Lees-Galloway Iain: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:624] 
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.