Upston Louise: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Upston Louise: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:12344] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 It is great to be able to speak on any bill that improves education and the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) is another one that this National-led Government has brought into the House. The point I will make in my opening remarks is that this legislation provides valuable and common-sense changes to back up the massive investment this Government is putting into education. 
If anyone was listening to the previous speaker from the Opposition Grant Robertson they might think that this Government was cutting spending in education. But I put on the record National’s $12 billion spend; the largest spend in education ever—$12 billion. This Government is investing $12 billion in education because we know how critical it is for our future. 
There are a number of changes in the five broad areas that this bill addresses but I will focus on just two today. I will focus on the changes in the limited attendance centres and also on the enrolment changes because that was the subject of a member’s bill that I have had in the ballot for months; I am delighted that it was picked up as part of this Government bill. 
Looking first at the early childhood changes I remind the House that this Government is putting in an extra $107 million this year alone to increase participation rates. But the particular change in this bill looks at—and we need to get this in context—the situation where mum or dad goes to a shopping mall a swimming pool or a gym for a short period of time; for example for less than 2 hours. They want to drop off their children in a supervised area to be looked after to be cared for. When I go to a gym and I drop off my children I do not expect that they will be taught how to read theses on whatever the Labour Opposition think they are going to learn in the short period of time that their parents are at the gym. 
This bill is about common sense. It is about removing PC nonsense and bureaucracy from the education system so that the system can focus on lifting achievement rather than on dotting the i’s and ticking off whether a swimming pool’s creche is licensed. That is just outrageous. So that is where the focus is; the focus is on bringing some sense rather than nonsense into the system. 
I just remind members that these centres are casual. The child is dropped off for less than 2 hours at a shopping mall swimming pool or gym. I know as a parent that that service is really important. It is very valuable and we want to make sure that families are able to have access to it. Parents are never far away; they are within proximity. If we look at the bill we see that the provision is in there under clause 18: “none of whom attends for any period exceeding 2 hours … where the children’s parents or caregivers are (i) in close proximity … and (ii) able to resume responsibility for the children at short notice:”. Parents can easily attend if they need to. 
We are also talking about early childhood centres at churches. One of the impacts of the 2006 changes is that some of those facilities were forced to close. How was that good for parents? How was that good for choice? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Where? Name one. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: Mr Mallard talked before two days in a row about the mistakes Labour had admitted to making. So I am thrilled that those members are supporting us today in taking this legislation to a select committee. 
There were petitions up and down the country; there was absolute outrage when that change was made. We are just reversing it and bringing some common sense into the debate. 
I will come to the school enrolment scheme priorities. As I said before that was the subject of a member’s bill I had in the ballot which specifically made changes to improve parents’ choice. I will say a couple of things about it. We are talking about giving out-of-zone students a chance at getting into a school they would otherwise not have any hope of getting into. I will talk specifically about the extension that gives priority of enrolment to children of school board members just like to the children of teachers. That makes sense. There is a connection for the board member there is a connection for the teacher so it makes sense for their children to get priority to attend that school. I will also talk about the children of former students. If we consider former students and their children we see they have a strong connection a historical connection to the school and therefore they should get priority for enrolment. 
There have been some discussions today about the importance of children going to school in their local areas. Well sometimes there is a challenge. If there are no single-sex schools in a parent’s area and that parent wants his or her child to go to a single-sex school there is very little choice for them. There will be some members of this House and some people listening today who do not believe we have gone anywhere near wide enough on that issue. But it is a step for parents. I am on the side of parents and of making sure that they have some choices. That measure gives priority to the children of former students and to the children of current board members as well as to the children of teachers of the school—the existing priority. Those are two important changes. 
I close as I started by just reminding the House that education is a top priority for this Government as it is for me personally. We have invested $12 billion in education which is the highest investment ever. So I am really pleased that this bill is supported around the House. This bill is about common sense. It is about getting value for what we do. It is about lifting achievement so that New Zealand does better. Thank you.