Upston Louise: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Upston Louise: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15629] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am always proud to speak on education legislation in this House particularly as part of this Government when the largest amount of money ever is being invested in education. Budget 2010 is investing $12 billion in education because this side of the House recognises that education is so vital for this country for lifting achievement and for growing our economy. We recognise that this legislation the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) covers a number of areas and I thought I would just cover them briefly and also bring in some practical examples of how these changes will be applied. 
The first one is the trades academies which as part of this bill will be able to function with the flexibility that they need to provide options for people in our high schools. I am sure many members in this House will have been at high school prize-givings in recent weeks. I know they are always a time of celebration when we see how fantastic our young people are and how well they are achieving in a range of topics and subjects such as sports drama and academics. This is something that provides further opportunities to make some of the policies we have been elected on come to fruition. We heard a number of speakers talk about the technical changes we made in the select committee particularly around the New Zealand Teachers Council. I will not spend any more time on that because I think it has been well covered in this second reading debate. 
In terms of the six broad areas as I said the introduction of secondary tertiary programmes gives greater opportunities for young people in secondary schools up and down New Zealand to spend time learning in a tertiary environment or in the workplace. This is allowing us to have some flexibility to provide learning opportunities for young people that will better suit their needs. I want to come back and speak in a bit more detail about the exemptions for the limited attendance centres from early childhood education licensing standards because I think we have heard a bit of dramatisation about what this part is about. It is changing refund provisions for international—[ 
Interruption 
] It is fascinating to hear the comments that are being thrown across the House. 
Let us talk about it now. As a mother with three children I have had my children placed in early childhood centres but this is quite different from that. We are talking about someone like me who perhaps goes to the gym for an hour to hop on the indoor bike and there is a glass panel over there—my children are not in preschool any more but they were not so long ago—that I can see through to my 4-year-old happy child. It is my decision to leave my child there. As a parent I really like having the opportunity to leave my child in an environment where I am not far away. It gives me the flexibility to undertake some exercise and we all know particularly with Diabetes Awareness Week this week how important it is for parents to be able to engage in exercise and for a gym to be able to offer that as a service. 
If I as a mother make a choice to do that it is my choice as a parent to do that. Therefore there is some responsibility on me to be comfortable with the environment that I am leaving my children in. I trust parents to be able to make a decision if they want to go to the gym for an hour to leave their child just over there where they can see them. It is the same with Sunday school. At Sunday School if I want my children to be looked after for a couple of hours while I am in church in the building next door then actually I am quite comfortable with the fact that the person who is with my child or children for perhaps an hour or less—a maximum of 2 hours—will not be teaching them how to read write and do maths. I am quite comfortable with the fact that they are going to be looked after which is very different from the rigour of the regulations that are required for a licensed early childhood centre. So this is about just bringing some common sense back to this sort of area. 
I think back to when the present Opposition made this change initially and I think back to some of the comments and the horror and disgust and annoyance from parents because of the overly bureaucratic nonsensical regulations that that Opposition when it was in Government wrapped around a centre like this one—limited attendance. I am pleased I was able to put the record straight on this because this is another measure that this Government is taking to get rid of stupid bureaucracy—absolutely stupid bureaucracy—and measures that assume that parents do not have the ability to make a decision for their children and for parents to be able to exercise perhaps for an hour in the gym while their children are just there. 
What else? The other thing I was really excited about in this bill relates to the member’s bill I put forward—I put it in the ballot—to change enrolment zones for schools. I was very excited when the changing of priorities was brought into this legislation because it allows for children of board members and former pupils to get some priority in the enrolment schemes. This is important and it is why I put it into the ballot in the first place because I recognise that schools have a strong sense of community. I think it is really important for the achievement of children to have some connection to the school they are with and those connections are often stronger and those bonds are deeper when they have a parent who has been there—obviously siblings are already one of the priorities—and also the pupils of board members. Board members have a strong connection to the school and it makes sense in terms of keeping that connection strong that their children should be given priority to enrol in that school. I am proud of that amendment which has been put into the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) as a result of a member’s bill that was on the ballot and adopted to be incorporated into this legislation. 
What else does the legislation do? We have talked about the limited-attendance centres. I could speak quite happily for 10 minutes on that subject alone because I think it is so important. I will come back to a comment that was made earlier in the House about cuts to early childhood education because I am sick to death of that comment when I think that—and this is where the maths lesson comes in—an extra $107 million has gone into early childhood education. 
Sue Moroney 
: It’s true. Go and visit the early childhood education centres in Taupo. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: That is a plus sign. How is the member’s maths? One hundred and seven million dollars extra has gone into early childhood education so that people in my electorate the Taupo electorate can access early childhood education. I believe that every child has the right to a place in an early childhood centre. I am really thrilled to be supporting this legislation because we are a Government that is committed to education.