Mackey Moana: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mackey Moana: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:9831. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand and take a call on Part 1 of the Education Amendment Bill. I want to raise some new issues around topics that people have been talking about because this is very important legislation. It is particularly important that we have managed to get almost unanimous support for this bill. For a number of reasons it is always good when we can get some stability in legislation. 
I remember being in the UK not long after two young schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were murdered by a school worker. I remember the public furore that followed about where the failures were and how the particular person was allowed to work at the school. I think we can learn a number of lessons from that particular case. But I think the most important point was that it was a most difficult environment in which to be making policy. In fact the discussions we have had here in New Zealand on this legislation have very much mirrored the discussions held in Britain following those terrible tragic murders. The fact that we have managed to get I think unanimous support for the police vetting provisions means that should we face such a tragedy in New Zealand—and fingers crossed that we never do—this Parliament can say we came to what we believed to be a sensible compromise on police vetting; a compromise that balances the requirements on schools and the burden that comes with that with the safety of children. We can stand up and say all parties in this House were in agreement that we had reached that compromise and we did not play the blame game which so often happens in politics following such a tragedy. 
But we can learn things from that case and I want to raise those issues. We have come to a position on police vetting that I think most people are comfortable with. But the police vetting provisions in themselves will not keep children safe. This is not something that tells us we can now take our eye off the ball and not worry now about the safety of our children in schools. We still need to be vigilant because what happened in the United Kingdom with regard to that terrible murder was that in fact the gentleman concerned was known to the police but that a number of the charges that they were trying to bring against him for rape and for offences against a child were never taken to prosecution. So they did not end up in the database that was used for the vetting despite the fact that the individual was known to the police. Also because the police were under such pressure at that time—because they had funding shortages and because they had administrative staffing shortages—sometimes those things were not being entered into the police computer system in time. That gentleman faced a number of charges that should have been in the police computer which would have shown them up in the police vetting but they were not there because there was too big a lag time in the police entering those details in. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: “Lag time” are not quite the right words. If he was doing a lag it would not have happened. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That is a fair comment; Mr Mallard is being helpful as always. 
When we are going through a very heated discussion in New Zealand about the role of administrative staff in the public sector and when we are going through a difficult economic period in terms of financial constraints on the Government—and it is the same point that I raised when we passed the legislation providing for the increased taking of DNA samples—the police must be funded properly because if they are not then this bill is not worth the paper that it is written on. More than that even though these would not be considered to be front-line services we need staff to be there in order to ensure that the kind of information that will be helpful to schools when they want to vet an individual is there and is there on time so that we do not end up in the same situation that occurred in the UK where someone slipped through the net and a most tragic outcome occurred because of that. I really want to make that point because we can pass all the legislation in the world and it means nothing if the resources in terms of money and staff are not there to ensure that the clauses that we are passing are able to be implemented as Parliament intended. 
I am very pleased that we have come to this compromise on police vetting. I will just finish off this comment and will make— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Just keep going until 5 to 10. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Mr Mallard informs me that I should go until 5 to at which time I will sit down so that the Hon Roger Douglas can take over. 
Hon Member 
: No we will report progress. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh we will report progress then. 
The only other part that I want to comment on—and I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on this—is the amendment in the name of my colleague Grant Robertson to insert new clause 5B which would require the Minister to advise the House of changes to the criteria for enrolment at the Correspondence School. I congratulate my colleague Grant Robertson on bringing this amendment to the Committee. It is incredibly important. The Correspondence School is an important entity. It provides education for a number of people in remote rural areas who are unable to access it otherwise but also for people who for other reasons are not able to go through a mainstream school. Any changes in criteria could have a significant impact on our communities. I think that in terms of transparency this amendment would be very helpful. I would be interested in hearing the Minister’s comments on that.