arbitrary standard and say that this is what children have to achieve whilst ignoring where those children were when they came into the school system will do nothing. In fact the child who came into the school system doing very well who achieved at that national standard might have gone backwards. That child might have actually been above the national standard when he or she came in but went backwards and then met the standard yet the Minister will say that is fantastic because the school is reaching the national standard. Another child who came in far far below the national standard and who then fell just short of it might have done an incredible job with incredible teachers to get to that point but they will be told that they have failed. That is what national standards do. Those schools that pick up students who are in the latter category will find it harder to get teachers. 
The Minister also said there would be no league tables. Is she going to tell me that every local MP who gets more resources because that school does badly under national testing will not go out and trumpet that? 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 In some of my earlier contributions I mentioned my concern that private schools will not be included in this policy. Private schools will not be subject to the national standardised testing regime introduced by the National Government even though they get a considerable amount of public funding. Indeed it is National policy to increase the public funding of private schools from around $40 million a year to $70 million a year. That is nearly a 100 percent increase in funding from public money going directly to private schools but without the imposition on those schools of the same obligations that State schools will need to have in order to meet the national standardised testing. That then raises the issue about how the schools that might not meet the standardised testing regime of the Minister will be funded and resourced in order to meet that standard or to support their children to meet those standards. 
It recalls to mind the No Child Left Behind policy of the US legislation which I talked about in my second reading speech. The experience in the US is that the standardised testing regime had a major impact on the schools that failed to meet that test even if they were improving. None the less if they continued to fail to meet those tests then one of the obligations was that the school potentially had to hand itself over to be run by a private company rather than by the community. Indeed there has been a great deal of interest in the No Child Left Behind policy in the US. Privatisation advocates in the US have said that in their view the schools that fail to meet the standards would be the first to be privatised. They would be the first to be either handed over because of the law to private interests or just bought out by private interests and run by private companies as private schools. 
What will it mean for New Zealand if in the future schools consistently fail to meet the standard? They might be progressing and making advances but they might none the less not be meeting the standards. What will this mean for schools in poorer communities such as Aranui Highbury Otara and Porirua at the same time that decile 10 schools and private schools will get almost a doubling in their public funding? For example if we look at Kings High—and I understand that John Key is a parent of a child at that high school—it will get an increase per annum— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: King’s College not Kings High. Kings High is Dunedin; very good. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: King’s College—that is quite right. King’s College is to get an increase in public funding of $1.2 million per year from the National Government. I am sure that will be very helpful to John Key’s children but at the same time that school may not necessarily be subject to the new national standards. We might get some clarification on that. However schools in Otara Aranui or Highbury may well desperately need those resources to try to meet these standards and provide support to their children—particularly decile 1 and 2 schools. 
Where will that money come from? I have said in earlier debates in this House that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have said that there will be no new money for Ministers to spend in their portfolios and that if they are to have any new initiatives then they will have to find the money from within the portfolio for themselves. So where will this new money come from to fund private schools? It will come from the poorer schools in our community. The money will be used to do the standardised testing and to force our State schools into league tables which will identify some of them as failures and make them more subject to criticism and disregard even though those schools actually need a great deal more financial support. The money will be sucked out of the decile 1 schools and funnelled into the expensive private decile 10 schools that do not need those resources. 
This is another means by which the National Government will suck money out of poor communities and funnel it into rich ones. All the legislation passed under urgency so far has been exactly about that. 
What will be the next steps? National’s policy talks about allowing popular schools to expand in the future. It talks about having capital funding for those schools that are growing their role which will again extract money from out of the schools that need support and into the schools at the high decile end that have community support. It will be helping them to grow at the expense of the other schools. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 Last night I spoke about what is currently available in schools—notably the curriculum levels and the achievement objectives for each level. Part of my point was that we already have standards in schools. 
If we look at an intermediate school year such as year 8 it is reasonable to expect that a child in that year will be learning and functioning at level 4 of the curriculum. In fact in each curriculum level there are three sub-levels. It is relatively easy for a child who comes into a school and is operating at say sub-level 11 to progress through one sub-level in the course of a year and reach the benchmark. A relatively mediocre teacher can achieve that. It is a lot more difficult for a teacher who receives a child who is working at sub-level 5 to progress that child through five or six sub-levels to reach the benchmark. A teacher who gets a child at sub-level 5 and progresses him or her through four sub-levels is actually doing a fantastic job—a better job than the mediocre teacher who gets a child to move just one sub-level and reach the benchmark. That excellent teacher could be penalised and called a substandard teacher although he or she has actually done a better job in raising a child from a lower level. 
If that teacher and the school do a fantastic job in raising achievement to a greater level but still fail to meet the benchmark the school could be deemed to be a failing school in the league tables. The effect of a school being deemed to be failing is that parents tend to vote with their feet the school suffers a falling roll and that affects resourcing. Good teachers who see the writing on the wall then get out of that school because they can while they can and lower-quality teachers tend to remain. There is a downward spiral effect on the quality of achievement. In effect the school starts to suffocate through the good teachers leaving and through the resourcing leaving with the kids whose parents vote with their feet and there is a detrimental effect on education overall. There are alternatives. It is reasonable to expect—and this is something our school worked with last year—a child to progress two sub-levels in the course of a year. I suggest that instead of setting a benchmark or a standard we look at alternatives such as minimum progress over the course of the year. 
However because the bill is not going to go through the select committee process we are unable to explore all the various options. Members have spoken about getting the truants to come in; well how about getting the parents of truants to come in? We could get all manner of people within the sector to come and talk about truancy and we could hear the various options that are available. It is arrogant of us to believe that we sitting here have all the answers and know what the various options are. 
So that is the effect of comparing schools’ results—the league tables that will inevitably happen if we have national testing. My biggest concern about this whole process and the lack of transparency is that we are neglecting to bring people in to give them an opportunity through the select committee process to have their say and put forward alternative systems and ideas. 
The bill is not going to raise achievement whatsoever—which of course is the goal of the bill. I keep going back to the point I made last night that we will not raise achievement until every child in every class in every school has an excellent teacher in front of him or her. I believe that it is the role of the Government to provide the conditions where excellent teachers can weave their magic. Generally a child will truant because he or she is disengaged unmotivated and disenfranchised from the classroom. It is imperative that we give the teachers the skills the training and the opportunity so that they can weave their magic for the kids. 
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. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 If there is any confusion in this Chamber today it comes from the Minister. Nobody on this side of the Chamber has said we do not want there to be standards in education. The Minister seems to be unaware of the situation so I will help her by drawing her attention to the National Administration Guidelines which already say “Each Board through the principal and staff is required to” among other things give “priority to student achievement in literacy and numeracy especially in years 1-4;” and “through a range of assessment practises gather information that is sufficiently comprehensive to enable the progress and achievement of students to be evaluated;”. That is already in the guidelines. They say that student achievement in literacy and numeracy especially in years 1-4 is a priority. 
We have to ask ourselves again why we are debating the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill. I think the regulatory impact statement on the bill gives us some guide to that. We read in it that “The Minister of Education can set national standards through the existing provisions of the … Act … either by way of the national education guidelines or by regulations. Regulating for this power could achieve the same policy objective as legislating”. So why would we not do that by regulatory power? Why would we not have a situation where the standards could come under some scrutiny? Today and throughout this week we have seen that National members do not want their policy to come under scrutiny. They do not want to hear from parents they do not want to hear from educators and they do not want this policy to come under a proper gaze. 
We are left with the Minister being able to gazette the standards. There is no chance for anyone to look at them; that is the Minister’s prerogative and into the  
Gazette 
 they go. Members on this side of the Chamber believe that if we are to have standards in education then we should actually trust parents through boards of trustees and with their schools and their teachers using the guidelines to put the standards in place. Those members are saying they do not trust parents. That is the message we are hearing from the National members today. They are shutting parents out of this debate. Part 2 of this bill should be debated by parents and educators in a select committee process. That is important. Does National not believe that getting the views of parents on an important issue like standards in education is something we should do? It is a shame on this Committee that the National Government is ramming this bill through. 
There has been a lot of talk in recent months and years from National about the compliance costs for businesses. We often hear those members talk about cutting red tape; they say that has to be the aim. If we refer to the regulatory impact statement on this bill we see there are some interesting statements about compliance costs. I will quote from it. It states: “The Ministry of Education is unable to calculate the compliance costs of setting national standards at this time as this is dependant on its implementation.” So we do not even know what the costs for schools will be. We do not even know what the impact will be on hard-working teachers and stressed principals of putting this unnecessary extra load in place. We hear that compliance will come about by having further reporting and more assessment programmes which will put more pressure on teachers who are already stressed out and already finding it difficult to do all that work. 
This measure does not cut red tape; it increases the burden of compliance for no gain because we know from the administration guidelines that schools are already doing those things. We have heard from my colleague Kelvin Davis about the excellent work that is going on around the country in terms of standards. We are getting there and there is no need to go down this path. Why would we want to go down a path led by George W Bush with his No Child Left Behind policy? We know that policy has been a failure; we know about the inequities that have been caused by that policy. Why would we choose to follow USA down that path? More particularly why would we choose to go down that path without bringing in the educators and the people who have researched it to hear their point of view? But no this Government 1 week into office believes it can simply ram this bill through under urgency without any input from people in the sector. 
We have an education system in New Zealand that we can be proud of. It is staffed by dedicated professionals and dedicated teachers who should be talked to who should be listened to and who should be brought in to analyse this bill. The learning that our children do is defined by the teachers in the classroom—and I totally support Kelvin Davis when he says that. This bill is no crusade for literacy and numeracy in education; this bill is pure politics. It is about National members being able to say they have done something on literacy and numeracy. Well I say to the Minister that she has not done anything in this bill. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Mr Chair kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings. During the election campaign in the Mana electorate an education forum was held at the Whitireia Community Polytechnic in Porirua. Representatives from the early childhood primary and secondary education sectors attended. Most political parties including National were represented at that forum and heard the strong voice and the views of the education sector. The educators spoke with one voice. They said that there had been a lot of education reforms but now they had got it right. They said that the education system is not broken so we need not fix it—if it ain’t broke do not fix it. Teacher after teacher and principal after principal stood up and emphasised that fact. As research has proven we New Zealanders have a world-class education system. The National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) despite early problems is now working and is very successful. The educators were all against National’s policies to introduce more tests and the one-size-fits-all approach disguised as the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill crusading for numeracy and literacy. “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” they said. 
The testing regime as proposed by National will lead to winners and losers. It will lead to elite schools and disadvantaged schools. It will lead to haves and have-nots. The current education system introduced by the Labour-led Government over the last 9 years has been reducing inequalities in education building inclusion and ensuring that all of our children—Maori Pacific Pakeha Asian and all the other cultures—have the educational opportunities to reach their potential. That was the vision of Peter Fraser and Clarence Beeby. Every person whether rich or poor or from town or country has a right as a citizen to an education that will allow that person to fulfil his or her potential. Their vision was implemented by Helen Clark and Michael Cullen and now under the leadership of Phil Goff Annette King our Labour team will continue that vision. We will shed light on the Government’s real agenda and we will hold it to account. 
I have visited every early childhood centre and every school in my electorate and have attended prize-givings. I have talked to and I have listened to principals teachers support staff boards of trustees parents students and members of our communities. There is a deep sense of pride as a result of Labour’s massive investment in education and in the outcomes. The proof is shown with most of our schools performing extremely well and New Zealand is already a world-class leader in literacy participation numeracy retention and achievement. This manifests itself in the way our children from schools in Porirua East like Cannons Creek School walk tall. They have worked hard and they have all the support in terms of world-class teachers and support from schools families and communities to achieve. I also add that all the support from Labour with 20 hours’ free early childhood education numeracy and literacy support home-school participation the Home Interaction Programme for Parents and Youngsters Computers in Homes Gateway apprenticeships the Youth Enterprise scheme and the emphasis on Maori and Pacific preschools has led to wonderful results. And our parents are in work they are in affordable housing and they are getting Working for Families and cheaper health which all leads to better education outcomes and pride in our children. That is what I want to emphasise. 
With regard to Pasifika children we are above the national average in terms of leading level 2 in NCEA examinations. We have increased numbers in tertiary education. Our graduation levels have gone up. Yes there is room for improvement but it is always there and we are committed to that. The education system ain’t broke—do not fix it. If it ain’t broke do not fix it. Our New Zealand schools are already world leaders in literacy and numeracy achievement and they already have all the assessment tools needed to measure and benchmark our children. The targets have already been set including in relation to Pasifika children. We have already a joint education programme with the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs with the targets. National’s testing regime will lead to winners and losers. It will lead to elite schools and disadvantaged schools the haves and have-nots. The worst and most dangerous agenda that National has—and the Minister of Education should listen— 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair; kia ora ano tatou katoa. I will refer again to the Education and Science Committee’s report in February on the school system for two reasons. The first one is it seems to me on reading the report on that inquiry again that all the information is there—that is the first point. The second point is that importantly most of the parties in the House at this point in time contributed to that report so one would think there was a commonality of view about it. 
If I could firstly just set the scene the report states that the National Administration Guidelines aim “to put good assessment practice at the heart of the schooling system. Accurate comprehensive assessment enables teachers to plan appropriate learning programmes to build upon students’ knowledge and skills and address their learning difficulties. It also enables schools to report on what students have achieved to parents and the wider community.” Here is the crunch: “Persuasive evidence was presented to the inquiry that inconsistent assessment practice hampers the development of appropriate learning programmes in many parts of the schooling system. The most significant inconsistencies in the effective use of assessment occur within schools between classrooms or teaching teams. The failure to observe the National Administration Guideline means that students do not learn progressively and cannot steadily improve their achievement. This is particularly damaging to the underachievers for whom the consequences of following an unsuitable learning programme can be lifelong.” If there is a rationale for this particular part of the bill there it is. 
The second point is that the report talks about assessment tools. This point was picked up by my colleague Moana Mackey. The report continues: “A wide variety of assessment tools are available. They can provide teachers with a wealth of information about what students know and can do and can be of immense value in planning programmes that will enable students to improve their achievement. . . . Reports are generated to show what students know what gaps they have in their learning and what they need to learn next.” Well I do not necessarily agree with Moana Mackey about the discussion in the select committee. What that discussion told me was that there are umpteen numbers of assessment tools but the problem is that they assess different things and therefore deliver different outcomes. Again if ever there was a rationale for moving in this direction there it is because the general view of the submitters to the select committee was that the vast number of tools produce different outcomes. I will read out some of them: Prose Reading Observation Behaviour and Evaluation of Comprehension the Junior Oral Screening Tool the Numeracy Project Assessment and the Supplementary Test of Achievement in Reading. Those are some of the ones mentioned in the report. It told us simply that yes tools are available but they produce different outcomes. This provision will perhaps streamline that process. 
The third point that the select committee made was in respect of the use of data. Its report states: “We are satisfied that teachers have plenty of suitable assessment tools at their disposal. Our concern is that the schooling system as a whole is not using the huge potential of these tools to support the creation of programmes to improve the achievement of students. This is an issue for all students but is particularly important for those in the underachieving tail.” The vast majority of those students are probably Maori and Pasifika. “The gaps and deficiencies in the learning of these students cannot be corrected until they have been precisely diagnosed.” 
Those are important points but perhaps we should reflect on a point made further on about an Education Review Office evaluation in March 2007 of how effectively schools collect and use assessment information. The report states: “only half of the 314 evaluated schools demonstrated effective assessment practices and only 44 percent of schools used worthwhile assessment information which gave an accurate picture of the achievement of students across the school.” This is important information. I would be the first to acknowledge the risk of having too many assessment tools because they place a huge demand on teachers some of whom may feel that the assessment takes up time that would be better used in curriculum delivery. But in terms of some of the statistics we have on Maori students in particular at this point in time I think the effort to give us more data would in fact shape those programmes particularly in terms of what I read out at the start of my delivery. 
The final point I want to make in terms of the report is that it also said we should not just go about the process and put out another assessment guideline; it said we should back it up with professional development. Again I quote from the report: “Access to good professional development is essential if assessment is to be used effectively throughout the schooling system.” I totally endorse that point and I am looking forward to Dr Pita Sharples working with Minister Anne Tolley on this particular issue. In terms of that the report makes one final point—if the Committee could indulge me by allowing me to provide this information. The report states: “We recommend that more resources be devoted to the provision of comprehensive professional development in assessment practice so that by 2010 all schools have experienced appropriate training in the collection and use of assessment data. This would make a considerable difference to students’ achievement particularly among the tail.”—the tail of underachievers. 
From the Maori Party’s perspective schools should be held to account for their part in the underachievement of Maori students. We see this particular part of the bill as an important ingredient in the data gathered being used for productive ends—for setting positive programmes for the future. It is an initiative that the Maori Party will be supporting. 
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. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 The Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill is both unnecessary and alarming. It is unnecessary because as is stated in the bill itself the Minister of Education can set national standards through the existing provisions of the Education Act either by way of the National Education Guidelines or by regulations. Regulating for this power could achieve the same policy as legislating so why are we here and why is this bill alarming? We should be clear about this: the bill is alarming because it gives the Minister of Education the power to introduce national testing in our schools. The Government says it does not want to have national testing so why are we passing a bill that allows for it? National could achieve the raising of national standards simply through using the existing regulatory powers that it has but it does not want to do that; it wants to introduce national testing and performance pay for teachers. This is a slippery slope and we are well on the way to it. 
National claims that this bill is about raising standards but we in the Labour Party know that there is a big difference between raising standards and standardising education. That is what this bill is about. It is about standardising education and implementing a one-size-fits-all approach to the education system rather than catering to the needs of individual students. This Government needs to wake up to reality and realise that different kids learn at different rates and not all kids arrive at school at exactly the same point. Some have had early childhood education and some have not. Some have a lot of support at home for their learning and some have not so much. We need to recognise that fact in the primary school system. This bill will penalise good teachers who choose to teach in disadvantaged areas and teach disadvantaged students. It will reward the teachers who choose to teach in higher-decile schools where the kids are already at a higher rate in their learning. The bill will stigmatise the students who live in lower socio-economic areas and it will increase the gap between the rich schools and the poor schools. 
My colleague Trevor Mallard spoke earlier on about a number of the things that Labour did when we were in Government to increase the number of resources for schools. He did a lot of work in looking at assessment tools in schools and promoting tools like the asTTle assessment tool—I tell Mrs Tolley that I am not referring to a cricketer. He focused on things that work and he talked to the teachers the principals the parents and the school boards of trustees. Why is this Government so afraid of hearing what those people have to say that one of the first things it does is ram this bill through Parliament without giving them any chance to have a say through a select committee process? In the Labour Party we focus on what works. We listen to the evidence we listen to what teachers tell us we listen to what the principals tell us and then we act accordingly. 
National is not at all interested in what the teachers have to say or what the professionals have to say. National knows best; it has had its polling company out there. Its polling company told it that raising national standards was the way to go so that is what National will do. It will have a bill that is a page and a half long and is all about raising the national standards. That will save all of the problems that we have with literacy and numeracy! National is on a crusade—it is a page-and-a-half long crusade! It will not last for very long. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Less bureaucrats! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is right; National is on a crusade for fewer bureaucrats as well so let us load a few more compliance costs on to schools! 
Hon Members 
: Fewer bureaucrats! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is right. 
Moana Mackey 
: Less bureaucracy. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is right. 
The Labour Party which I am proud to stand here and represent is focused on what works. In the 9 years we were in Government we focused on giving schools the resources they needed to deliver on what works. We do not agree with Bill English who said the low-decile schools were “awash with cash”. We do not agree with that; we base our policies on sound evidence not bumper stickers that Crosby/Textor has told us are good ideas. We listen to what the teachers have to say. This is a typical National Party approach—it says whatever it needs to say in order to become the Government and then it does whatever it wants to do when it gets there. And it will ram legislation through under urgency so that nobody gets to have a say on it. 
This bill puts the boot into the people at the bottom of the heap and that is what this week has been all about for the new National Government—putting the boot into the people who did not vote for them. This week has been about putting the boot into the families who have just had their taxes increased. These who are going to be impacted on by many of the measures in this bill have just had their taxes increased by the incoming National Government. They have just had their work rights stripped away and their job security stripped away and they can now be sacked within 90 days just like many of the teachers who will be expected to deliver on this. 
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. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will take one more call. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 We are debating Part 2 of the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill. As the Minister of Education said this provision is part of the National Government’s action plan. It is trying to identify underperforming schools and help them but in discussion on the floor of this Chamber we have had identified the amount of funding that this Government will be providing to schools to assist them with the whole issue of standards. That amount is $18 million which is just a tiny fraction of the current education budget. It will not provide any of the supposed turbocharge indicated by the Government. Some action plan it will provide! 
We heard the Minister in the chair the Hon Anne Tolley say that 32000 children are truant every day. I ask her what extra resource will be provided for a typical low-decile school because it is the low-decile schools that will be most affected and will need extra resources to deal with the issues of truancy numeracy and literacy. I also ask her what resources will be provided for Maori schools and for children of Maori origin at schools because our friends in the Maori Party have been asking for assistance in that respect. The explanatory note of the bill refers to the compliance costs. It advises that the Ministry of Education cannot calculate the compliance costs for schools but it will supposedly take steps to minimise those costs. I suggest that this provision will simply mean another layer of red tape regulation that schools have to meet. 
This bill is about a one-size-fits-all approach to schools. It will pit school against school. I have visited just about every one of the 35 schools in my electorate of Christchurch Central and I can report that not one principal not one teacher not one parent and not one board of trustees representative has ever raised with me the need for this kind of legislation. What many of those schools in Christchurch Central require—many of them being low to moderate decile schools—is more resources. That is what will address the issues still there in terms of literacy and numeracy. In fact this bill is simply more right-wing dogma. It is a one-size-fits-all approach. It is picking up on the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind Act which is failed policy. The analysis has been that that policy has failed. 
I want to also comment on suggestions that there was failure in education over the last 9 years under the previous administration. That is offensive I think to all those children who did well under the last Government’s policies who are still doing well and who have made extraordinary achievements under those policies. It also I think provides offence to the many thousands of dedicated teachers who go beyond the call of duty every day to assist their pupils and who do a darned good job as many world league tables show. 
As the Minister indicated this bill is also about getting higher achievement. We all acknowledge that schools can do better but I suggest to the Minister that what she needs to do is already in place. I took the previous Minister the Hon Chris Carter to see a decile 3 school in my electorate Linwood High School. That school acknowledged that it had problems with literacy and numeracy so a dedicated teacher at that school set up the LANE project—the Literacy and Numeracy Empowerment project. It has become an inspirational project for that school and I suggest that it provides a model for the Minister of Education to look at if she truly wants to address numeracy and literacy issues. The school has assessed every year 9 pupil coming into it right across the board. It assesses the children’s family background health educational status and the sorts of situations they come from. Many of the children come from one-parent homes. Many have very poor teeth because they cannot get proper dental care. Some students were arriving at school having had no breakfast. The most extraordinary thing of all to be determined by the Literacy and Numeracy Empowerment project which covers every year 9 pupil at Linwood High School was that one in five of those children could not read. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 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 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 to 3 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 When I first looked at the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill I got it wrong. I thought it was actually a nothing. I thought it was just a sham a fig leaf an answer to election slogans that said National was going to have a crusade on literacy that it had five planks on which to build a new strong economy that would lift New Zealand up in the OECD league and that education was one of them—a crusade on literacy and numeracy was going to be one of the tools that did it. I looked at the bill as tabled by the Minister of Education Mrs Tolley and I thought “what a joke”. It contained nothing but things that were already happening and required to happen in our schools. We already have standards for literacy and numeracy—national standards. They are required to be there under the National Education Guidelines. We have talked about that for hours and hours today and yesterday. Of course National Party members have not listened; neither has Mrs Tolley but then one would expect no less. I thought “what’s the purpose of this bill this nothing bill this fig leaf this sham?” Actually the more I read it the more alarmed I became. It is not a sham or a fig leaf; it is an insidious Trojan horse—in the words of my new colleague Iain Lees-Galloway from Palmerston North. He called it a Trojan horse and I thought it was a very good analogy because the bill introduces for the first time the concept into New Zealand schools that primary school-age children will sit exams and those exams will be compared with exams of other children within their school and other schools. 
We know that that right-wing agenda as articulated by Heather Roy when she was in the Chamber late last night and talked about choice competition in education and a vision of education is very different from that of the Labour Party and the Labour Government that has just spent 9 years administering—I would say very successfully—our education system. Labour members talked about the $5.5 billion extra we put into education. We talked about 20 free hours we talked about $3.4 billion for new school buildings and 6000 extra teachers above roll growth. We talked about wonderful little initiatives such as laptops for teachers and sabbaticals for principals. We talked about programmes for aspiring principals’ and for first-time principals—all the structures that one puts in to make a real difference to teaching and learning. 
What does this bill do? It does not mention anything about resourcing of course. We heard Mrs Tolley talking about $18 million. I have to tell Mrs Tolley that it costs $10 million to get a 1 percent lift in the operations grant for all 2600 schools in New Zealand so the Minister’s $18 million will not give even a 2 percent lift in the operations grant. We gave this year a 5 percent lift in the operations grant. I have to say that it was greeted with howls of outrage by the education sector that said it was not enough. Of course we would have liked to give more; indeed of course we had already put in $5.5 billion extra into education. I have to tell Mrs Tolley that if she thinks $18 million is going to make even a ripple in the pond of education or is going to make even the slightest impact on literacy and numeracy outcomes she must be kidding. I tell the Minister that what will happen of course is that she will spend most of that money on bureaucrats and consultants. The Minister actually does not like educational experts employed by the Ministry of Education so she will probably consult on this with somebody who will charge her most of that $18 million or at least the company will to set up the so-called standards which are the literacy and numeracy progressions that all New Zealand schools are currently trialling. 
We should think about what the title of this bill should be. We could perhaps call it the “Great Leap Backwards Education Bill” because it is going back to those discredited right-wing agendas of the early 1990s when we had people like Nick Smith Lockwood Smith and others who were education Ministers and when we had bulk funding neglect of school infrastructure and a shift of resourcing to private education. Or we could call it of course the “Roger Douglas has Returned to Parliament Bill”. That would be a rather good title for it would it not? Seeing Roger sitting over there I thought a ghost from the past had come back; a horrible nightmare an agenda that New Zealanders thought was well past had suddenly reappeared like the ghost in  
Macbeth 
. Of course he brings with him not just himself but that agenda of privatisation—that somehow the market works best which is a policy that is totally discredited. That policy has not worked in a whole range of areas but I will talk about education. 
Chile went down the path of Roger Douglas and his mates in education. That country thought it would introduce choice into its education system. It would give parents the choice to choose where to send their children. What it did was provide an absolute bonanza for individuals setting up private schools. Chilean education which was considered one of the best in Latin America completely collapsed. Hekia Parata’s sister Apryll Parata came with me on an education delegation to Santiago in Chile earlier this year. We had a seminar on the New Zealand education experience and Chilean teachers educators and the Minister of Education were all there because they said New Zealand had got it right. Our learning outcomes for our students as evidenced in the Programme for International Student Assessment scores and the fantastic educational programmes that were operating in our country were the envy of Chilean educators because they said that they had stuffed their education system. Something like 70 percent of Chilean students were now in private schools—these were businesses. The State sector was wrecked by under-investment teachers were on strike and students were getting really low-quality education. Tertiary providers were saying that Chilean students coming into education were of declining quality in their literacy and numeracy and in their ability to study in higher education. All of this was the result of choice and competition. It completely gutted Chile’s education system. 
We have not gone down that path but this bill starts us on that journey. It states—and it all so sounds so innocent in fact so attractive—“national standards in literacy and numeracy.” Labour members have said already endless times today and yesterday that we have already got those so what is this about? I will tell members what the legislation is about. It is about setting up league tables between primary schools. It is about saying that the children in that decile 1 school over there are sitting right at the bottom of a comparison in the greater area. In my own electorate of Te Atatu each of those primary schools—21 of them—will be ranked against each other and the parents will want to compare how children do at Tirimoana Primary School Edmonton Primary School Flanshaw Road School or Peninsula Primary School. They are going to say: “We can drive across the electorate in 12 minutes.” It is the most compact electorate in the country it is just a concentration of working-class suburbs. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Small but perfectly formed! 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Parents can easily access all the primary schools in my electorate very quickly so they are going to choose to send their child to what they perceive is the highest-scoring school. The National - ACT - Maori Party coalition has already said it is going to give more parental choice and weaken the legislation that Labour put in around enrolment zones which will all change. We are back to the Roger Douglas days again. 
How are we going to make a real change in literacy and numeracy? We are not going to do that with the “Roger Douglas has Returned to Parliament Bill” or the “Great Leap Backwards Education Bill” or with Anne Tolley’s vision of education. We have to invest in early childhood education. We have to ensure that is done; in areas such as Judith Collins’ electorate where I was recently visiting schools in my role as Minister of Education only 23 percent of new entrants were receiving early childhood education. The Labour-led Government invested over $1 billion extra in early childhood education from the 20 free hours to the huge building grant and capacity process that we set in place to get more kids into early childhood education because that is where we start—right at the beginning. Before the children get to primary school we have them learning to read and already socialised to a school environment or learning environment. That is the only way we can make a difference. We are also going to make a difference only when we focus on areas of low-decile schools where there are real challenges in literacy and numeracy. 
We are not going to make a difference in those kids by slogans. We are not going to make a difference in them by saying their primary school sits right at the bottom of the league. Mrs Tolley claimed that an Education Review Office report stated that 56 percent of schools were not doing literacy and numeracy assessments. They were breaking the National Administration Guidelines if they were not doing those assessments. I personally think the report—which I have read—said that they were not doing it as adequately as they could. How is the national standard going to make a difference to that? Only resourcing and effective teaching will make a difference to that. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on this part and I will address a comment the Minister of Education made when she got to her feet during the debate on Part 2. She said that the Opposition was confused because we say that the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill does nothing but that we are voting against it because of the content. I would like the Minister to listen very carefully because I think that she is the one who is confused. We are opposing this bill not because it does nothing but because it achieves nothing and there is a very very big difference. 
This bill does do something. It absolutely replicates what schools are already doing. It adds to the compliance costs and the load on our teachers and it makes them do what they are already doing. Why does it do that? It does that because the Minister needs to save face. She went out on the campaign trail and promised national standardised testing and she was beaten down by a howl of opposition from anyone who knows anything about education. So the policy was watered down watered down and watered down to the point where it is now simply replicating what is already happening in our schools. 
So this bill does do something. This bill makes it harder for our teachers to teach because they will be forced to implement a national standards system and a system of assessment that they are already doing. That is why this Opposition is opposing the bill. The title of the bill could be the “Increased Compliance Costs and Less Time for Teaching for Our Teachers Bill” because that is exactly what it does. 
The Minister would do well to listen to the education sector. The problem with being an education expert is that everyone thinks he or she is an education expert because everyone went to school. The fact is that there are people in this country who are actually professionals in this area including teachers and principals who oppose this legislation. 
I ask the Minister how she will avoid having league tables. She says that this is not the purpose of the bill and that she is the only one who will be able to see the comparison. My colleague Kelvin Davis who knows an awful lot more about education than the Minister does who has been in the sector for a long time and who has been the principal of a school that greatly increased its performance under the current system pointed out that parents will vote with their feet. The community will know which of these schools are the ones that are not doing well. 
Allan Peachey 
: Shouldn’t they? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Allan Peachey said that people should be able to see the league tables. Well he might want to talk to his Minister because she is saying the public will not be able to see those comparisons. 
Allan Peachey 
: Why shouldn’t parents know? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I tell Mr Peachey to ask the Minister. The Minister said that they will not be able to see those comparisons. The reason the community will know is that it will be harder to recruit teachers into those schools the students will leave and the resources will leave. If there will be no league tables then I ask the Minister whether when more resources are going into the schools that the league tables show are not doing well she will guarantee that no local MP will get up and trumpet the extra resources for this school in their electorate; resources it is getting because the league table shows that school failing. If she cannot guarantee that then her promise that this bill will not lead to league tables is vacuous—absolutely vacuous. 
A teacher from the Minister’s own electorate emailed me last night to say that this measure will mean we will lose the collaboration that occurs between schools now. Teachers and schools work together at the moment. If they are forced into competition with each other through league tables then that collaboration will disappear so I ask the Minister whether she has considered that. 
If we were to rename this bill it could be called the “Listen to Your Own Constituents Bill”. I will read from a blog by the principal of Opotiki College which is a school in the Minister’s own electorate. He stated: “NZ schools already regularly assess student progress to inform further strategies. There is no need to have a centrally imposed and driven programme which has the intention (according to their policy) of comparing students in one school with another. This crock of”—and then there is a word I cannot use in this House—“is a populist strategy for which there is no credible research to support it.” He goes on to state: “The NZ education system is in good health. Young people are more literate and numerate as a group than any before.” He also states and I think this is important: “If National are elected and push this policy through I will struggle to remain involved in education to my current level in New Zealand.” That is from a principal in the Minister’s own electorate. 
I ask the Minister whether she takes the comments of principal Maurie Abraham from Opotiki College seriously. This college is in an area that has many of the issues the Minister reports that this bill is trying to assist with. Here we have a principal a very good principal who is working very hard in a very poor community to do well by his school who is saying not only that this bill will not work but also that it will be damaging. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I am not at all surprised that the National Government has not allowed the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill to be referred to a select committee because of course there is an agenda behind the face of the legislation and that is around the privatisation of education. It is pretty clear that privatisation is certainly ACT’s policy. Some members may have been on the hustings with ACT candidates who talked about how schools should be part of the marketplace like any other company and who said schools should be run as companies with all of the corporate culture that is involved with that idea. This is clearly the ACT Party policy. Even Heather Roy when I mentioned the No Child Left Behind policy in the US was quite happy to discuss her party’s policy of vouchers and charters. Of course ACT is part of the Government now. It has Ministers in Government and no doubt the National Government is following that philosophy and ideology in this legislation. 
Perhaps we should rename this bill as the “Education (First Step) Amendment Bill” because it lays the groundwork for the opportunity to have increased privatisation of the public schooling sector. We see National’s intention to increase privatisation already in the large funnelling of public money into private schools. It is worthwhile looking again at how the neo-liberal agenda has impacted on schooling policy in the US particularly with the use of standardised testing. I refer to two further articles on that issue. The first is called “Assessing No Child Left Behind and the Rise of Neoliberal Education Policies” and the second is called “The Growth of High-Stakes Testing in the USA: Accountability Markets and the Decline in Educational Equality”. 
We are talking about the agenda of neo-liberal deregulation and privatisation of public services and it leads in some ways to the kind of rhetoric that we have heard from National particularly around the privatisation of public education and the blaming of public education for our lack of international competitiveness and the increasing gap between rich and poor. We have heard those comments all through the National Party statements on this legislation. We had Allan Peachey blaming education for poverty and for the long tail of poverty. That is exactly the kind of rhetoric that George W Bush has spouted about the US policy as well. We have heard Nick Smith describe poverty as the politics of envy completely failing to understand that the long tail of underachievement in this country is a long tail of poverty. What is National doing about that? It is doing absolutely nothing; it is simply punishing the poor for being poor. We have been talking about that all week. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Oh what a stupid thing to say! 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Sandra Goudie is shouting from the benches because obviously it gets to her that we know what National’s agenda is. We know that National’s policy is about punishing the poor which the Employment Relations Amendment Bill and tax increases for the poor have done. 
We know from research around the No Child Left Behind policy and the way that that policy is sold particularly to what in the US would be considered underprivileged communities—here they would be low-income communities such as Maori and Pacific Island communities—that although it is supposed to be an objective assessment and reliable in fact it is highly politicised and highly unreliable and the outcomes are very much related to the incomes of the families that are involved. In the discussion on this bill we have also heard a lot of rhetoric around blaming teachers. Somehow the impact of teachers is undermined and degraded. The Government is investing another $30 million in private schools rather than investing in teachers when we know that teachers are the key to making the changes that lead to success. 
The other issue we have to look at here is that quality education is not the issue for the National Government. For National the issue is private access to public services. We have seen that in the early childhood education sector where National refuses to deal with the burgeoning of low-quality private sector early childhood education services in this country. Australian companies are coming in with expensive poor-quality teaching and care in the early childhood sector and National will do nothing about that. Those kinds of processes lock out the community sector from providing early childhood education services. We know from the research in our own country that community-based early childhood education is the best-quality early childhood education in this country as opposed to the private investment of international corporations such as ABC Learning Centres. But quality is not the issue here for National. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on these clauses. I think members have already heard me talk about my concern that we have not sent this bill to a select committee and have not had the opportunity for some focus on the bill’s detail. In particular I have been focusing on the regulatory impact statement. I want to quote another part of the regulatory impact statement: “Requiring schools to assess students against national standards will help to focus teachers on skills that every child should be mastering in reading writing and mathematics.” That leads me to believe that perhaps we should be calling this bill the “Patronising Teachers and Parents Bill”. To say that teachers will focus on reading writing and mathematics only if they have national standards is patronising. Perhaps that goes to show why this Government is putting through this bill under urgency—they simply do not want to hear about it from teachers and parents. 
There are other names that we could give this bill. As I am a fan of the movies we could call it the “Back to the Future Bill”. What we are doing here is moving back to a time when we sought to put students in boxes and we are saying to teachers and children that one size fits all in education and that is all that is needed. We are saying that we can have national standards and that we do not need the flexibility currently in the system so we are going back to the future with this bill. We are going back to the future by making sure that students have to fit in rather than by looking at their needs and by working with teachers and encouraging them to develop different kinds of programmes and assessments. Yes the National Government wants to take us back to the future. 
I could carry the movie theme on and perhaps call the bill the “Meet the Feebles Bill” because National has launched on a feeble crusade today. The bill is a 1½-page crusade on literacy and numeracy. It is a pitiful effort from the member. It replicates what is already done and done well inside our schools now by teachers and parents who should be trusted listened to and brought in to talk about these issues and how to improve them. That is what we should be doing instead of taking the approach of ramming the bill through now. 
There are other things we could call this bill. We could call it the “National Plays Politics Bill”. That is what it is. It is about bumper sticker slogans that were put out through the election campaign and that have now come to this House. They represent nothing in the way of really lifting standards in education. We know that across this country—and Mr Peachey knows it—schools have been developing excellent work in this area. We need to be talking to them and working with them not imposing additional compliance on them. We should be ensuring that teachers who are already stressed out and busy are not now being told to do more reporting in a different way when in many cases they are already adequately communicating with their parents. We do not need to be putting this legislation in place now. It is simply playing politics so that National can say it is doing something. We have the National Administration Guidelines that allow—in fact require—schools to do this. So it is quite clear that the Minister does not trust parents and does not want to listen to them. We can therefore call this bill the “Don’t Trust Parents and Teachers Bill”. 
We can also look at the bill and say that the compliance costs that have been put on schools have not even been assessed: “The Ministry of Education is unable to calculate the compliance costs of setting national standards at this time”. That is a result of ramming through this bill under urgency at the end of the year—at a time when schools have not had a chance even to think about what this means. 
I have also spoken to schools in my electorate over the last few days. To a person those who responded to me asked: “Why is this being done in this way? Why is this Government putting this bill through when we have not heard an adequate explanation from the Minister?” A teacher said to me: “Why would we follow George Bush?”. America has just rejected George Bush so why would we choose at this time to follow George Bush and his No Child Left Behind policy? It is a ridiculous policy. It has failed in America and has led to inequalities and that is where this process is heading. 
National standards will require national testing. That is the real agenda of this National Government. That is what it has come here to pass. The crusade has begun with the Trojan Horse as my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway said. So perhaps we could call the bill the “Education Standards (Trojan Horse) Bill” because that is what this Minister has brought to this House today. We know internationally that this approach does not work; it puts students and children into boxes. It does not allow them to learn in the way that is most appropriate for them but that should be the vision of education that we have in this country. We have a system we can be proud of and a system staffed by dedicated professionals. We know from throughout this debate that teachers make the difference not standards. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
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. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I think that the New Zealand public did actually believe the National Party when it said during the election campaign that education was the most important thing. I think that a lot of parents and a lot of teachers thought that National meant it but already those people know National did not mean it. Let us look at the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill which we have in front of us. Honestly! Does it even make 3 pages? No. It is very very slim. That shows how much the National members care about education. But the issue is not even about the small number of pages in the bill; it is actually about daring to say this issue does not need proper discussion and we should not have a proper democratic process so that teachers parents and communities can have a say on what our education system should look like in the future. 
One of these two statements must be true: this bill is either meaningless because it does what is already in the National Administration Guidelines anyway—and why are we here on a Saturday wasting parliamentary time if it is meaningless—or dangerous. I am starting to subscribe to the second view now after listening to this debate. I was particularly interested in what Metiria Turei had to say about a hidden agenda. I was also interested in the discussion my own colleagues have had about a Trojan Horse and that is starting to ring more and more true. The reason I say that is that I watched very carefully what happened to the very good amendments that were put forward by the Hon Chris Carter in order to ensure there could be debate about and some public scrutiny of the national standards the Minister might decide to put in. What did the National members do with regard to those amendments? They shut them down straight away. That tells me that there must be a secret agenda. Why else would the National Party deny the public the opportunity to scrutinise national standards that come from the Minister? 
This Minister has said during the course of this debate that we will not end up with national testing. I ask the Minister in the chair Anne Tolley whether that is right. Oh she is not confirming that now. Already she will not confirm it but I thought I heard her say this legislation is not about national testing. There is no reaction—so it is about national testing. Is it about national testing or not? Suddenly I am unsure again and that concerns me even more because I thought I heard the Minister say the bill is not about national testing. She is not prepared to confirm that now but I thought I heard her say that before. 
We have also seen that Minister on video saying teachers would be exempt from the provisions of the 90-day probationary employment period bill. How did that end up? It ended up with that Minister voting against the very amendment that would have ensured teachers were excluded from the 90-day bill. So can we trust this Minister? Can we trust this Minister to have the ability to gazette national standards? Those may or may not be national testing; she will not confirm or deny that now. She seems to be taking the American stance yet again—neither confirm nor deny. We have heard that before from the Americans. Maybe the Government is completely going towards the American stance. 
Anne Tolley is neither confirming nor denying national testing at this stage but I am just looking at a  
Hansard 
 here from earlier on in the debate. My colleague Brendon Burns said in his speech that the bill introduces standardised testing and the Hon Anne Tolley said it does not. That is in  
Hansard 
. So which is the true statement there? The issue is really very clear. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: She does change her mind quite a lot. 
SUE MORONEY 
: She does. It is very very difficult to work out because now the Minister seems to have taken the American stance of neither confirming nor denying that so we are none the wiser. We have had a debate in the Committee stage; we obviously need to flush that issue out quite some more. We are certainly coming towards the final debate in the Committee stage of this bill and we have absolutely no clarity on whether or not the bill proposes national testing. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Too simple for her to understand. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Well Sandra Goudie seems to know the answer. But there does seem to be quite a lot of confusion on the Government benches because I also thought I heard the Minister say this legislation would not result in league tables being published. I thought I heard the Minister say that. I am not sure whether she still believes that but I thought she said that during the course of the debate. Allan Peachey said league tables should be published. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Did he? 
SUE MORONEY 
: Yes he said that very clearly before so which is the true story? 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I move that this question now be put. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Clayton Cosgrove. 
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. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I am indebted to Mr Robertson as always. Mr Robertson is always on point. 
I suppose in looking at the title of this bill I am mindful of the fact that Gerry Brownlee was a teacher at the school I went to—and thankfully he never taught me. But I wonder why Mr Brownlee being a teacher of long standing has not taken a call on this bill. I inquired of Mr Power as to why that was the case—and I express sympathy for Mr Brownlee—and Mr Power informed me that Mr Brownlee has an ailment. He has sore knees to quote Mr Power. I assume that is because he has been down on them for most of the last 48 hours begging for forgiveness from the Deputy Prime Minister Mr English for the shambolic way this House has been managed. 
Never I am told by learned members of long standing behind me has a Leader of the House lost the confidence of the Opposition so quickly—within 4½ to 5 days. I invite Mr Brownlee—and Dr Cullen could inform me whether there is a precedent we could set—to take a call from the sitting position so that he does not have to exercise his cartilage too badly and so that he can make what would be a valuable contribution as a former woodwork teacher from St Bede’s who I am told used to make a very good cutting board. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: He is now the cross they bear. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes; I am sure he has the angles right on it. 
I think the title of this bill could be as some teachers in my patch have said the “School Cert for Under-sixes Bill”. The sad thing about this bill is that the National Party is in total denial. I will not re-rehearse what Mr Carter and Mr Mallard have said but we know that under National Administration Guidelines 1 and 2 there is assessment. There are standards; they have been in place for a very long time. 
This bill seems to suggest that teachers are silly and they are not. It suggests apparently that they do not assess when they do. It suggests that parents are silly and they are not. But the National Party seems to think they are. National says that parents do not engage with teachers and that teachers will not engage with parents and report to them even though that is specified in the National Administration Guidelines. 
National says there is no engagement between parents and teachers in terms of the progress and reporting of their children’s performance. That is the National Party’s thinking and it is Mrs Tolley’s thinking as she has been dragged out of the lock-up—and maybe Mr Brownlee is in charge of that. Maybe he is in charge of keeping Mrs Tolley away from the Chamber as much as possible so as not to cause that crew over there embarrassment. I wonder whether Mrs Tolley and Ms Wilkinson have conversed by carrier pigeon semaphore text message or verbally—I do not know—to clarify a position on the 90-day bill. [ 
Interruption 
] Dr Cullen makes a good point. 
Mrs Tolley has been in the Chamber and during my time in the Chamber both last night and this morning I do not think she has answered a question. The sad thing is that the provisions for assessment and standards as we know have been in place for a long time. Teachers do report to parents and parents do engage with schools on the progress of their children. But now we will have a Trojan Horse. I cannot recall which colleague used the term “Trojan Horse” but this is indeed a Trojan Horse I think so that monetary contributions to schools will follow performance. 
I think a term that the National Party used during the election campaign was that funding would follow performance. If that is combined with the dropping of zoning some schools will be ghettoised as certain schools were in the 1990s and— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Gerry would be on starvation rations. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No that would be impossible. 
If zoning is dropped and if funding then follows performance the next logical step is to go back to the bulk funding regime National put in place when it was in Government in the 1990s. I think that that is actually the hidden agenda so maybe we should call this the “Hidden Agenda Education Bill” or “Anne Tolley’s Last Stand Education Bill”. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: We don’t want them to change her. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh no—we do not want to change her although I think that Mr Peachey would have been a better education Minister out of the two of them. But there are more salacious opportunities with Mrs Tolley holding the ministerial portfolio. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: We look forward to question time. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Indeed we look forward to question time because we will be able to ask questions about the definition of a vice-chancellor or about whether Mrs Tolley knows what her name and title are. We will be able to ask some of those very basic questions such as: “What did she say to teachers?” and “Is Ms Wilkinson right or is she right?” or whatever. We can sort of tease these things out. It is a bit like Chinese water torture you know—we will just tease them out and rotisserie Mrs Tolley slowly. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: There’s less to rotisserie now of course. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Indeed. 
Hon Member 
: But we don’t want John Key to replace her—leave her alone. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Indeed—do not replace her. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill is set down for third reading forthwith. Just before I call the honourable Minister I would like to make a comment because I expect this debate will be robust as the issues are matters that are deeply held. 
I have been listening to the debate with a lot of interest this morning and I think it is timely since we are debating national standards in education to remind members of the House of the way the Standing Orders require us to address each other in this House. When a member is speaking he or she is the first person and is perfectly entitled to use “I” and “we”. The second person in this Chamber is the Speaker so when members use the word “you” in the second person they are referring to the Speaker. Members cannot say: “Minister you said something” because that would be referring to the Speaker. The other side of the House is the third person—“he” or “they”. I just remind all members of that for the benefit of new members and front-bench members as well because the debate will become much more personal when someone says: “Joe Bloggs you did this.” That is out of order because that is in the second person and the member would be referring to the Speaker. So with that said honourable members I call the Minister the Hon Anne Tolley. 
Third Reading 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill delivers on two promises that our Government made to the New Zealand public during the recent election campaign. Those promises were first of all to amend the Education Act 1989 so that the Minister of Education could set national standards in literacy and numeracy; and secondly to amend the Education Act 1989 to increase the current fines for parents of truant children from $150 and $400 for first time and repeat offenders respectively and to allow the Ministry of Education to take prosecutions. 
This bill gives the Minister of Education an explicit power to set national standards in literacy and numeracy. These standards are not set in this legislation and they will be set next year after consultation with the education sector. The standards will apply to State schools and will apply to students in years 1 to 8. I think that what has been lost completely on the Opposition in the debate around this legislation is the fact that parents overwhelmingly voted for this policy. I have spoken to parents all around the country and they want to know in clear plain English how their child is going in mathematics reading and writing and how their child is doing compared with other children in their year group. Parents saw that this was National Party policy they voted for it on that basis and that is why I am proud to see this legislation being passed through the House today. 
I am also greatly looking forward to going around the country and telling parents that Labour voted against national standards. Labour had the opportunity to vote for a real change in our education system—one that focuses on excellence and aspiration—but instead Labour members went for the partisan and ridiculous decision to vote against literacy and numeracy standards for some of our youngest New Zealanders. 
This policy will see standards set which this legislation allows the Minister of Education to do. It will see students regularly assessed against these standards using a range of assessment tools currently in use. The policy will see parents receive reports on their child’s progress in plain English. It will see school boards include in their school charters the board’s priorities and targets for assessing students against the standards. And it will see schools report on this as part of their normal planning and reporting processes. Good assessment data is an important tool to drive school improvement. Assessment information helps teachers to see whether students have mastered the intended learning ensures that students are aware of their own progress and ensures that parents are able to monitor how well their children are doing. 
At a system level assessment information can provide parents communities boards of trustees and the Government with an overview of the performance of the system of particular schools and of specific groups of students. Schools are increasingly using new more sophisticated assessment tools to track student achievement. The data generated has the potential to provide rich information to teachers students parents and boards of trustees about student progress. Despite the availability of these assessment tools the Education Review Office reported in March 2007 that 56 percent of schools reviewed at that time were not using worthwhile achievement data when setting targets in their charters. This Government’s focus on literacy and numeracy will provide a backbone to allow students to fully enjoy and excel in the wide variety of other subjects they will study at primary and secondary schools. But the focus also recognises that English and mathematics are international languages and that it is not good enough for children not to get the best possible start in these disciplines. 
Secondly this bill honours our promise to raise the fines for parents who deliberately allow their children to be truant and allows the Ministry of Education to take prosecutions. It is scandalous that on any given day more than 30000 students are likely to be absent from school. The maximum fine for a first offence is currently $150 and the maximum fine for a second offence is $400. This bill raises the maximum level of fines to $300 for a first offence and $3000 for a second or subsequent offence. Parents also commit an offence if they fail to enrol their child at school and the level of fine for this offence will be raised from $1000 to a maximum of $3000. The $3000 is the maximum level of fine. Judges will still have the discretion to consider a number of factors when deciding the level of fine to impose. Let me again assure members in this House that prosecuting parents is a last-resort intervention to be used for persistent unjustified and parent-condoned truancy. Prosecution is for when all other alternatives fail. But we know from a streamlined truancy prosecution trial that prosecution and the threat of prosecution does work to help get children engaged in school again. The bill will also allow the Secretary for Education to take prosecutions either to assist the school by taking the prosecution or to act when chronic parent-condoned truancy is identified and a school does not take action. 
I am extremely proud to see this bill progress through the House. I believe that it begins the task of raising standards of achievement and attendance in New Zealand schools. If members believe in standards in education if members believe in providing parents with clear and easy-to-understand information about their child’s achievement and if members believe that children who are currently falling behind in literacy and numeracy should be given the opportunity to achieve at the level of their peers then I urge members to vote for this bill. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 The Labour Party is opposed to this Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill for two reasons. First of all we are opposed to it because of its process. Standardised testing—and indeed truancy itself—is an intensely controversial subject. The issue of testing in primary schools has been canvassed in the election campaign. It was very controversial then; it is very controversial now. We believe that the public—parents teachers educational experts the Schools Trustees Association and the wider community—should have the right to participate in this debate. The bill is being rammed through under urgency; the public especially the education sector has had no chance to have an input. 
The rather hapless new Minister of Education Mrs Tolley has begun her time as Minister of Education. She and the other Government members like with any new Government—it won the election; it has the right to govern—now have a period in which there is a sense of the community saying how they will be and wishing them well. I am sure they have had this as they have moved around in the last couple of weeks. There is a sense of the community saying: “What does it mean?” and “Let us give them a chance.” and in Mrs Tolley’s first week in her job she has squandered a great opportunity. She has said to the community and the education sector that they can have no input and that they have no value in this controversial area. 
People in the community have also seen this particular new Minister break her word. I was present when she said that the 90-day rule would not apply to support staff and my colleague Steve Chadwick was present in Rotorua when Mrs Tolley said it would not apply to teachers. In fact the whole country got to see it on television the other night on a YouTube video. Mrs Tolley said that the 90-day rule which the Government has just brought in and which means that employees in small enterprises can be sacked for no reason would not apply to teachers. It does. 
I see the Minister is shaking her head. Well on Tuesday the Minister will have the opportunity to tell me and the House whether she said the thing seen by every New Zealander watching Television One. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: She told me I was making it up when I asked. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Oh did she? Well we will see. She is shaking her head. She has said twice today—and I think yesterday—that she did not say it. Well she will have the chance to say that in question time on Tuesday and if she gainsays on record that she did not say it then we will have a very interesting situation. We will look forward to developing that. 
I am saying in the context of the bill that the new Minister of Education had the chance to capitalise on goodwill—goodwill that has already been squandered on appearing to tell an untruth around the 90-day rule and also on treating the education sector and the community with contempt by saying that these very controversial matters about standardised testing for primary school age students is not something that people should have input about. So the process of this bill is something that we utterly reject. 
What about the content of this bill? We have talked about how this bill initially appears to be a nothing bill. Of course the National Educational Guidelines already say that primary and middle schools must assess data on literacy and numeracy they must report that to parents they must have ongoing improvements in that area and they must have a robust process about assessing the tools that they use. They have a wonderful battery of tools which we have heard about many times in the last few hours: asTTle PROBE the progressive achievement test and the literacy and numeracy progressions that are being trialled in all primary schools at the moment. Those are the tools that we have. They are national standards if you like in literacy and numeracy. 
This bill is really about—and this is the subtle Trojan Horse content that my new colleague Iain Lees-Galloway from Palmerston North talked about—introducing the concept of competition and league tables between primary schools and compounding the differences between schools. It does nothing to really address the question of literacy and numeracy. I also think that it implies a connection between teacher quality and test results. Performance pay has long been a right-wing ambition. I again come back to Heather Roy’s speech in the House where she talked about choice and competition in education and about reshaping New Zealand education. I think this ties in well with that Chilean model I talked about before where those sorts of policies have had such disastrous results. It is about introducing the concept of making teachers accountable for the exam results of their students—not for their learning but for their exam results. 
Looking over to the other side of the House I see that we have some new National MPs from diverse communities—for example the Korean and Sikh communities. This reminds me that in our country where one New Zealander in four was born outside New Zealand 22 percent of young New Zealanders come from homes where English is a second language. They may be fluent in English but the operating language in that home is not English. How will this 22 percent of our young Kiwis compare in a one-off literacy snapshot taken in primary schools? 
In addition Mrs Tolley never answered—she answered very little in the Committee stage—the question about who will be tested. What about special needs pupils? What about children with mild as well as serious learning barriers—children with attention deficit disorder or dyslexia for example? Will these children be part of the testing regime that will take place in primary schools? This issue has been enormously controversial in the UK. There all students in the school have been required to sit the test. Even in schools with high numbers of special needs students—whether it is behavioural or physical disability that has impacted on their ability to learn—these students will be part of any comparative data again compounding the inequities and stupid foolishness of league tables. 
Education is something that the Labour Party feels very passionate about. When our party was established in 1916 over 102 years ago—Labour is the oldest political party in New Zealand—the people who set it up were trade unionists and workers. Many of them were recent migrants from the UK where the class barrier had been a total obstacle to their children fulfilling their potential. They saw education as the key to climbing the ladder of opportunity. Indeed when the first Labour Government was set up in the 1930s and we had the historic partnership between Clarence Beeby and Peter Fraser education was the key for that first Government to try to realise the potential of young New Zealanders. That first Labour Government introduced free secondary education because it saw education as a tool. 
I am touching on this historic material because I am trying to say to this House and to anybody who is listening to the House today that education for Labour politicians is something we are passionate about. We are passionate about it because we believe in having a quality public education system. 
We heard from Metiria Turei earlier today—and it was new information for me—that King’s College in Auckland the school that Mr Key’s son attends I believe will be receiving $1.2 million under the promise made by the new National Government to double the amount of funding for private schools. We have already heard in this House that there will be no extra money for education in the coming Budget. It will be very interesting to see how Mrs Tolley deals with that with the education sector. 
I was Minister of Education in a Government that doubled education spending and I was constantly lambasted from the sector and in this House by the Opposition about not giving enough. We can never give enough money to education. But we are hearing already that private education will receive an endowment—a doubling from $40 million to $80 million. We have heard of some extravagant promises being made to schools in places like Upper Hutt. For example Heretaunga College in Chris Hipkins’ electorate was promised $30 million. Either these promises will be broken or the money will be sucked out of the State education system. 
It is in the State education system where the real challenges in literacy and numeracy are found. They are found in our low-decile schools they are found in the lack of participation in early childhood education and it is there that we are going to make the real difference in literacy and numeracy outcomes. 
We are opposed to this bill because we think that the issues it touches on are incredibly controversial and should have public participation. We are worried about the hidden agenda. I will finish by saying that there is a word that comes to me from Roman history—pyrrhic. This is a pyrrhic victory. Yes National will win today but it will lose so much that it will be damaged in the conflict in 2011 to see who will be the Government. We will keep this Government accountable in education. 
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. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I sometimes do not know whether to take Mr Peachey seriously. I do not think there has been a Minister in the history of the New Zealand education system who has closed more schools who has taken out more boards of trustees that were not performing and who has intervened more in order to performance-manage principals out of their jobs when schools were failing than me. But just about every time I did that National members criticised. Time after time they went in to bat for schools like Waiwhetu School which was failing its kids. They went in to bat for schools like St Stephen’s School which was failing its kids and whose kids were being beaten up time and time again. I wonder about who has had the low expectations and who have been the people who went in to bat for failing schools not in order to reinforce them but to keep them going in their failing state. I do not believe Mr Peachey now; I used to take him pretty seriously. He was someone who had a contribution to make—not something I always agreed with—and he was generally much more reasoned than that. 
There is a history in New Zealand of Ministers of Education focusing on teaching and learning. I think it was something that grew through the 1990s and into this decade. My view is that as a result of the work of yourself Mr Speaker of Wyatt Creech of me myself and latterly of some others— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Generous! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well there was not as much time and they changed a bit often. The point I am making is that people from around the world come and look at our teaching and learning systems especially in the literacy area. And that is where the focus should be. The point made by the principal of Anne Tolley’s Opotiki College—that we do not make a pig fatter by measuring it—is very very important. I think it is important to measure. I think it is important to measure and I think it is an important part of the learning and feedback loop. But doing that measuring should be part of that teaching and learning loop not something that is nationally imposed. 
I ask the Minister whether this is really the most pressing issue in education at the moment in her entire portfolio. I cannot believe that this is the most pressing issue. We are debating it under urgency. Is she so arrogant to believe that no one else could possibly have a view that would improve this legislation? I just cannot believe that a Minister of Education who is meant to know about personal learning does not seem to know that she can always improve her work—all of us can. I do not believe that she cannot take the views of others and that she cannot take a bill to a select committee. It might well be that she is perfect. It might well be that this bill does exactly what she wants it to do. If that was so then that would be tremendous reinforcement for the Minister; the accolades would flow. But it is my view that that is unlikely and I say that the Minister has abused process in her very first legislation. 
The next point I will make is that the Minister is saying that she is putting $18 million of new money into this legislation. That is the equivalent of about 1.5 percent of the operations grant. I will apply the same question: is this the highest priority for spending in the education portfolio? We have heard a lot about truancy officers recently in the debate—whether we need more of them and whether they can be more effective given the tools that they have been given in this legislation or the sledgehammers baseball bats or whatever is flowing out of this. I ask the Minister whether she considered putting $2 million or $3 million out of this $18 million into helping truancy officers where it would make a tremendous difference. She says that no she did not consider it. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: We did! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I am assuming that the Minister knows that when she shakes her head that means no. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How does she know that? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: She was responding to the question “Do you know what a vice-chancellor is?”. 
I am really really saddened because in my view $18 million can be better spent. I ask the Minister whether she has taken the sum to Cabinet whether she has an agreement for it to go into the Imprest or whether it is part of the Supplementary Estimates. She has not responded so I assume from that that she has not. It means that this Minister has again breached process; she has made an announcement she is involved in illegal spending or what I think is much much more likely she has cut another part of the education budget—she has taken money away from schools—in order to put it into her pet project. 
I will make a comment about league tables. The Minister is quoted in yesterday’s  
Dominion Post 
 as saying: “the full data obtained would be available only to the Government.”—that is data from schools as a whole. I say to the Minister that she cannot say that. Schools are subject to the Official Information Act. School by school board of trustee by board of trustee and principal by principal they are subject to the Official Information Act. Any local newspaper can apply under the Official Information Act to the schools in their region for their results and the schools must give those results to them. There are no grounds for a school not to give aggregative results. There would be grounds for them not to give individual pupil results. That could be argued; on the face of the Act schools would have to give results pupil by pupil. But I think there would be an argument under the Act for not giving individual pupil results. Certainly there is no argument for not giving results school by school. 
I ask the Minister whether she has contemplated the possibility of those results being available on a teacher by teacher basis. I want to know whether that is the secret agenda here. We have talked about a Trojan Horse but I ask the Minister whether she is prepared to give an undertaking to the House through her next National speaker that she will ensure that the next education legislation will make it clear that teacher by teacher results will not be available. No she has chosen not to give that undertaking which I think confirms what her agenda is. Maybe it is deliberate; maybe she wants the results teacher by teacher in the local newspaper. That might be a valid approach from a National point of view. It is clearly a lead in if that is the case to some sort of performance pay arrangement but it absolutely undermines the possibility of positive teaching and learning models. The work we have done under asTTle makes it absolutely clear that we can get that teacher by teacher information not in a gross form but in some very narrow areas of finely tuned information to assist teachers with their professional development. If the Minister is saying that that professional support work will then be spread into the  
Hutt News 
 the  
Kapiti Observer 
 the  
Waikato Times 
 or the  
New Zealand Herald 
 then I say that that will be a major retrograde step for education in New Zealand. I think that any sensible Minister would have sent the legislation to the select committee for the committee to look at the pitfalls. Thank you. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 It is very clear that the Green Party is opposing the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill. I want to talk about both issues—the truancy fine increase and the national standards. We have discovered in the debate on this legislation given that there has been no select committee consideration and therefore no input at all from anybody involved in the implementation of these policies that there is no information. The Minister has no information—she has not presented any to show us that this legislation is necessary. 
There is no evidence that increasing the truancy fines from $1000 to $3000 will make a single bit of difference to the truancy rates in this country. The Minister has failed to provide any evidence that shows this is necessary. In fact she herself in the debate has confessed that it is the threat of prosecution that has the greatest impact on families and on reducing truancy rates than fining them. So why on earth would the National Government decide in its first piece of legislation in its first week in the House to increase the fines for truancy from $1000 to $3000? Maybe it is because it needs the cash. It has made huge promises to the private schooling sector and it has to find the money from somewhere. The Minister will not get any new money out of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance because they have already said there is none so maybe this is one way of doing it. Maybe it is also following on from the tax increases for the poor and from the 90-day bill. Maybe this is just another way of punishing poor people for being poor. Why not attack them in their wallet where they are the most vulnerable and where they have the least resources? That appears to be the National Party agenda and policy for low-income people in this country. This week has proved that to be the case. 
We are dealing with families that are in extreme turmoil. I have described this before and I will do so again. Many of these low-income families have very insecure employment. As a result they have highly insecure housing. It is very difficult to get housing in some of these areas. Many of these families are being forced into sharing accommodation and completely unsatisfactory arrangements as a result of poverty and poor housing. There is increasing illness and poor nutrition for the children who are trying to get an education. Poverty increases the mobility of those families. The parents have to move around more because they simply cannot afford to keep paying the rent on their own place or if they get another job they may have to move home and shift their children from school to school. This means that children become highly dislocated from their communities. They are unable to put down roots in their community or in their school. They are unable to develop long-term relationships with teachers or build the trust that children need to have with a school and their school community in order to achieve. Children find it very difficult to build long-term relationships with friends when they have to move from school to school. 
All of that impacts directly on their achievements. Children who have to change schools every few months or even every 6 months find it very difficult to keep up their level of achievement in this incredibly dislocated fragile environment. The relationship that children then have with the State system and the schooling system overall is very fragile and fragmented. It builds mistrust between the children and the schooling system. Children then become despondent. Why would children want to go to school if they know that every few months they have to go to a new school meet new teachers and deal with new kids? Children who are living a life of extreme poverty have to deal with the social impacts of that poverty and the new impacts of it every few months as they deal with new kids and new environments. 
Poverty is the cause of the long tail of underachievement for our young children and our young people and the cause of increasing truancy rates. Where is the National Party social policy that deals with poverty? We have had some legislation already in this first week that shows tax increases for the poor and greater insecurity of unemployment through the 90-day bill. Even the amendments to bail conditions mean that a lot of those people will suffer more. That is the kind of social policy we are getting. There is no investment in communities no investment in the education system for low-decile schools no investment in the incomes of these low-income people and no investment in housing. We have already seen that National is going to keep homes cold damp and so poorly insulated that many of our children will continue to suffer from asthma eczema glue ear and other health conditions that result from very poor housing. National refuses to do anything about those poverty aspects that contribute to underachievement and truancy. Instead National will fine these families for truancy and increase the fine from $1000 to $3000. 
In addition the bill sets out the national standards and testing regime that the National Party has been campaigning on and the ACT Party is very committed to following on from its genesis in the US. That is the market approach to education and the No Child Left Behind policy that was put in place in 2000. I have described this before and I am pleased to do so once again. The national standards policy failed in the US and in other countries where similar policies have been put in place. It failed. The research proves that it failed. 
Allan Peachey 
: Not true. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: There was not a single piece of evidence from National to say that it had succeeded. Allan Peachey simply argued that it is all socialism which is not the most intelligent argument I have ever heard when talking about real evidence and real research. I am sorry I say to Mr Peachey but it was an appalling piece of speech-making on his part. 
The policy has failed overseas and the research proves it. How has it failed? Teachers are teaching to the test and not to the skills opportunities and developmental potential of the children themselves. Expectations for black children and poor children have lowered. 
Allan Peachey 
: They wouldn’t do that; they’ve got too much integrity! 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Again we hear that rhetoric from Allan Peachey that proves those members simply will not accept the facts but are just working on ideology. Improving schools were still branded as failures and were punished as a result. Those polices punished those schools and prevented them from being able to improve any further. Students were kept from being able to sit tests or were held back from advancing through the normal year’s progression because they were considered to be unable or unlikely to pass the test and schools did not want those kinds of marks on their record. Black children poor children and disabled children fell behind in achievement in the 8 years that the policy has been in place in the US. As a result the drop-out rate for black children poor children or disabled children in the US increased by 17 percent in just 2 years. 
That policy failed to close the gaps or increase achievement. It increased the market ideology in the education system forcing poor ethnic communities out of education. That is what the National Party’s policy clearly does. It clearly keeps these kids out of education. Why? Who knows? It is completely irrational and it is not understandable. I do not think there is anything in here except this blind ideology towards a market approach to education despite the fact that it is demonstrably a failure. 
I want to address some of the concerns of the Maori Party. I found Anne Tolley’s sycophantic condescension towards Maori absolutely appalling in this debate. The National Party’s refusal to support the Maori Party’s motion to split the bill so its members could oppose the truancy fines whilst supporting educational standards is an obvious example of National’s absolute disregard for real Maori interests. There has been a historical degradation of Maori education not just for decades but for over a century. Not a single Government has ever been able to deal properly with the differences between Maori and Pakeha in terms of educational achievement. Every policy so far has failed because the Maori tikanga policy has not been at the heart of Maori education policy. 
I can see why the Maori Party might be attracted to this policy but it has demonstrably failed ethnic communities everywhere else in the world. There is nothing to show that it will not fail our own whanau. I make a personal plea to the Maori Party to ask them please to not support this bill. Do not support increasing fines for our whanau from $1000 to $3000. Do not support policy that is demonstrably failing ethnic communities and poor communities everywhere in the world when we know that it is our whanau who are the ethnic communities and the poor communities in our own country. This policy promise made by Anne Tolley and those members on that side of the Chamber is an empty failed promise. Again this policy will deliver nothing for our Maori whanau just as similar policies of previous Governments have always failed to deliver for us. This bill will do enormous damage to our public education system. It is the first step in the marketisation of education. I urge all parties and particularly the Maori Party to please not support this bill 
Hon HEATHER ROY (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the third reading of the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. The comments from the Opposition are a sad reflection on how those members consider progressive policies. If members believe the Green member Metiria Turei they would think that this bill is about punishing poor people for being poor. In fact Metiria Turei said exactly that. That certainly is not what this bill is about. If she took a moment to read the bill she would see that it is about trying to advantage the children in New Zealand society who at the moment are severely disenfranchised from the educative process. That is what we should be striving for. 
This bill is actually about expectations and a number of speakers on this side of the Chamber have made that point very eloquently. It is about expectations and about setting expectations for our children. It is about setting expectations for their parents to get them to school. It is about setting expectations for those who participate in our educational system. Most of all it is about expecting that we should strive for excellence in education and equality. 
Every child regardless of family income should have the right to quality education. No child should be left behind just because of where he or she lives or because of their parents’ financial position. We should also not forget that education is first last and always about children. It is not about Government or bureaucrats; it is about children. It is about children and it is about parents being able to access quality education for their children. 
This bill is about raising standards of achievement and attendance in the compulsory education sector. One might not realise after listening to Opposition members that there are two parts to the bill. Those members have just focused on the piece that they fear most and that is about numeracy and literacy standards being elevated and reached. The first part of the bill is about school enrolment and attendance and how important that is for our children but the Opposition has not focused on that part of the bill. Parents will under this bill be increasingly held liable for the actions of the children in their care and they will be made aware that regular truancy will not be accepted. That message needs to get through loud and clear. Children who do not turn up for school will not learn. 
Secondly and most important this bill will introduce national standards in literacy and numeracy. I have a question for the Opposition. Why is it so bad that schools will be required to report to parents—in plain language as the Minister pointed out—on how their children are doing? 
Moana Mackey 
: They already are. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: They are not. I tell Ms Mackey that a lot of information is withheld from parents at the moment. Parents should have the right to have access to all assessment information and that is what will be required under this legislation. Many schools already test students but they are not required to do so and at the moment they do not have to tell parents the results of the tests. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: They are required to do so. Read the NAGs. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: Mr Mallard has been out of education for far too long if he thinks that that is the case. Under the law change schools must provide parents with all the assessment information collected about their child and must also pass on the aggregate information data and that is right and proper. 
This bill is a good first step. That is what ACT sees it as. It is a good first step to improving education across the board for all children in New Zealand. But it must be followed in my view by further work. In particular there is a lot of work to do on the curriculum and that must follow hand in hand with this work and with the best vehicles to realise those expectations that I talked about—the expectation of excellence the expectation of good-quality access and the expectation of equality. All children regardless of family income and regardless of where they live should be able to access quality education. School choice is important in that equation and the ACT Party in negotiating our support agreement with National talked a lot about school choice. We are looking forward to the establishment of the inter-party working group. We are looking forward to working with the National Government to lift and boost the level of education across the board. 
ACT supports this bill. I will finish with this comment; I said it in the first reading speech that I gave yesterday. It is important that we have high-level goals and be mindful of why we want to boost education standards in the first place. Education is the key to our long-term prosperity as a country. We need our next generation to have the skills and the creativity needed to thrive in the 21st century not to look back to the 19th century. There is a lot of work to be done but this is a very important first step. The ACT Party supports the National Government in this very important initiative. 
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. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the third reading debate on the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill. It seems quite appropriate for me as a new member to be talking about education because the passage of this bill through Parliament in the last few hours has been quite an education to me. 
Hon Member 
: It’s about process. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Yes; process. Even though this bill has been shunted through under urgency I have come to understand that the process has its benefits. 
When we first sat down and looked at this bill we thought it was nothing. We thought it was flimflam; we thought it was a space-filler. We thought that the Government was so desperate to look like it was doing something that it had put down something quite innocuous that it could rush through and it would look like it had its action plan. It would look like its priority action plan was under way. Mr Twyford called it a hologram. It looked like it was something but there was nothing there. But Mr Twyford called it something else as well. He called it a Trojan Horse and that is what it is. As the onion has been peeled away layer by layer as this bill is progressed quickly through Parliament we have come to realise that this bill is something more. It is not just flimflam; it actually has a secret hidden agenda. 
This bill does two things. Firstly it lays down the foundation for a complete change in the way we look at the education system in this country. It lays down the foundation for league tables. It lays down the foundation for greater privatisation—the ACT Party is looking forward to it. It lays down the foundation for widening the gap between poor schools and rich schools. It lays down the foundation for stigmatising the children of low-decile schools. It lays down the foundation to publish teacher by teacher results and to make those available. It is blazing a trail for a major restructure in the way our education system works in this country. 
The bill does something else. The second thing it does is demonise good parents. It is sending a message. We have heard a lot from the Government about sending a message. Personally when I want to send a message I might send a text I might send an email or if I am feeling a bit nostalgic I might nip down to New Zealand Post and send a message that way. But now I have found out that there is a new way. If I want to send a message I will go and see Simon Power or Anne Tolley or I might go and see Heather Roy and I will get them to write a piece of legislation for me. 
This bill is sending a message all right; it is sending a message to New Zealand that there is an underclass of bad parents out there who need to be fined and whom we need to go after with prosecutions. The message is that they are bad parents who have no interest in their children’s education and that they need to be told off. They need to be told off for their bad behaviour. Let us think about what is really going on in families with truant children. 
Let us look into the future and think about what the situation might be. Let us think about a solo mum with three kids. Let us suppose that all the kids are now at school. She might have one at intermediate school and a couple at primary school. They are all at school now so it is no more domestic purposes benefit for her now is it. She has to get off the domestic purposes benefit and she has to get work. She could not get work that fitted around school hours but she had to take something because her domestic purposes benefit was on the line; she would be in trouble if she did not take what was on offer. She manages to get the little one to primary school but the kid who is at intermediate school has to go alone because mum has to get herself to work. 
She then finds out that through no fault of her own her eldest child is truanting. The school calls her up. It wants to see her doing something about it; otherwise she will be in line for a fine. What does she do? She has managed to get that new job and she has been given a “take it or leave it” offer of a 90-day probation period. She is sitting there at work. What does she do? Does she leap up and sort out what is happening with her child and face being sacked on the spot or does she stay there and risk a fine and more important does she risk her child not achieving at school because that child is truant a situation that has come about because she is under so much pressure at work? Will that be the situation we see as a result of the raft of legislation we are seeing pushed through this place? 
A family in such a situation might be a working family that as a result of the tax bill we have seen will have their taxes go up. This working family might have two parents who are both working and who are under the same pressure so they have no time for their family and no time to pay attention to what is going on in their family. 
I know that the National Party is not too keen on research. We saw that with the taxation bill as well but National has told us I do not know how many times to be very careful when we start citing research. So I went in search of something that National members may think has some substance. I found a report to the US Department of Justice—hardly what one would call a soft left-wing organisation. The report talks a lot about the role of prosecution and the role of fines in amongst a discussion of a raft of other initiatives to do with truancy. It talks about four correlates of truancy: family factors school factors economic influences and student variables. 
The first one family factors—which is actually the only one that I think could possibly be what the Government is trying to deal with in respect of this legislation—includes a lack of guidance or parental supervision domestic violence poverty drug or alcohol abuse in the home lack of awareness of attendance laws and differing attitudes towards education. How on earth will putting the paddy wagon at the bottom of the cliff deal with these issues? If the Government were serious about truancy it would not have this bill going through under urgency and it would not make this measure its first priority. It might be something the Government put in the mix but it would be looking at domestic violence and poverty trying to deal with drug and alcohol abuse trying to deal with a lack of understanding of attendance laws and trying to deal with differing attitudes towards education. 
This bill is the most Draconian option the Government has. Why has it gone with the most Draconian option? It is because it wants New Zealand to believe that there is an underclass of bad parents out there. It wants us to be able to point the finger and say: “It’s your fault parents that your children are not getting to school.” 
Let us consider some of the school factors. These include school climate issues such as school size; attitudes of teachers other students and administrators; and inflexibility in meeting the diverse cultural and learning styles of the students. Inflexibility in meeting the diverse cultures and learning styles of the students—what could be more inflexible than bringing in national standards? What could be more inflexible than that? If we were really serious about dealing with truancy then we would be looking at that. But no we are going in the opposite direction. It is back to the future; we are in reverse—full on. 
Economic influences mentioned in the report include employed students single-parent homes high mobility rates parents who hold multiple jobs and the lack of affordable transportation and childcare. The Green Party member talked a lot about the minimum wage and investing in communities. In fact I have canvassed educators in Palmerston North and I will tell members what one of them said. I asked him what he would do about truancy and he said he would do what the Labour Party would do. I said: “Say that again?” and he repeated that he would do what the Labour Party would do. I asked him what he meant and he said he meant investing in families. He talked about early intervention and not putting the paddy wagon at the bottom of the cliff. He talked about putting the fence at the top of the cliff and getting on with the job of dealing with the problem—not trying to find someone to blame for the problem. 
Student variables include drug and alcohol abuse lack of understanding of attendance laws lack of social confidence mental health difficulties and poor physical health. These are the things we should be talking about if we are talking about truancy. It is not about fining parents or trying to demonise someone and it is not about trying to go out there and say “Parents of New Zealand you are doing a bad job and the nanny National Government is coming to get you.” 
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. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I rise to oppose the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill. What a shameful week for this Government. What a shameful beginning to the forty-ninth Parliament. 
First National came for the low paid with a tax package designed to line the pockets of its mates while those on low incomes pay more or get little or nothing. Next National came for our savings—taking to KiwiSaver with the scalpel shattering the dreams of everyday Kiwis. Then National came for the scientists; it came for the innovators and inventors. We waved goodbye to research and development tax credits and to the jobs of the future. So much for a bright future—it does not involve research and development. Then National came for the workers. It came for the newest workers the most vulnerable workers and it said: “We are going to take away your rights.” This is an assault on the fairness ethic of every New Zealander. A worker can be fired without justification and with no redress. That is the ultimate attack on the rights of a worker and the right for workers to be able to have redress when they are unfairly treated. Then National came for the teachers as well. It did so by including our hard-working professional teachers in the 90-day bill. 
With this bill National came for the parents the students and the teachers. It attacked them by saying: “We do not trust you to put in place the standards that are already there and what’s more we do not want to hear from you. We don’t want to hear from the teachers we don’t want to hear from the parents and we don’t want to hear from the students.” It is an outrage for National to have come to this House in this first week and make all of those attacks on vulnerable and low-paid people on our savings and on our research and development and then push all that legislation through under urgency without any input from anybody across this country. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: As I said what a shameful week for this Government. Under urgency it is ramming through legislation that takes away the rights of workers money from the low paid and money from research and development. Now we have this bill that says to teachers parents and children: “We don’t trust you. We don’t want to hear what you think about standards.” 
It is a bill that achieves nothing. It is designed to make the National Government look good. It is a bill to make sure that National can say that its bumper sticker slogans actually meant something. It is a bill that shows that National does not trust parents or teachers. It is a bill that piles on the red tape—so much for cutting compliance costs! The bill has no logic unless of course it is the logic of going somewhere else—the Trojan Horse logic. 
Not one of these shameful bills has been open to public scrutiny. Parents teachers workers the low paid and savers have all been shut out by the National Government. I am not sure that National members know just how much damage this approach is doing to them. My office is taking calls from people who are appalled at the lack of due process from the National Government. On this side of the House we respect the result of the election. We are disappointed of course—we are reflective even—but we respect the result. On the Government benches though respect went out the door on the first day of the new Parliament. Those members have no respect for the people of New Zealand and no respect for the experts in the field of education. They are just ramming the bill through and making sure the voices are not heard. 
Well we on the Opposition benches have ensured that the voices have been heard. I draw the Minister of Education’s attention to the words of the principal of Opotiki College—a college in her electorate. The principal said: “NZ schools already regularly assess student progress to inform further strategies. There is no need to have a centrally imposed and driven programme which has the intention … of comparing students in one school with another. This [policy] is a populist strategy for which there is no credible research to support it.” I say to Mrs Tolley that those are the words of the principal of Opotiki College. They are the words that the National Government did not want to hear. It did not want to have a select committee process whereby people could come in and say what they thought of this bill. 
This is unnecessary legislation. We have heard from my colleague Kelvin Davis about the excellent work that has been done around assessing and reporting. We know that the National Administration Guidelines already require boards of trustees and schools to ensure that they give priority to student achievement in literacy and numeracy and that they assess and gather information that is comprehensive enough to be able to enable the progress and achievement of students to be evaluated. The guidelines go on to say that schools have to report to students and their parents on the achievement of individual students. The guidelines are already there so we ask ourselves why we are putting forward this bill. It is quite clear that we are doing so for purely political reasons. 
Setting national standards could be done by regulation; there is no need for a bill. But what is the problem with a regulation? The problem with a regulation is that it is subject to some scrutiny and we know that the National Government does not want there to be any scrutiny. It did not want a select committee process so it would not want any scrutiny of these standards. If the national standards were put in place by regulation they would become part of the parliamentary process and we cannot have that because then people would have a say. We would have education experts telling us about the experiences they have had and about experiences overseas where this kind of approach has failed. This bill gives the Minister the power to gazette the standards—no questions no scrutiny. 
The explanatory note of the bill tells us that this legislation is actually about sending a signal. It is not about students and it is not about children; it is about the National Government sending a signal. It is a signal that National is playing politics because we know that national standards will lead to national testing. That is the experience internationally and that is what will happen here. Mr Peachey favours national testing. He talked about it in his third reading speech. That is where this is going—to national testing. He wrote a book about it. That is what he wants to see happen. I think we will find that in about a year’s time the Minister—who will probably be Allan Peachey I would say—will come back to the House and say that parents need some certainty and that they need to know that their school is achieving these standards. And he is going to come back and say that we need national testing because that is the only way that this can work. 
We know from experience overseas that that means we will begin to see teachers teaching to the test. Teaching to the test means a narrow education and a focus not on the so-called tail or the high achievers but on those who can make the marginal difference in the middle to the test results for that school. Even before there is national testing this Government is on the path to league tables. That is what this Government is after. Mr Peachey loves league tables and that is what he wants to see here. Mrs Tolley told us that the information will be available only to the Government. What Mrs Tolley does not seem to know but is going to find out about thanks to this side of the House is something called the Official Information Act. This Act means that that information will be available and will be published. Then we will see league tables in the papers followed by—and it happens internationally—flight from schools with bad test results to those with good test results and the ghettoising of schools. That is the path that this bill is going to take us down. That is what this Government has planned. 
This is an unnecessary politically driven bill. The teaching and assessment of our children is vital. The previous Labour Government focused on teaching and learning because that is what we need to be doing instead of focusing on this system. If we were ever to look at introducing national standards then legislation we put forward would have gone to a select committee. This Government has failed to do that. 
The other part of this bill is about truancy. As I have already said in earlier readings of this bill truancy is a serious issue. It is one that all parties in this House I am sure are committed to addressing. But we are not going to address it simply by imposing punitive measures such as those proposed in this bill. We heard from Te Ururoa Flavell that at the moment truancy is disproportionately a Maori and Pasifika problem. This punitive bill is not going to help that. It will also punish good parents who are not necessarily wilfully involved in this problem. Increasing fines is a pointless way of going about this. The National Government had the opportunity to vote for the Hon Chris Carter’s amendment in order to ensure that good parents are not captured by this law but it failed to do that. This punitive bill on truancy is not the way to ensure that we keep students in school. We actually need to focus on making school environments places where all students want to be where all students can learn and learn in their own way. 
This bill is about putting students in a box and saying that one size fits all. It is bad legislation and it is bad legislation that is being rammed through under urgency. This Government has been in office for a week. It is arrogant it is already losing touch with the people and we look forward to holding it to account. 
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. 
NATHAN GUY (National—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to support the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill an excellent Government bill. 
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. 
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. 
Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 We are all haunted by the names of children who have died at the hands of those who were supposed to treasure and nurture them. We cannot stand by and simply brush it off as something that happens to somebody else’s kids. They are all our responsibility. This Parliament must send a message that such acts are obscene. In August 2007 I made a commitment that if elected to Government I would revise the Sentencing Act as it relates to violent crimes against children and ensure that the age of the victim should be more than just an aggravating factor at sentencing. I can advise the House that officials are already working to bring sentences for crimes against children into line with penalties for crimes against adults. This process will result in legislation being put forward when the House returns next year. 
The Sentencing Act already lists aggravating and mitigating factors that can be taken into account when sentencing. Some of these factors will apply to offending that involves violence or neglect of a child. For instance one aggravating factor covered in section 9 of the Act concerns offending against a victim who is particularly vulnerable by reason of age or health. That could cover offending against a child but it also covers a range of other victims and scenarios—quite rightly—including the elderly and those who suffer from a form of impairment. That is how it should be and the bill currently before the House does not change any of the existing provisions. 
This bill provides a new section 9A that deals specifically with offending against children that involves violence or neglect. It actually lists factors that the court must take into account when sentencing for this type of offending in addition to those factors already set out in section 9. All the new factors are designed to make the sentence more severe than would otherwise be the case because they all reflect the fact that offending against children should involve a high degree of blameworthiness and sentencing needs to reflect that. 
The first of the new factors that the new section obliges the court to take into account is the defencelessness of children. Unlike adults children cannot physically protect themselves against an adult assailant or permanently escape the offender. It is the cowardly bullying of a captive and weaker victim that justifies a harsher response from the State. The second factor requires the court to consider the serious or long-term harm that can result from offending against children. A childhood marked by violence or neglect can have profound effects on the individual and society and that individual can even repeat the cycle of offending as a parent thereby perpetuating the misery that this type of offending breeds. 
A crucial aspect of being a child that can be taken for granted is the special relationship of trust that children are entitled to enjoy with adults who are responsible for their care. Children do not choose their parents or caregivers and for the first years of their lives are utterly reliant on their care. This bill puts that trust to the forefront by requiring the court to take the magnitude of the breach of trust into account when sentencing. 
Finally the new provision requires the court to take into account any threats made to the victim that are designed to prevent him or her from reporting to the authorities or any attempts made to conceal the offending from the authorities. There are instances where social workers may have experienced the sudden disappearance of children from a house when they came to it or the sight of children clothed from head to toe on hot days so that bruising will not show. The sort of behaviour that results in these situations must be denounced and this bill will take a step towards ensuring that. 
This bill represents the first step in the Government’s response to offending against children that involves violence or neglect. As I stated at the beginning of this speech we will go further next year by introducing a bill that tackles the issue of setting maximum penalties for offending against children. In the meantime this Government thinks it is important to get this legislation into force before the Christmas break when so many children are especially vulnerable to abuse stressful households and neglect. 
I do not pretend nor advocate that these measures are anything more than just a part of the solution. The Government will continue to work with social policy agencies to prevent child abuse and mitigate the harm it causes and we will continue to look for new responses. There also needs to be a response from the criminal justice system in terms of denouncing such abhorrent behaviour. 
I understand that all parties in the House are supportive of this legislation and I want to thank in advance—unless I am proven wrong—all members for their support. When a New Zealand child aged between 1 and 6 years is 8.4 times more likely to die from an assault than a child in Sweden and a child under 7 is almost 4 times more likely to be hospitalised for assault I am reminded of the words spoken in a different context that strongly emphasise the fierce urgency of now. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 May I say from the outset that I share with the Minister of Justice Simon Power as I believe all members of this House do the utter revulsion that we all feel as we see—too frequently—these cases of child neglect violence against children and ultimately tragedies where children are murdered. No one could stand by and feel any emotion other than total revulsion. 
We on the Opposition side of the House will not oppose the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill but I have to say it is a sad point that this bill will not stop one child being murdered. I do not say that in any grandiose or political way. This is a prescription that deals with action after the event. I am glad the Minister qualified in his speech—and I accept him at his word—that this bill is only part of the solution but it is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. It is not proactive it is reactive. It is action after the event. It is not a bill filled with a vision or a plan. I note that he said and I am gratified by it that he would still be willing to work with non-governmental organisations and others who are at the coalface who go into houses everyday—with tears I suspect in their eyes—and identify what is going on. Given that statement by the Minister I would have thought it would be preferable to meet those words with actions and refer this bill to a select committee so that organisations like the Salvation Army Big Brothers Big Sisters Plunket Barnardos New Zealand and the whole host of other wonderful organisations could have input and provide their expert knowledge and experience. When we look at who was consulted about this bill we find it was Government agencies only. 
This is an exceptionally serious issue. It strikes at the heart of the most vulnerable in our community. I have to say and again I do not say it with relish that the problem with this bill is that the provisions that allegedly are ramped up here already exist in the existing legislation. In fact in the Minister’s opening he said that the bill does not change any of the specific provisions in existing legislation. In a qualified way I say that this is smoke and mirrors. I quote the words not of a politician or of somebody who is partisan in this House but of a learned expert Otago University professor Geoff Hall who as members will know specialises in sentencing in criminal law. He said that section 9(1) of the Sentencing Act already dictated that judges must take into account the age or vulnerability of the victim which covers children in no uncertain terms as an aggravating feature. He said “It’s already there. It sounds to me like it’s window dressing”—referring sadly to this legislation—“what is being proposed unless [the Minister is] suggesting that priority be given to one factor over another.” That is what Professor Hall said. I hope it is not the case but I wonder whether certain parties in this House are not being a tad cynical with such a huge issue that strikes at the heart of our community by attempting to put forward legislation—a wee bit like the Bail Amendment Bill although that issue is secondary to the gravity of this issue—to try to play a bit of a hoax on people. 
This bill as I said earlier is an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. It does nothing. I would have thought the way to start would be to deal with issues of resourcing in respect of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. What worries me is that I saw in the  
New Zealand 
Herald 
—I think it was on 10 December—the Minister for Social Development and Employment Paula Bennett quoted as saying she would hold to account the Ministry of Social Development as National moves to cut 500 front-line staff from agencies within it like the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. Of course we know that in the 1990s the National Party did exactly that. It slashed and burned. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: You cut 450 front-line staff out of the ministry last year. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: This is not an issue for silly interjections. We have had a bit of frivolity and humour in debate on other bills but this is actually a really serious issue. But I will let Mrs Collins go because she shows herself for what she is. We know that in the 1990s there was a slashing of child youth and family services. Those services work with non-governmental organisations to identify as they are happening issues like violence and neglect in the home before they translate sadly into death and murder. There is nothing in this bill to deal with resourcing or any proactive action that can identify those issues of potential child violence and neglect and can cauterize ring-fence and deal with them before they develop into a death and another little white coffin being taken by a family to a cemetery. I do not say this as a means of politicking but I feel it is appropriate to point that out. 
I said to Mr Power in the debate on the Bail Amendment Bill and I will say it now in a different way that if he wanted to have an impact immediately and to create a deterrent to make people—families and children—in these situations feel safer in and out of their homes he could have triggered the parole legislation. He could have done that without the participation of this House because Mrs King passed that legislation. He could simply activate it through the Governor-General. I believe that would have a huge impact. Again it is after the event but it would have a huge and sustainable impact around these issues. When Labour was in Government we backed organisations like the Salvation Army and Barnardos New Zealand. We worked with and partnered those expert organisations. We set up for instance the Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families. We set up and actioned the It’s Not OK programme. I have to say sadly that programme was criticised during the election campaign by a number of members opposite as being PC and nanny State. When a programme has a smidgeon of potential to save a child’s life to prevent family violence or to correct behaviours within the home that could lead to tragedy I think it is worth giving it a go. It may work; it may not. During the election campaign some described the programme as nanny State and PC. Then there are organisations like the Methodist Central Mission the South Auckland Family Violence Prevention Network and parenting and family counselling organisations working all around New Zealand. These are agencies that deserve a backing. 
This bill does not acknowledge the 16000-odd cases of reported child neglect and violence that happen in the home every year. This legislation does nothing to be proactive—to move into that space with non-governmental organisations and Government agencies to try to cauterize those problems before they develop into potential tragedies. Maybe this Government can reassure us on this side of the House. Perhaps Ms Bennett could take a call to advise us whether in the drive to cap and slash so-called bureaucrats 500 staff from the Department of Child Youth and Family Services and the Ministry of Social Development will be taken out of play—because they are needed. Who are these 500 people in the ministry who will be cauterized sacked or withdrawn? As I say Ms Bennett is holding her own ministry to account. 
I come back to where I started. Sadly this bill will change nothing and will not save one child’s life. The provisions in the bill mirror the provisions of existing legislation and Professor Hall an eminent expert believes—to quote his words not mine—that it is window dressing. It is also predicated on a premise that judges are not smart and do not take these aggravating factors into account. If that is the case I ask the Minister of Justice whether he can provide us with some evidence of court cases where in his or the ministry’s view these issues were not dealt with appropriately by a learned judge. I wonder whether he could provide us with that evidence and with the research that his ministry has done in the short period it has come up with these measures. As I have said consultation has been exceptionally limited. 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 National is wholly committed to effective law and order policies and has clearly signalled that there will be major changes to the law and legislation that exists today. 
The situation during the Labour Government’s period in office saw a number of things that are saddening: a significant rise in crimes of violence the growing power of gangs and their involvement in criminal trafficking and the need to protect vulnerable members of the community.  
I accept of course that the enactment of this legislation does not of itself resolve lawbreaking but it does send a very clear message to the community as to activity that we abhor and are determined to confront it does send a clear signal to intending offenders and of course it sends a very clear signal to the judges to seek in the exercise of their discretion in imposing sentences a particular weighting on the issue that is the subject of the bill. 
The Sentencing Act 2002 is structured in a way that might very well contemplate this law change. Section 8 deals with the principles of sentencing. Section 9 contains a number of aggravating factors then concludes by saying that nothing in these provisions “prevents the court from taking into account any other aggravating or mitigating factor that the court thinks fit;”. 
Hon David Parker 
: Including age. 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: As Mr Parker has just commented there is not sufficiently direct reference to the position of children in section 9(1)(g) which provides as an aggravating and mitigating factor “that the victim was particularly vulnerable because of his or her age or health or because of any other factor known to the offender:”. The section is aligned with the definition in the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 of a child as a boy or girl under the age of 14 years. 
There is a sad commentary in the explanatory note which accompanies the bill. Under the heading “Status quo and problem” it reads: “Offending against children has extremely serious consequences including the long-term consequences for both its victims and society as a whole. In 2006 Child Youth and Family received over 63000 referrals as a result of child abuse violence and trauma. Reported family violence a substantial proportion of which involves violence against children is growing faster than the reported violence category as a whole.” 
Mr Cosgrove said in his comments in the House that this bill is simply a smoke and mirrors change to the law but that is not so and I am sure that intuitively members of the House know that it is not so. Why would Labour vote for this change if it were only a smoke and mirrors change? The reality is that it sends a sharp and determined signal to those entities that I have already identified. This is a law change that on any measure is appropriate timely and necessary. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 First I will comment on a couple of remarks made by Dr Worth from the other side of the House by saying that there is not a member in this House who is not absolutely appalled at the tragedy which we witness year after year in this country of child death by abuse and neglect. It is not a party political thing. Over the last two decades about nine wee children a year on average have died at the hands of their caregivers or their parents. The level of substantiated abuse in our community according to Child Youth and Family is around 16000 children. That is something that all of us as New Zealanders are deeply ashamed of. 
Every person I imagine in this Chamber is here because of the benefit they have had of growing up in a secure stable and loving family. That ought to be a child’s birthright yet it is not for a significant minority of our children. If the answer to child abuse and neglect was a simple one then it would have been implemented by Governments decades ago; we know that it is not simple. 
We will support this Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill because as my colleague David Parker has suggested it does no harm. But I have to say to the Minister nor does it make any real difference. That is not a political statement I say to Mr Power. 
There is a text that Mr Power and Dr Worth as lawyers will know about. It is  
Hall’s 
Sentencing 
 which is the foremost text on sentencing in New Zealand written by the foremost expert on sentencing. That expert is Professor Geoffrey Hall from the University of Otago. I will read out what Professor Hall says about this legislation. He stated that section 9(1)(g) of the Sentencing Act 2002 already dictates that judges must take into account the age or vulnerability of the victim which covers children in no uncertain terms as an aggravating feature. He stated: “It’s already there. It sounds to me like it’s window dressing what’s being proposed”. That statement was not made by a politician or by a person with an axe to grind; it was made by a person who is the expert on sentencing in New Zealand. 
This law does not in essence change the existing requirements that I put into the Sentencing Act 2002. I happen to have— 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It strengthens them. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No no it does not. I am afraid it does not even strengthen them. I have a great deal of respect for the Minister of Justice Simon Power. I believe that his intentions with the bill are honourable. I believe that he is concerned about the well-being of children and I would not accuse any member in this Chamber of being motivated by anything other than what is good for protecting those of our children who are most desperately in need. 
There is nobody in this Chamber for whom the name Nia Glassie or a reference to the Kahui twins does not bring a sense of outrage that these vulnerable children could have been treated in that way. It is not a new list; tragically it is not a new list. We can think of James Whakaruru we can think of “Lillybing” we can think of Delcelia Witika—all cases that New Zealanders are familiar with and have been appalled by. 
But notwithstanding that this measure is the same as what is in the existing legislation it demonstrates that legislation is what happens after the event to punish the perpetrator of the abuse. I happen to be one who believes that somebody who abuses neglects and most particularly kills children deserves the strongest sanction that we can place on them. But even if we did have capital punishment I would not pretend for a moment in this House that any one of those wee kiddies whose names I have mentioned would have been saved by that sort of legislation. My challenge to any speaker in this debate is to say whether they believe otherwise. 
We know what we have to do to stop this sort of thing. We know what the common factor in the deaths of each of those children was: they were from dysfunctional families—families where children were born to teenaged mums and where drugs and alcohol addled the minds of the people who were there. If we consider the faces of the people who killed Nia Glassie we can reach our own conclusions about the nature of that household that family and how things operated. 
Therefore it stands to reason I say to the Minister that if we are to make a real difference and if we are to protect our children—the most vulnerable citizens of this country—then we have to address the cause of those children’s deaths. That is where this House can make a difference and that is where the challenge is: for all of us to work in a multiparty way to try to find those solutions. But please I say to the Minister do not come into the House with legislation with the message that “sending a message”—as both Mr Power and Dr Worth have said—will change that reality. We do not “send a message”; we have to act to do that. 
Although I am the architect of some of the toughest justice legislation on our law books with regard to offenders I say that legislation by itself is not enough. It is about prevention it is about early intervention and it is about putting our money where our mouth is when it comes to preserving children’s lives. 
This is a problem that successive Governments have addressed and I am very proud to have been part of the Government that brought in programmes like Family Start and Early Start which said that we can identify those families that are dysfunctional—[ 
Interruption 
] Members can interject but I am making serious points. I am not being partisan about that and I believe those members should get off their high horse listen and contribute in the same constructive way. We have to deal with those problems by early intervention by identifying those children who are being born into and are growing up in a family where they lose their birthright of living in a safe caring and loving environment. 
We will be judging the Government on whether we are resourcing those things and we will be working constructively and positively with the Government to make sure we are resourcing them. My challenge is not simply to Mr Power or Mrs Collins; it is actually to Paula Bennett who is the Minister for Social Development and Employment. It is the dollars that we put into intervening with those dysfunctional families that will make a difference in the lives of those children and that will stop the tragedy of 16000 children in our country being subjected to abuse each year. 
I know that this bill is about the Government’s 100 days of action and about creating the impression of action. We saw that with the bail law we are seeing it with this sentencing bill and we saw it with the education bill that has just gone through. These are about perceptions but perceptions are fine if one is dealing only with politics. My plea to the Government is that it should deal with the reality of what is causing those problems. I ask Government members not to play politics with it or to come in here with things that are simply window dressing. Labour is putting an offer to the Government to work together to deal with the tragedy of child abuse neglect and killings in this country. That is a genuine offer. 
I know that the Minister is bringing this bill into the House with the best intentions in the world but the Minister knows Professor Hall knows and every member of the House knows that it will not make a difference. It will not make a difference because it is already in the law and it will not make a difference because we need the fence at the top of the cliff not just the punishment afterwards when the damage has already been done and the appalling consequences are already in place. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this bill and I am very proud to represent a party the Green Party that has led the debate and indeed legal change for the protection of children from violence. It has done the hard yards on these kinds of issues and has consistently promoted the elimination of violence against children women and families. I pay tribute to my colleague Sue Bradford who would otherwise be here to address the issues in this bill and who herself was the architect of the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act and led the agreement of largely the whole of this House to support that legislation. 
The Green Party supports this bill because we support the recognition of the potentially vulnerable status of children around issues of violence particularly those children under 14. We all know and we have talked about this so far that violence against children in New Zealand is rife. Children are still considered largely to be the property or the chattels of adults and parents. That is an attitude that still pervades this country. We saw that attitude alive and well in the debate around the repeal of section 59. 
We agree with Labour members that section 9 of the Sentencing Act deals with this issue in a general sense so to some extent this legislation enhances if you like existing provisions. The extent to which it will make a specific difference is still a bit uncertain and because there will not be the opportunity for a select committee debate on this we will not get any information from those at the coalface of dealing with this kind of legislation whether it is the Law Commission lawyers those involved with family violence in the courts or judges who might want to have a say on this. They will not be able to give us the information we need to know the extent to which this bill would make a difference to sentencing outcomes in those cases of extreme violence and neglect against children. 
So it is very difficult at this stage I think to really understand the extent to which this bill will make a difference. We will support it in principle; we do not think that it will do any harm. But that is not a good way to make legislation—legislation should be much more considered than that. It should have a demonstrable impact; otherwise it is just a waste of taxpayers’ time and money. So we thought that a select committee process for something as important as this something as significant to New Zealand’s families as this an issue of violence and neglect like this should have been taken out to the public so that they too could have had a say about it. 
I want to refer to a Supplementary Order Paper in my name that will be tabled shortly and available to members. I have spoken to some members about it. It is to remove paragraph (a) from new section 9A(2) inserted by clause 4. This would remove the defencelessness of the victim as a factor. On the face of it it looks perfectly fine to include that in the legislation but after further consideration I am assuming that it is really about the vulnerability of the victim the child under 14 years. To that extent there is a lot of case law and law on the vulnerability of victims. But my concern and the concern of my party is that on sentencing it may lead to arguments in court that such children may not have been without opportunity to defend themselves or that they had a capacity to defend themselves whether or not they took it. 
We have had for example issues around provocation. In fact during the debate on section 59 before the section was amended many of the decisions in the court cases that allowed parents to beat their children with weapons were based on the fact that the child under the age of 14 had provoked that attack or response. It was a reasonable defence that beating a child with a weapon whether a piece of wood a piece of wire or a hosepipe was justifiable in the circumstances because the child had behaved so badly that such a beating was reasonable. Of course we have amended that legislation now so that defence is not possible any more which is a very good thing. But we do not want to see with this provision that somehow those arguments are being made again in the courts—that children might perhaps have provoked such a response or what is more likely were able to defend themselves in some way but did not take that opportunity and therefore that is a mitigating factor to be taken into account in sentencing. 
It may include issues such as the build of a child—some 14-year-olds are quite big; they are big kids sometimes—for a child’s relative age when between the age of 0 and 14 but there is also perhaps a child’s ability to tell someone. There might be some argument that a child is verbal; a verbal child beyond the age of 2 and a bit could have told somebody if that child had had an opportunity. Perhaps someone might have asked a child about the abuse or neglect but the child did not tell that person. Does that become an issue about the defencelessness of the child? 
These concerns are probably on the margins of the kinds of cases we are talking about; none the less we do not want to see this law allow for any kind of apportionment of blame to the child. In our view there should be no debate as to whether the child could have avoided that abuse or neglect by his or her own behaviour. This is the kind of argument that often happens in rape cases and sexual assault cases so it is not unknown for these debates to happen in the courts. In our view a child under 14 years old is by definition without defence—by definition. In our view there is nothing that children under the age of 14 could do ever to justify neglect and abuse—not a single thing could they ever do to justify abuse or to provide some kind of mitigating factor. So having criteria such as “the defencelessness of the victim” in the legislation may be interpreted as some kind of way of apportioning blame to the child in the courts. 
The role of Parliament is to make the best possible legislation we can for the protection of the vulnerable as we can but given the short circumstances we have in which to debate and analyse this legislation this might be a reasonable mistake to have been made. It may well not have been intended to have that consequence but with the risk that it might we say that wording should not be in this bill. I look forward to the further debate on that issue. There may be some assurance we can get that that is not what it will actually do. I am not prepared to accept an assurance that it is not intended for that to happen; that is not enough. It will not be enough for the child who has to suffer the consequences of counsel at a sentencing arguing as to whether that child itself could have done something about it or stopped the abuse or neglect. That is not acceptable. 
It would have been good as part of the process and perhaps this issue would have been raised in those circumstances to have heard from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner because I understand there was a great deal of consultation around this bill. It has been looked at by the Department of Corrections the Ministry of Social Development the New Zealand Police the Crown Law Office the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Te Puni Kokiri the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs the Office of Ethnic Affairs and the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. They have all been consulted in the drafting of this legislation but the one parliamentary body whose responsibility it is to care for and protect the interests of children in legislation and policy making was not consulted on this legislation. The most important office—the one that has had the greatest impact on providing policy advice information and support for campaigns to protect children against violence—was excluded from the consideration of this bill. That was a very serious oversight— 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Was she in the country? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Judith Collins is making smarmy remarks about the office but this legislation is about the protection of our most vulnerable children and particularly those in abusive households and environments. Judith Collins can be as smarmy as she likes but we are talking about protecting our babies from violence. I say: “Be smarmy all you want Miss but this is about protecting our children.” If she wants to play politics with this issue that is her business and the public will judge her for it. 
We should have had the proper agencies looking at this legislation to make sure that it would actually be effective. There will be no opportunity for the Office of the Children’s Commissioner to look at this legislation now. It will be passed on a Saturday afternoon under urgency. So that opportunity to really assess the impacts of this legislation on the lives of children by experts in that area has been lost. That is a very poor process for legislation of such significant input as this dealing with the issue of protecting our children our babies from violence. Thank you. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to add my support to the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill and also to try naive though it may be to bring everyone back to a focus on what we are doing and why and away from politicking. To that extent I agree with every speaker so far. This is probably the first time since I have come into this House that I have agreed so wholeheartedly with the Hon Clayton Cosgrove but I do agree with him when he said that this is not a bill for making frivolous interjection on. I could not agree with him more about that. I would also say it is not a bill for party politicking on at all. 
I have looked through the explanatory note of the bill carefully and the first thing that strikes me is the “Objectives” section. Who can possibly disagree or even quibble with the wording of the objectives of this bill? I was gratified to hear the Opposition’s position on the bill—at first the wording was “will not oppose” but then that changed with the Hon Phil Goff’s speech to “will support”. And now the Greens are making the same commitment as Labour. It is clearly a multiparty commitment to support a bill that the people in the gallery or those following proceedings on the radio or the television I am sure would call a no-brainer. 
The only possible source of disagreement could be on how to achieve the objectives set out in the explanatory note and we have heard a bit of quite sensible and moving frankly comment on that from the Hon Phil Goff. I will just touch for a second on his speech and also on a speech he made yesterday on the Bail Amendment Bill where he alluded to the fact that maybe we need to go into some very very difficult questions. I think he may have been alluding to the ability or the right of people like the Kahui parents and the Glassie parents to be parents at all. I think that is what he may have been referring to. 
In my speech I was going to remind the House of a few of the most horrible cases because I think they are worth remembering but the Hon Phil Goff has already done that. One of the things that moved me the most that got to me the most in the Nia Glassie case—although I have found the stuff that everyone else has found revolting quite hard to read and quite hard to listen to this ties in with something that is in this bill—was the testimony from the neighbour who said that she realised that the little girl was hungry and she thought she had been abused so she went to give her food. She said the little girl shook with fear covered her eyes with one hand took the food with the other and then ran away like a frightened dog. I hope the House will understand that that moved me as much as or more than the abuse involving the clothes line and the dryer and all the other terrible things. 
This bill simply inserts “additional aggravating factors”. To touch on Metiria Turei’s comment I think her amendment might have some validity or some purpose if it were not for the word “aggravating” in new section 9A(2) in clause 4. If it were just “the following factors” to be taken into account then yes there could be some clever legal argument of the kind that Ms Turei has referred to. But in my view and I am not an expert in the criminal law at all the fact that they are listed as “aggravating factors” removes any possibility of such a convoluted argument. 
In my opinion this measure should go through the House with whatever is the equivalent of “by acclamation”. There is no issue here of the separation of powers. The judiciary is not being ordered to do anything; judges are being told they must take these factors into account—that is all. The legislation leaves judicial discretion untouched. It does not fetter the judiciary in any way; it simply provides judges with some extra factors to be taken into account. 
The House could filibuster through some of the debate on this bill as we saw with regard to bills yesterday and I will not go any further into that. Those kinds of speeches on the meaning of commencement dates etc. I think would be an insult to the memory of James Whakaruru  whom the Hon Phil Goff mentioned and to all the names I have written down here. And those are just the ones who were killed. There are 15000 or so abused children who were not killed minus the 10 who were. It would be an insult to them if we play politics with this bill make frivolous interjections and talk about nonsense meanings of the commencement date etc. 
This bill should pass as quickly as possible. It may not do much but members on the other side of the Chamber have conceded it does no harm. In my view it does do something and I am coming back now to the Nia Glassie example that I used. New section 9A(2)(b) states: “in relation to any harm resulting from the offence any serious or long-term physical or psychological effect …”. I would like to think that in some case in the future—one like the Nia Glassie case—that did not please God result in death if evidence was called of a little girl shaking like a frightened dog and covering her face then that subsection could be taken into account in order to lock up a piece of vermin for as long as possible. I commend this bill to the House. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 When I was a child I knew the meaning of the words “he aroha whaereere he potiki pirihi poho”—“a mother’s love a child clinging to her breast”. When we refer to a mother’s love for her child we mean our nannies our koros our aunties our uncles. We mean whanau. Growing up in Whakatu we knew that our whanau treasured us their children more than anything else in the world. We were their hearts growing outside of their bodies. They would all gladly suffer themselves rather than see any child in any form of misfortune. This is the model that I have drawn on to raise our children and our children are now replicating this same learning with our mokopuna. And that is how it goes generation after generation reminding us that children have a right to our protection they deserve to be heard and they are entitled to be loved. 
We know through the writings of early missionaries and their observations of Maori that this is how it has always been. The diary notes of the Rev. Samuel Marsden back in 1814 encapsulate these views: “I saw no quarrelling while I was there. They are kind to their women and children. I never observed either a mark of violence upon them nor did I ever see a child struck.” I often return to my childhood memories for strength when day after day we are fed tales of horrific abuse and through the eager eye of the camera we witness blow-by-blow accounts of sickening violence against children. 
I have no desire to replicate the horror stories of violence and neglect against children. We must move away from the obsessive-compulsive fascination with retelling tales of torture—the endless roll-call of names and the courtroom evidence that is trumpeted broadcast repeated and replicated through viral networks. Every time a member brings the name of a child into this House that member brings with it the overwhelming shame of the extended family of all who identify with that same name. As a new member I know that every time I rise I bring with me not only the name of my husband and children but the breadth and depth of the Hippolite and Gray whanau throughout Aotearoa and indeed the world. It is an awesome responsibility to live up to our family name in all my actions and utterances. So I ask whether it is right or fair that members recklessly punctuate speeches with the names of innocent children—names that will be for ever associated with criminal violence. We must be able to talk about the vile behaviours and actions that have led to child assault without forever vilifying the family names of the victims. We must start raising our sights above the sordid and the sensational and agree to some common ideals; ideals like children having a right to feel safe to feel good about themselves to be appreciated and to be encouraged. Ka tipu huna ana te tukinotanga. Violence grows in silence. 
This bill then sets a benchmark for our future a future where there is no excuse for child abuse and no place for violence. What this law does is to create a new and specific section in the Sentencing Act that replaces the court’s existing discretion with additional instructions when judges are sentencing offenders convicted of violence against or neglect of a child under 14 years. We have to ask: why settle for 14 years of age? 
We were also somewhat surprised that the Children’s Commissioner had not been approached about this bill so we contacted Dr Cindy Kiro. We were advised that she was supportive of the idea about clarifying the law and providing specificity direction and prescription for judges when considering cases of child abuse. But she also introduced a question around the age-limit in this bill that we in the Maori Party believe is a very interesting idea. Dr Kiro poses the question to the House of what the appropriate legal age for children and young people should be. Within current law section 10B of the Summary Offences Act 1981 makes it an offence for a parent to leave a child under the age of 14 without reasonable care and supervision. Fourteen is also the minimum age for a babysitter. At 15 one can earn a restricted driver’s licence. Young people can be sent to the youth wing of a jail at 16. At 16 one can leave school or leave home without parental consent have sex get a tattoo start full-time work and get married but one still requires parental consent for medical or dental treatment. At 17 one can join the navy the army or the air force. At 18 one can buy firecrackers get a firearms licence join the police force borrow money open a cheque account buy cigarettes drink alcohol and vote. Those are just a few of the diverse definitions of age-limits that complicate our current legislative framework. 
The question that confronts us in respect of this bill is what threshold we are prepared to accept. When can we say that the age of the child makes him or her particularly vulnerable? The crux of the issue of course is that we are actually entitled to protection from violence at any age. This change addresses society’s abhorrence of a fundamental breach of trust. This issue extends outside the scope of this bill but it is an issue that we may need to consider further in other debates. It appears that the younger the age the greater the outrage. But I want us to consider that although the defencelessness of the child is of course a major issue the serious long-term physical or psychological effect on the child as a result of the offence is severe no matter what the age. 
There was never any question that we would do anything but vote in support of this bill. We believe that it is vital that we do everything we can to demonstrate society’s condemnation of all forms of violence and this bill is another step to doing that. But it will not cause violence against children to stop overnight. That is a crisis we must all attend to. It is a crisis we must attend to in our own behaviours our own families and our own workplaces and I include this workplace in that view. We must all be responsible for marking a line in the sand and ensuring we promote peaceful non-violent communication. We must be consistent in our deeds and our words. All of us have the responsibility to demonstrate leadership in this regard. It is inappropriate for anyone in this House to point the finger at others and name and shame the perpetrators of violence if we do not also display our own commitment to model behaviour that is inspirational. All of us—and of course I include the Maori Party in my vision—must work hard at exhibiting conduct that displays respect for one another and that is truly mana-enhancing. 
Offences against children are intolerable. They are not part of anyone’s vision for the future of Aotearoa. We know too that many complex issues underpin the breakdown of families: the devastating effects of poverty; the mind-altering dysfunction created by alcohol and drugs; the pervasive impact of mental health issues including post-natal depression; and the narrow range of options that some families and individuals become trapped in. And we must acknowledge the enormous harm created by generations of violence sexual abuse physical damage and emotional offences which if not attended to will continue to restrict the opportunities for generations to come. 
The Maori Party is proud to support this bill as the first indicator that the forty-ninth Parliament is prepared to stand up and make clear our concerted efforts to eliminate violence from our world. We are proud to support this bill just as we were proud to support the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act which was initiated by our colleagues in the Greens. And there is nothing in my mind more worthy of urgency than the goal of eliminating violence from our society. Kia ora. 
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. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I first of all commend the House for the quality of the debate on the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill. I think there is nothing like a bill where children or vulnerable people are being discussed to bring the House together. It is true that across all parties we care for our families we care for our children and we care for our community. At times we like to have the political debates and the rumble of Parliament but when it gets down to tintacks we really do believe I think in the common good of our fellow human beings. I commend the House for this debate. 
I say to the Minister of Justice that Labour members will support this bill. We will vote for it. In fact the whole of Parliament will vote for it. But as has been said that is not because it will prevent a single child from being abused maltreated assaulted or killed. We know that this bill is about what happens after the event. It is about what we do about the event. As Judith Collins said it is not tackling the causes; it tackles what we do to the people who have committed the crime. So of course we will support the bill. The National Party manifesto states that National wants to send a message that violence against children is abhorrent and is not to be tolerated. There would not be a member in this House who does not support that message. During the debate on the Bail Amendment Bill yesterday all sorts of claims were made about what it will do; we all know that this bill will not stop the abuser from abusing. 
We all know as well that the reasons why people abuse and perpetrate violence against others are very very complicated indeed. It is a complex issue. As Phil Goff said if there was an easy answer every party in this Parliament that had been in Government would have put that solution in place. It is a complex issue. Abusers will not stop their behaviour just because today a Saturday at 3.15 in the afternoon and under urgency we amend an Act of Parliament and put in place some window-dressing changes. It will not change the action of the abusers. They do not believe they will get caught anyway. The behaviour of many of them is long term. For many years they abuse young people often throughout their young lives and they use their position of power to suppress and frighten their victims into silence. Their whole aim is to ensure that nobody knows what they are doing. They are certainly not thinking about what the aggravating factors will be. 
As we have heard today this bill does not make a great deal of difference in terms of the existing legislation. David Garrett said it may not do much but it does not do any harm. I agree with him. But I wonder why the Minister of Justice did not broaden his consultation even though he was not going to refer the bill to a select committee and allow the public to have a say. Why did the Minister in his consultation on and putting together of this legislation not go outside Government departments and seek advice from somebody like Professor Geoff Hall? Why not approach people like him? Why not go to some of our extremely good non-governmental organisations in New Zealand that deal with children every day? Why not go to the Children’s Commissioner? Why not go to people who have great knowledge of what is happening to our children or who work on the front line in terms of providing support and programmes? I am very disappointed that the Minister saw fit to ask only Government departments—the same Government departments that many of the members of his party have called useless Wellington bureaucrats. Why not go further in terms of his consultation to find out what others thought? 
I think it is a shame that the Minister if I heard him correctly intends to bring another bill into Parliament next year to deal with sentencing for crimes against children. The Minister is nodding. We have to ask why we are here today under urgency passing this legislation that people know will make very little difference—and that no one is not going to support—when a larger piece of work by the Minister will be introduced next year and hopefully sent to a select committee. The Minister is affirming that. Why could they not be done together? I can think of only one answer and unfortunately I do not really like it. It is because this bill is a political manoeuvre part of the Government’s promise of 100 days of action. That can be the only answer. The Minister knows that this bill will not stop an abuser today tomorrow or next week from abusing a child. So why not do the proper thing? Why not bring in the bills together? Let us across this House work on child abuse in New Zealand. Would it not have been a great start to the forty-ninth Parliament for us to genuinely take a cross-party approach to child abuse? 
The Ombudsman in his report of December last year said that one of the problems we have in terms of crime and criminal justice is that it has become highly politicised and the subject of a lot of uninformed comment. He said further that we have two opposing philosophies driving policy matters in New Zealand at the moment: one called “penal populism” and one called “soft liberalism”. What we really want and what he called for is a rational debate on criminal justice. But he very much doubts that that is possible. Well I believe that it is possible with goodwill but it does mean that on a bill like this and on other bills that the Minister will bring in next year he should open the door to other parties being able to debate the issue; he should genuinely extend an hand across the House and say: “We want to find the best solution to these incredibly complex issues.” 
You see it is not only New Zealand that faces the problem of child abuse. Professor David Fergusson who is the director of the Christchurch Health and Development Study has followed around 1200 children who were born in Christchurch in 1977 for all the years since. He has also been part of a special report based on 8 years of studies in New Zealand Australia Britain the United States and Canada. Those studies show a similar pattern in all the countries we like to relate ourselves to—that 4 to 16 percent of children are physically abused that one in 10 suffers neglect or psychological abuse and that it happens every year year in year out. So it is not just a New Zealand issue; it is an international issue. 
But I believe we are better placed than most countries to deal with this issue. The reason is that we are small. We are a small country we have many nationwide services and we are relatively well connected. I think we have many good policies and programmes in place. I do not care whether the National Party started some of them in 1953 or whether the Labour Party started them in 2000; we have some good programmes in place we can build on those programmes and we can take the best of them and make them work. 
But that does mean having a commitment. It means having a commitment to dealing first with the most vulnerable in our society. We know that over the last 8 or 9 years the number of children who live in poverty in this country has been halved. We are left with about 150000 vulnerable children living in families. They are the hard core the children who are likely to appear in crime statistics in the future. That is where we need to start now. That is where we need to continue the work that is being done and we need to commit to that work. I was pleased to see Paula Bennett identify those children. I will be interested in her putting out her programme and her plan to tackle them because there is so much good work being done. I hope she does not treat that work in a political way—does not disregard a programme because it was Labour’s work or work that was done in the past—but picks it up and runs with it. 
My only question of Paula Bennett would be to ask her to assure me that despite her commitment to reduce the staff of the Ministry of Social Development—500 staff over the next 4 years 80 percent of whom are frontline workers—not one of the people who deal with vulnerable children will lose his or her job. It will not be easy getting rid of 500 staff without those people being affected. I would like that commitment because we can deal with this issue if we deal with it across this House and work with our communities. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to address two or three issues that have been raised by speakers on the other side of the House. Firstly I reconfirm what this legislation does. It is a way of communicating with the court—with the judges and the lawyers. It is not intended to send a message to offenders because offenders will never read it. Mr Goff’s good friend Professor Hall who wrote a book on sentencing agrees that this is how Parliament communicates to the courts. Putting this legislation through under urgency does a particular thing that is very significant. This measure has been scoffed at by the other side but it is important to note that although this is just one small step that is taken in urgency it has achieved some profile because it has become part of what is known as the 100-day plan. It draws the attention of those people to whom it is directed. [ 
Interruption 
] Would Mr Goff agree with me that the offender who is arrested tomorrow morning for an offence he commits against a small child tonight and who pleads guilty and is sentenced before the court next month will receive a greater sentence because of the notoriety of this— 
Hon Annette King 
: It wouldn’t stop him doing it. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: We agree but it is not directed at stopping anybody from doing anything. It is particularly directed towards the sentence that is imposed on an offender who appears before the court. 
Maybe if the Leader of the Opposition had appeared in court in the past he would have heard judges talk about recent statements from Parliament and the abhorrence shown by members of Parliament which is a direction to judges who pass sentences on those convicted of crimes to sentence accordingly. The statements made in Parliament are then enforced on those offenders and in this case the abhorrence of Parliament towards child abuse child neglect etc. will be reflected in a sentence that will probably be more severe than it would have been. 
It is true too to say that a number of measures are directed towards a particular evil in this society. Yes we need to direct a number of portfolio areas and the legislation associated with those portfolios towards child abuse. Some of it will be about education and health. This particular bill is about law and order and the justice system. It does not seek to be a silver bullet. It does not seek to solve all problems. It seeks to underline society’s abhorrence of these crimes and the fact that they are a regular occurrence. 
About one child is murdered each month in this country by the people who care for that child. For some particular reason we seem to murder people at about twice the rate that they do in the UK. We need to address the fact that we do live in a comparatively very violent society for a Western World country. I am pleased to be part of a Government that is prepared to do this. It is a small step at this stage growing incrementally with legislation that will come in during the next 12 months to address more serious issues. 
I finish by mentioning the comments made that this small piece of legislation has not gone before a select committee and has not had the opportunity to be discussed by those for example in the non-governmental organisations. If we did that they would say: “Just get on with it.” because we would not find a single non-governmental organisation that would not agree with society’s underlying abhorrence for these crimes and would not agree that saying through legislation that the age of a child a child’s vulnerability and the fact that the crime is a breach of trust should be added to the list of aggravating features under the Sentencing Act. It is bit like asking children whether they like ice cream. We know what the answer will be. So those organisations would say to us: “Look we pay you to be there so get off your bums and do it!” Thankfully we are and I am pleased to see that the Labour Opposition is prepared to support that. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 We all abhor child abuse and neglect. I do not need to say that again; it has been well canvassed by others. We acknowledge that New Zealand does have a serious problem with child abuse and neglect. Some countries that we would like to compare ourselves with are as bad as us but others that we would also like to compare ourselves with do better than us. Whether or not they do we certainly aspire to do better than we are doing in New Zealand. 
As has been said we will not oppose the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill but it is important to put on the record for the benefit of the courts just how much of this bill is window dressing and why it is being put through. National raised expectations during the election campaign that it would find quick solutions to these somewhat intractable problems so National thought it necessary to introduce this face-saving legislation into this urgency motion and put it through under urgency. The Hon Simon Power is a person who honours more than most National members the traditions of Parliament and puts significant legislation through to select committees particularly where it affects the rights of people. Of course criminal justice legislation does that. The very fact that this bill is not going to a select committee shows that it is not of very much significance. So does the explanatory note of the bill which as much as admits that all the factors set out in the bill are already taken into account in sentencing. 
The only thing I would disagree with is on page 5 of the explanatory note which states: “However as the factors that the court will be required to take into account are already usually taken into account under the current regime we do not believe that this impact will lead to any substantive delay in courts.” because it will not change much. The explanatory note says these factors are “already usually taken into account”. That is wrong. They are always taken into account now because the law says that they “must be” not that they “may be”. I think it is important to put on the record how new section 9A inserted by clause 4 of this bill compares with section 9 of the current Sentencing Act. Those aggravating factors must be taken into account under the existing legislation as is made clear in section 9(1) which states: “In sentencing or otherwise dealing with an offender the court must take into account the following aggravating factors to the extent that they are applicable in the case:”. There is no discretion; the courts must take aggravating factors into account. 
If we look at the first of the so-called new aggravating factors that are provided for in new section 9A(2)(a) in clause 4 of the bill we see the courts must take into account “the defencelessness of the victim”. The comparable section in the existing Act is 9(1)(g) and it reads that an aggravating factor that must be taken account is “that the victim was particularly vulnerable because of his or her age or health or because of any other factor known to the offender:”. Clearly that matter is already covered by section 9(1)(g) of the Act and the new provision does not add anything to it. New subsection 9A(2)(b) in the bill says “in relation to any harm resulting from the offence any serious or long-term physical or psychological effect on the victim:”. Section 9(1)(d) of the existing Act already says the court must take into account as an aggravating factor “the extent of any loss damage or harm resulting from the offence:”. That is very broad and it clearly already covers serious or long-term physical or psychological effect. 
Section 9(1)(e) of the current Act also requires that the courts take into account as an aggravating factor any “particular cruelty in the commission of the offence:” so nothing new is introduced by new section 9A(2)(b) in clause 4 of the bill. New section 9A(2)(c) purports to say that “the magnitude of the breach of any relationship of trust between the victim and the offender” must be taken into account. Of course that is already covered by section 9(1)(f) of the current Act. It states that an aggravating factor that must be taken into account by the court is “that the offender was abusing a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim:”. Nothing is added by the new subsection. New section 9A(2)(d) covers “threats by the offender to prevent the victim reporting the offending”. That is clearly covered by the existing provision in section 9(1)(a) of the Act which requires the court to take into account “actual or threatened violence or the actual or threatened use of a weapon:”. That is clearly covered there. The last aggravating factor in the new legislation in new section 9(A)(2)(e) is the “deliberate concealment of the offending from authorities.” Again that is covered by section 9(1)(i) of the existing Act which talks about premeditation etc. 
Judges will be scratching their heads about this legislation for two reasons. The first is the idea that without any legislation judges would fail to find offending against children to be worse than offending against people who are not defenceless. That is nonsense. Judges are humane people they are wiser than most of us and they see the full ambit of crime. They already know what constitutes a more serious offence than other offending. I am confident that even without any legislation the interests of children would be taken into account by judges when sentencing offenders. As if that were not enough we already have law that makes that absolutely clear because this is an area where it is important to make sure there are clear signals to the judiciary. That is why the legislation that was promulgated by the Hon Phil Goff and passed by this Parliament in 2002 already covers every one of the factors that are the subject of this bill. That is why I take issue with members on the other side of the House who are pretending that this bill somehow advances the protection of children when it clearly does not. 
I think if any further advice is needed on that it is provided by Professor Geoff Hall through the newspapers because he has not had the opportunity to do so through a select committee hearing. Once again I repeat that he said this legislation although harmless is also worthless and that it adds nothing to the current law. For the record Professor Geoff Hall is if not the leading academic then one of the two or three leading academics in this area of the law. He has experience that spans 4 decades. He is the author of the leading text in this area  
Hall’s Sentencing 
 and he has looked at this legislation and said unambiguously that it adds nothing to the law. 
Having said that I say this bill is harmless and we will not be opposing it on this side of the House. 
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. 
Second Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill was the subject of some very worthwhile debate at its first reading and that debate usefully crystallised some of the issues for the House. I thank the House for its unanimous support of this legislation. I think it was the Hon Annette King who made the statement that from time to time Parliament and politicians get it right when issues that matter come before us. I note the bipartisan offer from the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy leader of the Labour Party to work on issues of child abuse and crimes against children. I know that the offer was genuine and I will certainly take that into consideration. I thank both the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy leader of the Labour Party for that. I also thank all members for the genuine way that they have approached the legislation. That is not to say I have agreed with everything they have said but I believe that everybody has approached the issue in a way that has lent some weight to the discussions. 
Offending against children that involves violence or neglect is far too common in our society and the root causes of such offending are much more diverse and fundamental than can be targeted by sentencing in the criminal courts alone. No one today is suggesting otherwise. However sentencing for such offending must as I said earlier reflect society’s abhorrence of child abuse and the far-reaching impacts it can have. 
The Sentencing Act already lists some aggravating factors to be taken into account at sentencing that apply to offending against children. But this bill takes that further. The new factors will be considered alongside the existing factors and can be distinguished from them albeit subtly. I raise this issue because of the point that the Green member Metiria Turei made during the course of her contribution. Defencelessness can be distinguished from vulnerability by for example focusing on the degree to which the victim could find protection from an offender rather than the fact that a particular child is more easily harmed or is somehow to blame in a situation of conflict such as in the circumstances raised by the member. More important the inclusion of the extra factors provides a clear signal to the courts that Parliament intends to take offending against children very seriously. Obviously how the independent judiciary chooses to respond to that signal is of course entirely in its own hands. But I think the unanimous support in the House for this legislation today makes it clear what the representatives of the New Zealand public think about that issue. 
If the House passes this bill the new law will come into effect in a matter of days. The court will take the new factors into account when sentencing all those who offend against children from day one. The reason the new provision could I guess be applied in that sense is that it does not amount to a penal enactment. Section 5 of the Sentencing Act provides that the Act will apply to offences committed before and after the commencement of the Act with certain exceptions. 
The bill is a first step and I accept the contributions from others who stated that there is much more to be done. Early next year I will be introducing a bill that deals with offences and maximum penalties available when children are the victims of offending. Other Government initiatives in the criminal justice area such as denial of parole for the worst repeat violent offenders will also have an impact on those who offend against children. However we are dealing with sentencing today and I will now turn to the policies behind the bill. Section 7 of the Sentencing Act provides that sentencing has several purposes. One is to hold the offender accountable for the harm his or her actions have done to the victim. Another is to promote in the offender a sense of responsibility for or acknowledgment of the harm he or she has caused. A third is to denounce the conduct in which the offender was involved. There are several other sentencing purposes listed but I see this bill as furthering those three in particular. 
When a child is a victim of violence or neglect the offender has a lot to be held accountable for. Studies have shown that by the age of 18 physically abused or neglected children may have impaired interpersonal skills problems with academic performance aggressive and violent behaviour an increased risk of youth offending and suicide and potentially a range of psychiatric disorders. Offending against a child can blight the victim’s entire life and can have disastrous consequences for those who interact with him or her for years to come. That is why the bill expressly provides that the court must take into account the harm caused to the victim by the offending including any serious or long-term physical or psychological harm. Offenders need to have it brought home to them what damage they have done and the time for this to happen in any real and tangible way is at sentencing. 
Another factor to which the bill draws the court’s attention is the magnitude of the breach of the special relationship of trust that should exist between a child and an adult. A caregiver has responsibilities towards a child and a child has legitimate expectations of a caregiver. Sentencing should reflect the degree to which the caregiver has abandoned his or her responsibilities and the sentencing process should work to force the offender to confront the level of harm that the offending has caused. As we have seen in recent cases some offenders seem to consider violence against children as a normal part of being a caregiver. The sentencing process provides an opportunity to challenge that attitude. Finally another purpose of sentencing is the denunciation by society of certain conduct. The level of penalty imposed by the court is a reflection of society’s condemnation of particular conduct. A harsh penalty indicates that certain behaviour is unacceptable and demonstrates that it will not be condoned. 
Few crimes are more unacceptable to a civilised society than attacks on its most defenceless and vulnerable members which children undoubtedly are. This is aggravated when the offender has actual responsibility for the defenceless victim. Such conduct is unacceptable not only because of the harm it causes to the victim and in the longer term the community but also because such conduct is worthy of condemnation in its own right—it is just wrong. Society needs to constantly reaffirm its repudiation of violence against children because that repudiation is a mark of a sane healthy society. We do that most concretely through sentencing for offending against children and this bill strengthens that commitment. 
As a father I want New Zealand to be a great place for kids to grow up in where they are all safe and well cared for as I am sure all members in this House do. As Minister of Justice I want to be sure that people who place that safety in jeopardy are held accountable. As a Government we want to ensure that families are stable functional units contributing positively to society and as parliamentarians we all have the opportunity to denounce the mistreatment and abuse of children by supporting this bill. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Although I would reiterate the comments that have been made by members on this side of the House that we will work constructively and positively with the Government where viable workable and achievable solutions are put forward I just have to come back to some of the comments that were made by members opposite. 
It seems to me that in the last 5 days the National Government has put forward a number of bills that are all about to quote its members “sending a message”. National members have done a lot of message-sending in the last 5 days. Going by the Minister of Justice’s own words they are now sending another message but we ask what has actually been achieved. If we look at the analysis that David Parker who is a lawyer took us through line by line and clause by clause—and he compared the new proposal with the existing legislation—we see that he came to the same conclusion that Professor Geoff Hall came to. Professor Hall’s conclusion was that there is nothing new at all in this bill and that sadly it is window dressing. 
At this point I address a comment to Mr Borrows who said in response to our side quoting Professor Hall that he regarded the professor as having some credibility because he had said it was Parliament’s job to use legislation to communicate with judges. Well of course it is. That is what Parliament is for: to write legislation and to place it before the judiciary. It is therefore the job of the judiciary to interpret that legislation. But I gently say to Mr Borrows that he cannot have it both ways. He cannot regard Professor Hall as having a high degree of credibility and then rubbish his comment—and I think it was also rubbished by Dr Worth. 
I will quote Professor Hall again. He said with regard to the provisions that are already there “It sounds to me like it’s window dressing what is being proposed”. Mr Borrows cannot say on the one hand that Professor Hall makes good points and that legislation is about communicating with judges—well of course it is; judges rely on legislation and they are charged with interpreting it—and then say on the other hand effectively that Professor Hall does not know what he is talking about. Professor Hall agrees with David Parker me and all members on this side of the House when we note that these provisions do nothing new even though we are supporting them. 
If we come to the same conclusion as Professor Hall then I reiterate Mrs King’s point when she said that this legislation is sadly all about presenting an agenda to create a perception that there is a big gritty and weighty workload—a plan of action—during the great 100-day plan that will have a positive impact on the lives of New Zealanders. Well we have seen that the Bail Amendment Bill mirrors this Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill in terms of new words but there is a duplication of effort because the provisions of the legislation are already there. Judges of course are relatively unfettered by the factors that they can take into account. As I say one would have to conclude that for the National Government this is more about politics than it is about substance. However the people will judge that. 
Ms Collins made a point that I think needs to be addressed. She said there was no need for the bill to be referred to a select committee. Over the last 5 days—without getting into other areas—that has been a clarion call from the National Government. The Government seems to say that because it won an election which it did and it is charged with putting legislation forward which it is the public should not get a proper say and effectively we should not have select committees. 
Hon David Parker 
: They’ll want to do away with Parliament next. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I do not know; the member would have to ask National members. If National’s thesis is that an election victory means no public input thereafter—the public has a vote and that is it—then I suppose the public could put forward a proposition questioning why we have select committees. Why have them at all? Why allow members of the public and experts like Barnardos the Salvation Army the Children’s Commissioner and others to have a say? National won an election so according to National the people have had their say and it is all over. Maybe we should simply adjourn the House and National could put legislation through by edict. National would love that I am sure; Cabinet could just sit there and sign off on the legislation. Why do we need 100-plus members of Parliament to debate have input and engage in those sorts of things? I think Ms Collins’ point misses the mark sadly. I think it would have been instructive to have received input from experts other than the departments. 
It is interesting that Mrs King talked about the tongue-lashing that bureaucrats have received over the last month or so. Ironically they are now being exclusively relied upon for consultation in respect of all these bills. The folks who are not being relied upon are the agencies that the police work with—non-governmental organisations for instance. I am sure Mr Borrows has worked with them and knows them well. I am sure that he found in his career as a policeman and a lawyer that those organisations provided added value to his work and the work of his staff. They are not getting a look in on this legislation because so goes National’s line “We signalled this; it’s happening. We won an election. The people had their say through a vote. We’re just doing it.” If that is a precedent that will go forward then I think it is a very dangerous one. 
I do not think anybody in this House has a monopoly on all knowledge or expertise in every area and certainly I do not. I rely on external non-governmental organisations and people like Professor Hall and others to provide information so that we can stand up and make a reasonably decent contribution in the House. But that also means engaging with those communities and in this case it means engaging on the issue of child safety. However we are not talking about the prevention of death in respect of this legislation. Sadly we are talking about a measure that does not deal in a proactive way with the causes of what is happening and that does not identify the causes of abuse neglect and violence towards children within the home. We are not saying we ought to bolster those measures and put resources behind them. We are dealing with an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff which is reactive. 
I say again to the Minister for Social Development and Employment that we are concerned about the 500 staff to whom the axe will be taken over the next year or so. We have not had any commitment from any member of the Government thus far to assure us that those people will not be the front-line staff who deal with the protection of children and the identification of violence neglect and abuse against children. We have not had any assurance that those positions will be preserved and hopefully enhanced which is of concern to folks on this side of the Chamber. 
The other point I make is that the bill does not do anything to address the 16000-plus cases per year of substantiated child abuse and neglect. I think a silly comment may have been made at the end of Mr Parker’s speech about Professor Hall’s status; I hope that was not the case and that I misheard. Professor Hall has stated that there is nothing new in this legislation that it will have no effect and that it will not alter the status quo. We have already been told that the Minister of Justice in some months’ time next year will bring to the House what he terms a “robust bill” that will hopefully do something positive. The question then is what is the motivation and what are we really doing here in these last few sitting hours passing a bill whose provisions have already existed for some time? 
We all agree about the state of affairs around these sorts of awful cases. I note Mrs Katene’s point about the repetition that goes on in respect of those cases. I have some mixed feelings about that because I do share to some extent Mr Garrett’s view that we should remind ourselves of those cases that we should never forget the tragedies that have occurred and that we should learn from them. Although I respect the views of those opposite we have to ask what we are doing here if we are simply replicating what already exists. Sadly there can be only one answer: there are some politics in this measure and like the Bail Amendment Bill and the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill—the provisions of which already exist—this is about the National Government saying to the public that it has ticked all the boxes in the last 5 days. 
Sadly I do not think the public will get the opportunity to scrutinise this legislation unless the learned media go through it line by line with them and note that there is no new policy no new action and no new effect that will make people safer in respect of the bail legislation that will add to our education system in respect of the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill or that will save one child’s life in respect of the legislation that will be passed today. I hope the public do get the opportunity to scrutinise this legislation because that will assist in their assessment of the performance of National’s great 100-day plan. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call in respect of the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill just to restate a couple of points. As has been conceded the way in which Parliament speaks to judges and the courts and indicates to them that it wants a certain line to be taken on sentencing is to do that through legislation—we all know that. The fact is that this bill underlines society’s abhorrence at the state of affairs in our country that sees us offend horribly against young children and at the way that that offending is exploited maybe through the media and also by those who want to gain points. So although there has been a lot of talk about this sort of offending over the campaign period it is important when the campaign finishes and we come before the House to restate quite clinically and quite unemotionally that we want something to be done about this matter. 
The fact is that in this country we have a terrible tragedy whereby a significant number of our young people—not necessarily a lot of them comparatively—are set up to fail. We know they are set up to fail and there are a number of strategies we can take to be able to address that. This measure is but one of them. When people offend against children we not only have the abhorrence of child abuse and the victimisation of those children but we also have the creation of offenders further down the track. It is estimated that about 70 percent of the people who sexually abuse children were sexually abused themselves as children and those of us who have worked in the field would estimate that the percentages are much higher than that. The same thing of course relates to child physical abuse. 
Although we mourn the names that have been used in the House this morning where on the continuum of child abuse do we stop calling young people victims and start calling them offenders? When young offenders start to offend in this way—and we have seen this in respect of the Nia Glassie case—we have to accept and understand that they too were offended against. I believe that it is incumbent on every member of this House to take whatever step he or she can to rail against that bit by bit through small and large pieces of legislation. 
The Hon Clayton Cosgrove made a significant point and that is that we had consulted with the police and a number of other organisations in respect of this issue in preparing this bill. The fact is that when we are dealing with all those agencies through a day-to-day and day-by-day process those agencies expect us to do some stuff when we come to this House. They expect us to know and to take on board the information that we have been discussing over the months and years—and in some cases over the decades—so that when we finally get into a position where we can have some influence on legislation that is intended to make things better we do it. We should not muck around and come back with some fairly small and narrow pieces of legislation; we should just use the initiative and expertise we have and the confidence that is placed in us to just do it. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 As a member of this House I also want to record a number of points in the second reading of the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill. One is our abhorrence of violence of any kind and certainly our abhorrence of family violence. As the Chief Commissioner of the Families Commission for the past 4 years I can say that a huge amount of time has been spent on examining violence generally and family violence in particular from a number of quarters. So after that one cannot come to the House and do anything other than join with everyone in this House—not just as members but also as fathers husbands and family members—in abhorring that violence. We are all committed to doing something significant about this problem and to working with the Government to improve whatever proposals are put before us. We come to the House after a political campaign where this particular issue was an important one. But before I reflect on that I want to say that I accept what the Hon Phil Goff said about the sincerity of the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power on this issue and the importance of it. Indeed if we could work collaboratively on this matter over the next period then perhaps our collective experiences—not just from our present roles but from our communities and from the areas in which we have worked—might be useful. 
The point I want to make is that we should be looking forward to where the whole notion of doing something about family violence in this country might go. In the campaign we have just completed law and order was a major issue. Certainly Government members campaigned hard on it and—one should be generous—won on it. They promised however that in quick time the problem would be fixed and said that they had great ideas and would guarantee the outcome of family violence being eliminated. On our side we campaigned on our message that a great deal of what was expected of what was required for doing something about family violence had indeed been done and that many many measures and a lot of resources had been put into this area. However the perception endures in the community and every now and again those cases that churn our insides that get us to a stage where we do not want to look at television programmes about particular cases any more bother us. So Opposition members are committed to working with the Government to eliminate this particular area of concern. 
How we proceed to the next stage is really important. There is a huge number of people in New Zealand society—and indeed of those with experience around the world—who can guide us on this. I do not think we have in this House all of the expertise that is needed. What made our 4 years working in the Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families successful was that we committed ourselves to bringing together all of the intelligence from across Government departments non-governmental groups Maori and Pacific people in order to focus on the problem. The success in terms of the campaign and the work we started was that we thought about it on the basis of bringing all the knowledge and best ideas together finding the resources then starting a long campaign to change New Zealand’s performance both in respect of family violence and of child abuse. I think that is the kind of approach that is required here as well. 
Consequently I am concerned like other members on this side of the House that we are bringing one matter to Parliament to address when there are so many other pieces to address. Would it not be something to behold if a collective process could be identified so as to add to each other’s thinking develop a programme that needs to be put together bring that to the House and then take it further? But I also remind the Government now of the views it took when it was in Opposition. Indeed it was very hard for the Opposition because its spokesperson on social development was not able to participate in the multi-party family violence group. That was a shame because several years of good experience is now lost and needs to be put back in. So I hope that in the next period there will be a different approach where members on this side of the House will be provided with opportunities to bring their experience to the table and where their input can help to address the problems we face. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I want to address a couple of matters that have been raised since I spoke in the first reading debate. I am very pleased to hear that the Minister of Justice is taking seriously my concerns about section 9A(2)(a) inserted by clause 4 and is looking at the application of that provision in practice. If I am right—and the Minister might want to correct me—when he spoke in the second reading he said that the provision was not designed or expected to include looking at fault of the child or blaming the child but rather at whether the child could find protection. I ask the Minister whether that is right. 
Hon Simon Power 
: What was that? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: That the issue is the extent to which the child could find protection. If that is the wording I heard from the Minister in his second reading speech it concerns me somewhat because I am not sure how one would factor into the sentencing of the offender the availability of protection for the child. The protection presumably would refer to factors external to the child and external to the offender actually—other opportunities that might be available to that child or alternatives to the situation that was going on. But in the court process there are only two parties: the offender and the victim. Any factor has to be related directly to either the offender or the victim. 
The alternative way of looking at the issue of whether there was the possibility of protection for the victim would be to suggest that protection was available but the child did not avail himself or herself of it. Again it comes back to the need to have a factor that is relevant to either the victim or the offender. Any factor that somehow in any way imports any kind of responsibility on to the victim in the circumstances of this legislation simply is not acceptable. 
We will continue to have this discussion no doubt in the Committee stage. We might even hear more from Mr Garrett about why he considers that my amendment is not necessary because it is about aggravating factors in sentencing. I am not quite sure of his reasoning but I would be very willing to hear his argument. 
I have two responses to Mr Borrows’ contributions. One is to afford him significant respect for his comment this afternoon that very many offenders are themselves victims and there is a very line at which point one becomes one or the other—that those two states if you like are not mutually exclusive. This is one of the reasons why the Green Party has campaigned very strongly against a legal system that is focused on punishment and retribution as opposed to rehabilitation reintegration and the elimination of reoffending. There is a very fine line between being an offender and being a victim in many of the cases we see go to the courts. If retribution is the No. 1 priority of the legal system then we simply will not stop the reoffending that goes on. I have talked about that in discussions on other legislation particularly the Bail Amendment Bill which was recently before the House. 
There was another comment that Mr Borrows made that I do not agree with at all and would like to refer to. Part of it is the discussion on the merit of including the provision about the defencelessness of a child. If the bill had gone to a select committee the consideration that both the Minister and I are giving to those words in the legislation would have happened in the select committee process. In the second reading debate which we are having right now we would have been talking about the discussions that had happened in the select committee the officials’ report that dealt with the definition of those words and the views of the submitters who had come to talk to us about the application of those words in practice in the courts. We are unable to have that discussion or get that input because there has not been a select committee process where we could have had exactly that discussion. That makes for very poor lawmaking. I do not agree with Mr Borrows. He might think he knows everything in the world; I do not assume that for myself. I certainly would not claim as he did to know what the answer would have been from every person who might have wanted to make a submission to the select committee. I am sure he really did not mean that. I hope he did not. 
That is why the select committee process is so important particularly when we are dealing with such significant legislation and especially when we are dealing with legislation that is about criminal law actually. The greatest power that the State has is the coercive power of the police the armed forces and the judicial system. It is the main area of the exercise of extreme State power in relation to our community as a whole so it must be subject to the highest possible level of scrutiny by the members of the public themselves. They must know what the change in the relationship between them and the State will be. Also we must make sure that the machinery of the State in respect of criminal law has the best and most correct mechanisms for dealing with the issue that needs to be dealt with. We must make sure that there are no erroneous powers given to the State there are no holes in the powers that are given to the State and the balance between the rights of the community and the State is properly met. That is why the select committee process which includes public discussion is very important when it comes to criminal law. We are missing out on that process on very important critical legislation that deals with one of the most important issues that this country ever deals with which is violence against and neglect of our most vulnerable citizens. 
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. 
In Committee 
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. 
Clauses 1 to 4 
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. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I thank the member Clayton Cosgrove for the series of reasonable and rational questions he put to me in the chair today. I will address two of those matters but the first matter I want to address is the matter raised by the Green Party although that was the third matter that Mr Cosgrove brought to the Committee. 
I noted that the Green Party member said she was not interested in what the law intended and what she was interested in was what was actually going to happen. I can talk a bit about both those things if I may. The issue of defencelessness is not in any way intended to align or design a behaviour on a scale of circumstances that might excuse behaviour because of a particular set of circumstances peculiar to an individual child whether his or her age be 14 years or for that matter less than 1 year for example. In no way is it designed to allow for the apportionment of blame to a child nor is it about shifting the blame for a child’s behaviour size or capacity in the sense that the member raised earlier. 
As I said in my second reading speech—and I accept there is a very subtle difference between defencelessness and vulnerability—it is my view and the Government’s view that defencelessness can be distinguished from vulnerability by focusing on the degree to which the victim could find protection from the offender rather than on the fact that children in themselves are more easily harmed or are somehow more to blame than adults would be in those circumstances. I accept the point the member has made and I think it is a particularly valuable contribution to the debate. It is quite a subtle technical point but I can assure her there is absolutely no intention to allow the types of circumstances that she describes to occur within the bounds of the legislation as it is designed. 
Before I address the other two points made by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove I say to the Maori Party members that I think the contribution made in seeking advice from the Children’s Commissioner brought another dimension to the consultation which given the time frames we are operating in was a valuable contribution to the debate. The reason for the age as members from the Maori Party will appreciate is to align it directly with the Child Youth and Family legislation. The debate about the age of a child in the more general sense is one that will continue as domestic and international obligations in that regard do not always align. I can think of a couple of situations off the top of my head that eventually we will have a discussion about in this Parliament. 
On the matters raised by the Hon David Parker I thought that what he said was a particularly good contribution because it was technical around some of the issues. But I do not share his view I say to Mr Cosgrove that these clauses do not add anything to the discussion. The specificity that they bring to the matters to which a sentencing judge must turn his or her mind is quite poignant and pointed. The law of statutory interpretation—if I can reach back into my first-year law days—is clear that specific sections or clauses take priority over those of a more general and wider application. In the event that we are able to set up a specific section relating to children the sentencing judge would give his or her attention to that matter first I say to Mr Cosgrove prior to the more general provisions. That is why that is important and that is why specificity is important. 
In respect of matters surrounding parole I just say two things: all in good time and members should watch this space. 
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. 
Third Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I thank all political parties in this House this afternoon for the way in which they have approached this legislation. I appreciate that this is often an environment where under urgency and with these long hours things can spark up a fraction but I do appreciate the way parties have approached the legislation. Issues raised by all members on all sides of the House have brought in quite a considerable quality of debate. I include the Labour Opposition members in that as well particularly David Parker who brought quite a technical discussion to the fore. I single out Metiria Turei for two things. Firstly her discussion around the issue of defencelessness was a genuine one and I am humbled by the fact that she withdrew her amendment in order to show that the whole House was supportive of this legislation. I give her an undertaking that if there are any difficulties with that particular clause and I am still the Minister of Justice it will be dealt with. 
The bill encourages tougher sentences for offences against children that involve violence or neglect. It denounces such conduct as does this Government and I am proud to say as does this entire Parliament. This is our first step in dealing with child abuse. Other criminal justice legislation and initiatives in other portfolios will further address the mistreatment of children and the dysfunction of families but this is a timely step as the Christmas break approaches and children are especially at risk in stressful environments of mistreatment. 
We cannot know the true extent of offending against children. Family violence is notoriously under-reported with recent research published in the reputed UK medical journal  
The Lancet 
 
indicating that as few as one in 10 cases are reported to social service agencies in countries such as Canada Australia and the UK. In New Zealand data on criminal convictions is not stored according to the age of the victim making it impossible to identify the scale of the problem at that basic level. But we do know that Child Youth and Family investigates more than 16000 cases of child abuse each year. Violence or neglect is a regular part of the lives of far too many of our children; one instance is one too many. We all have a responsibility to confront this issue and I encourage all New Zealanders to report instances of offending against children regardless of those persons’ relationship to the offender. 
The bill has moved through the House very quickly and I make no apologies for that. The policy was clearly announced and campaigned on; voters provided a mandate for it and so has this Parliament. It would be hard to find a rational person who did not agree that offending against children merits our denunciation. 
As I said this is just the first step. This new legislation will see the perpetrators of abuse appropriately punished and will go some way to protecting our children but we can and must do more. Many of us have followed the recent series of articles in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on child abuse and the organisations that have been set up to work with victims and families. Because we are confronted daily with reports of appalling offending against children it is easy to slip into a mindset that sees such offending as being inevitable and unavoidable. As Parliamentarians we must all resist that conclusion and do everything we can to develop effective law in this area. As Minister of Justice my responsibility lies with the sentencing for offences against children but I can assure the public of New Zealand that my Cabinet colleagues with social policy portfolios are also looking at this issue from other angles. As a Government we are determined to safeguard the lives of our nation’s children who are of course the future of this country. But it is not solely the Government’s responsibility or Parliament’s responsibility to address child abuse. As a nation we all have a responsibility to confront this issue. From the social service agencies the  
New Zealand Herald  
is featuring to families and whanau and to neighbours and friends we all have a duty to protect and nurture the lives of our children. 
We are now just less than 2 weeks from Christmas traditionally known as the season of peace and goodwill. For too many children in the past years the opposite has been true. I hope this Christmas is different. I hope that our children can enjoy a summer and a holiday; it is their right and this bill reinforces that right. Next year members will be seeing more reform to the criminal justice system but we have started today with reform for children. I commend this bill to the House. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill. I think it is really important in these debates that we remember what we are after. I think that in a lot of the debate about being tough on crime and all the rest of it we lose track of the final objective. We want to live in a safer society and we want to live in a society where people are free from violence. It is important to remember that that is where we are trying to get to. We often get caught up in all the punitive stuff and get caught up in dealing with all the people we do not like who have done really bad things. That is totally understandable but we need to keep focused on our objective which is that we want to live in a safe society and we want to live free from violence. 
The Green Party has been an opponent of violence. It is part of our charter. One of our fundamental principles is to oppose violence and we have a deep hatred of violence. But we accept that there is widespread violence in our society and anything we can do to reduce violence should be supported. 
We are supporting this bill but we are pretty sceptical about what it can do. The reason we are sceptical is that it does not appear to add a lot to existing law. There has been quite a bit of discussion today about that. Looking at section 9 of the Sentencing Act 2002 “Aggravating and Mitigating Factors” I see that a lot of what is in this bill already appears to be law. It is hard to see that the bill adds much to existing law. We will support it because it does not seem to do any harm but we are not convinced that it adds a lot to what is already there. 
We would really like to see a lot more emphasis on avoiding reoffending. It would be great if as much energy went into preventing offending in the first place as goes into putting in place punishments and talking about what we will do about crime once it has happened. The Green Party would like to see most of our energy directed to preventing violence in the first place. 
I take note of comments made earlier. I think it was Chester Borrows who said that offenders have often been victims themselves in the past and I think it is important that we question what resources time and energy we could put in to stop that cycle of violence. That seems to me to be one of the key things. What support will we put into prisons so that prisoners can get drug rehabilitation access to literacy skills and education and access to the kinds of skills they need to get a job when they get out? Are we willing to spend the millions and millions of dollars that it would take to do rehabilitation properly? It is all very well to say that we will lock people up for longer and all of that but if we are really serious about breaking the cycle of offending then we need to stump up with a whole bunch of money for rehabilitation. It is not cheap; it is really expensive. It is actually not a cheap thing to do. We cannot just pass a law and we cannot just lock people up; if we are serious about avoiding violence in the long term we also need to ask what we are doing at the top of the cliff. What fences are we building at the top of the cliff? How are we supporting people when they come out of prison? Are we providing them with the support and the skills they need so that they can get a job and so that they do not get back into more offending and a cycle of violence? That is where we would like to put our energy. That is where we think the energy of this Parliament and this Government should go. 
That ties into one of the key things in all of this: dysfunctional families. The Greens think we should be providing more support to families. We think that increased fines for truancy which we have been talking about today will not help families. How will it help families that are already in trouble? So many families are already in trouble and how do we help them by giving them a $3000 fine? How does the 90-day trial period bill help them? It means that parents are less likely to have a secure job. If we are serious about avoiding violence against children which we all say we are then we have to ask what we are doing to support families that are under pressure and in trouble. That should be the first thing we do. That should be where we put most of our money and that should be where we put most of our energy rather than putting all our time and energy into rhetoric about the prison at the bottom of the cliff. What about increasing the minimum wage? All of those are issues that could take pressure off families. We need to support families so that the parents have more time and can do their job properly. 
The Green Party took a lead in terms of violence in changing section 59 of the Crimes Act. It was very reassuring to us that the latest UMR Research survey found that there had been a change in attitude to physical punishment of children. In 1993 87 percent of those polled thought that there were times when it was OK to use corporal discipline; this has now come down to 58 percent—from 87 percent to 58 percent according to a UMR Research survey released by the Children’s Commissioner. We think that is progress. It is about a culture shift in our society in relation to the way we treat children. The Green Party was very proud to lead the campaign to amend section 59. Once again we accept that it was not the whole solution; it was only one small part of the jigsaw puzzle but it was really important. 
I will reiterate and reflect on the comments about making sure that the Ministry of Social Development—in particular Child Youth and Family—has the money it needs to do the job properly. Let us make sure it has the money it needs. That should be a priority. It is all very well to talk about increasing sentencing and all of that but what are we doing to make sure that the agencies that actually have to intervene in troubled families and families under pressure have the resources they need? 
Finally I hope there is more consultation with the Office of the Children’s Commissioner because I think this kind of legislation would benefit from that kind of input. Obviously it would have been much better had the bill gone to a select committee so that we could have had the benefit of that whole process and I would certainly encourage the Minister of Justice in future to maintain an open dialogue with the Children’s Commissioner. 
The Greens will be supporting this bill even though we think that it does not make any substantial progress. We do not think that it does any harm. We also thank the Minister for his reassurances about the “defencelessness” provision and we hope that he will keep an eye on those cases as they work their way through to see whether there are any problems with it. 
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. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 On television last night a young mum was asked about her son. Her instantaneous joy at thinking about her child was obvious as her face lit up and she said: “From the day he was born you couldn’t take the smile off of all of our faces. He made us glow every day.” This Christmas that glow has been replaced by the dull gnawing pain of a family trying to learn to live without their boy—a boy who was described as his dad’s hands and legs in reference to the support he provided to his father who is a tetraplegic. At the beginning of this year that young boy was stabbed to death by a 50-year-old businessman who took the law into his own hands and now a jury of his peers has handed down a sentence not of murder but of manslaughter. 
I take the time to refer to that case because it is entirely relevant to what we are trying to do today in this Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill: to send the signal that violence against children is not OK at any time or in any place. The crime that cost that boy his life was that he was allegedly about to tag a fence. Tagging of course was the hot topic for the last Parliament and I recall when listening to proceedings from the outside being amazed at the extravagant language and dramatic rhetoric that accompanied the debate in the House. Politicians from all parties except the Maori Party the Greens and ACT voted venomously to outlaw graffiti creating the perception that the violence of vandalism was the issue of fundamental and paramount importance on our horizons as a nation. 
Without relitigating that debate I want to place it on the record that I am absolutely opposed to tagging and that I accept that it is appropriate to consider any instances of tagging within the context of property law. But I would question the way in which politicians have demonised taggers and the exaggerated hyperbole that has embellished the debate. I cannot reconcile the dramatic overreaction to tagging with the seeming understatement about the loss of the life of another child. Have we become so desensitised to the horror of murder that the extreme vigilante action of that case is tolerated because after all a fence was allegedly about to be tagged? Is it acceptable for a citizen to chase a boy with a knife and to kill him with that same knife? Was the crime of tagging property deserving of a death sentence for that teenager? Is it acceptable that the crime of the adult was excused as arising from frustration and an intention not to kill yet a youngster was killed? That was apparently so for a Christchurch city councillor who infamously said of the accused: “If I was on the jury I’d let him get away with it.” 
Any violent crime is intolerable but that is particularly the case when it is directed against children. This week the Unicef survey of how well 25 OECD countries treated their young people placed New Zealand at 19th out of 25 countries on the measure of infant mortality. The horrendous incidents of violence against children which we read about every day have shamed us internationally to the extent that we as a nation are found to have neglected the responsibility we must take up to set in place basic minimum standards for the care and protection of children. Strong high-level leadership and coordination must be shown if we are to achieve the protection of children from violence. 
I congratulate the  
New Zealand Herald  
on its action this week in running a series of articles on child abuse and promoting the agencies and strategies that are available to keep our children safe. We need the conversation that condemns violence and neglect against children to be a priority at every level of society. The  
New Zealand Herald  
is running the “Our Lost Children” series and one of the articles featured Soala Wilson who in 1999 was awarded the title “Pacific Island businessperson of the year”. The Grey Lynn businesswoman has taken the brave step of speaking out about the horrific physical abuse she has experienced after having been beaten as a child with the belt the chair or whatever else was around. She made this proud declaration to the  
New Zealand Herald: 
 “I will never stop talking about it until society—families churches stop telling me to keep a lid on abuse. I won’t—I will not stop until society and families start speaking up and stop living in fear.” 
This bill is another approach for Parliament to start speaking up and stop living in fear. It builds on the excellent work established by Sue Bradford in repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act which ensured that assaults on children in the name of “discipline” were outlawed. It builds on the strong foundation of an incredible network of agencies and advocates who do so much in caring for our children: groups like Te Kahui Mana Ririki Te Korowai Aroha Unicef Plunket Save the Children Barnardos CCS Disability Action Tipu Ora the Maori Women’s Welfare League and many more. It builds on the precedent established by our whanau hapu and iwi our nannies and koros and our aunties and uncles—those who strive to place loving arms around all of our children to keep them from harm. It builds on the work of the dedicated social workers teachers childcare workers nurses police officers hauora providers and kohanga reo kaiawhina who every day watch over our children. It builds on the leadership of all New Zealanders who are prepared to stand up for children and to become superheroes who insist that our children must be treasured. 
The Maori Party is passionate about the campaign to eliminate violence from our lives. We salute all of those cause champions who have challenged society to speak up for our children. We celebrate the tribal leaders who are encouraging an environment upon our marae in which those who have perpetrated violence are forbidden from the privilege of speaking on the paepae. We want to see every school every institution and every residence practise strategies that prevent violence and promote safety. 
The briefing to the incoming Minister from the Children’s Commissioner recommended that “long-term investment in the restoration and rejuvenation of Maori whanau hapu iwi and communities is required for the overall future wellbeing of many Maori children and young people.” It is advice that we wholeheartedly endorse. We cannot focus just on the sentencing of an offender without at the same time investing in healthy outcomes for those who have been offended against. We want to see all families wear the glow of their children and to make all parents beam with the smile of pride and love for their sons and daughters. We must make the effort to publicly express the value of children and child rearing to promote respect for our children and to aspire towards a violence-free culture. 
As we approach the Christmas season perhaps that is the one gift that we in Parliament can encourage every family to invest in: the gift of unconditional love for the precious hope of our future. Kia ora. 
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. 
The House adjourned at 4.59 p.m. (Saturday)