Moroney Sue: Education Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Moroney Sue: Education Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2659] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill which Labour will oppose. I put my comments into context by saying that many parts of the bill are worth supporting. Labour can support some parts of the bill because much of it was drafted by the previous Labour Government and those bits are certainly worth supporting. They are sensible. They are about putting our children first and they do live up to the rhetoric that the member who has just resumed his seat tried to portray as being the National Government’s wish. 
What is very interesting is the parts of the bill that this Government has changed because I think that tells us a great deal about the Government’s agenda. The parts the Government has amended which were originally drafted by the previous Labour Government reduce safety for children in our schools. Allan Peachey tried to convince us by using slogans that this bill is apparently all about safety for children. But if this bill was genuinely about putting the safety of our children first then the Minister would be insisting on police vetting processes. Yes I say to Minister Tolley she would be insisting on police vetting processes. She would not be lowering the standards and saying it is an issue of compliance costs. This Government is reducing the safety of our children to a slogan about compliance costs and that is wrong. I say that both as a member of Parliament and as a mother of primary school - age children. 
The safety of my children and this nation’s children is not a compliance cost; it is what safeguards our future and it should be foremost in our minds as we debate this bill. I hope it never happens but if there is a tragedy—if somebody does have unsupervised access to our schoolchildren and a police vetting could have prevented that person from having unsupervised contact—and something goes wrong I hope that that Minister will stand up and take account. I hope she will say that yes she did say the safety of our children was not important enough to put first and that we did not need to have police vetting of all the people who have unsupervised contact with our children at school. That Minister will be responsible if such an event does come into play. 
We do know that out of 35000 non-teacher police checks done between 2004 and 2006 apparently only seven people were found to have criminal records that caused concern. This is by way of an explanation from the Minister to say that it does not matter and that we do not need this vetting because only seven people were found to have criminal convictions that were of concern. I am sorry I say to the Minister but I do not want any of those seven people to come near my children. I do not want them to be near other people’s children. I think that the Minister should be sufficiently concerned to take regard of that and should put our children first for a change rather than calling them compliance costs. Children are not compliance costs; they are vulnerable and deserve the very best standards of care in our schools and in our early childhood education settings. 
It is not just the safety of our children that this bill puts at risk; it is also the idea of having standards in our schools. For all of this Government’s spin about national standards and ensuring that schools perform the very section it has taken out of this bill speaks louder than words—and I will read out the words. This is what has been removed from the responsibilities of a school board under this bill before Parliament. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: It was never in there. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Yes it was I tell the Minister. In the original draft these provisions were there and they have been taken out. A school board was to be responsible for ensuring the enrolment at the school of all persons who are entitled to be enrolled at the school. That should be a given in a New Zealand context. Also removed is a school board’s responsibility to ensure that education is provided to each student enrolled at the school as is the responsibility of a school board to promote a school environment that supports the highest standards of achievement for all students. 
Why has that been done? I would like someone from the National Government to get up on his or her feet and explain why it does not require school boards to promote school environments that support the highest standards of achievement for all students. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: The NAGs do. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Is it because they already do that—is that right? So we do not need to say it in legislation? 
Simon Bridges 
: They do that in Tauranga. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Simon Bridges says the boards do it in Tauranga only so that is OK. I am sorry I say to Mr Bridges but from Labour’s perspective that is not OK. It should be a requirement of all school boards to provide a school environment that supports the highest standards of achievement for all students. 
Also removed from this draft of the bill— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Has the member read the bill? 
SUE MORONEY 
: Has the member read what has been removed from the bill? It is very telling indeed. This has also been removed. Apparently under the National Government a school board’s responsibilities will no longer require it to actively manage and monitor the performance of the principal ensure that the performance of the school’s other staff is actively managed and monitored or actively manage and report on the school’s performance against the aims and objectives set out in the school charter. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister is chattering away like a 6-year-old who cannot concentrate for long periods of time. If the Minister would stop chattering away like a naughty schoolchild perhaps she might learn something. Those very important parts of this bill should go back in. 
What does the Minister have against ensuring that education is provided to each student enrolled at school? What does the Minister have against promoting a school environment that supports the highest standards of achievements for all students? I really would like to hear the answers to those questions. It is about putting our children first but that is not what this bill delivers. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: Ha ha! 
SUE MORONEY 
: The Minister may laugh. She may think that putting our children in the way of harm is something to be trifled with—something to be laughed at. But it clearly is not. The Minister needs to take a good look at that. 
I am very pleased to be on the Education and Science Committee because I can assure the Minister and her team that the Labour Party representatives on that select committee will be pushing very hard to ensure that our children are put first and are not reduced to something called a compliance cost. 
Allan Peachey tried to convince us in his speech just a few minutes ago that some cost was involved in having police vetting done. He was unable to quantify that cost. I would certainly like someone from the National Government to get to his or her feet and quantify the cost we are trying to get away from. I ask to be told which cost is so big bad and ugly for our schools and our early childhood education providers that it would have this Government put our children into a potentially risky situation. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: Oh rubbish! 
SUE MORONEY 
: The Minister says: “Oh rubbish!” but we know that at least seven people were found to have criminal records that caused concern. Those seven people were found through police checks on non-teachers in our schools and our early childhood education centres. We must remember that when we are talking about early childhood education centres we are talking about probably some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Sometimes they are so young they cannot talk for themselves and tell us what has been happening to them. 
It is the job of the Government to ensure that children are safe. It is our job to have high standards in early childhood education and not—as this Government is wont to do—to keep reducing those standards and keep requiring less and less from the sector. We should have the very highest standards in place. That requires the Government to take a lead role. It requires a strong Government that is prepared to stand up for the rights of our children and not reduce them to the bumper sticker slogan of being compliance costs. I say to the Minister that they are not compliance costs; they are our children. They require the very highest of standards.