Education Amendment Bill (No 2) Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Education Amendment Bill (No 2) Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16337. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Education Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill 
Third Readings 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. 
The Education Amendment Bill (No 2) amends the Education Act 1989. The changes in this bill will enable the establishment of secondary-tertiary programmes reduce the compliance burden on limited-attendance centres protect the sustainability of New Zealand’s export education sector improve the law affecting private schools make minor changes to school enrolment scheme priorities and make changes to help the Teachers Council safeguard children and maintain teacher quality. 
The first significant amendment will introduce secondary-tertiary programmes enabling the establishment of this Government’s ground-breaking trades academies from the beginning of next year. Trades academies will provide students with clear pathways giving them a head start on training for industry-related qualifications and smoother access to employment. Trades academies will motivate more students to stay engaged in learning and training by providing them with a greater number of options for study. 
Secondary-tertiary programmes are particularly important because they allow students to remain enrolled in school while also studying towards a full qualification with a tertiary provider. The framework introduced by this bill makes sure that secondary-tertiary programmes will be high-quality and that accountability for the delivery of these programmes is clear. 
The second significant amendment in the bill will reduce the compliance burden for limited-attendance centres by exempting them from the licensing standards for early childhood education. Although they will no longer be subject to early childhood education regulatory requirements for education plans qualified teachers and space and ratio specifications they will now be subject to requirements by the operators of the facility and to legislative requirements to ensure the safety and welfare of the children. But parents also have a responsibility to make sure that their children are in a safe place. 
Thirdly the bill will enable the relevant Minister to set through a notice in the  
New Zealand Gazette 
 refund provisions for international students enrolled at private training establishments for courses of 3 months or more. These changes will minimise the undesirable consequences associated with international students changing provider shortly after they arrive in New Zealand. The bill will reduce the financial incentive for students to change provider in this way. 
The bill updates and clarifies the law affecting private schools in response to the Law Commission report  
Private Schools and the Law 
. It also amends the enrolment scheme priorities for out-of-zone students by giving some priority to children of board members and children of former pupils recognising the heritage of many of our schools and the strong family links formed in many communities. 
The legislation also makes some changes to the legislation affecting the Teachers Council. I am grateful to the Education and Science Committee for including these changes to the legislation and to the House for agreeing to a further amendment to ensure that suspended teachers need not be automatically dismissed. 
An anomaly in current law means that the Teachers Council can take a range of actions as a result of a complaint about conduct or competence but not as a result of a mandatory report. The bill corrects that anomaly and allows that these actions include but not be limited to the annotation of the teachers register. This change will ensure that teachers who may be a danger to student welfare or who are otherwise unsuitable can quickly be removed from the classroom while their case is investigated. The current law technically requires boards of trustees to dismiss a teacher who is the subject of an interim suspension and in many cases this may be unfair. This requirement too has been clarified so that an employer of a teacher is not forced to dismiss a teacher who has been suspended while their case is investigated. 
Finally the bill clarifies that the principal adviser to the Government on tertiary education policy is the Ministry of Education. The bill also clarifies the role of the Tertiary Education Commission requiring it to advise the Minister on the implementation of policy relating to tertiary education. These changes will introduce greater clarity in the functions of the Ministry of Education and the Tertiary Education Commission. I commend this legislation to the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Labour will be opposing this legislation. I say that more in sadness than in anger because it actually contains quite a few provisions that Labour supports. It includes policy that Labour supports but thinks is unnecessary to put into legislation. There is a combination of quite a lot of good stuff in this legislation including the amendments that were made late in respect of the Teachers Council which involved a degree of cooperation. I think it is fair to say there was searching questioning from the Greens at the Education and Science Committee. Those of use who are slightly more familiar with the problems that teachers can cause in schools and sometimes the urgency of getting it sorted were maybe less concerned about process and more concerned about the immediacy of kids. There is always a fine balance and I think it is fair to say we were on one side of a boundary and the Greens were on another. It is not a big division. While I am speaking about the select committee and what happened there I thank again Allan Peachey who chairs the committee. 
Chris Hipkins 
: He should’ve been the Minister. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is fair to say that he does a good job of sorting out what is contentious and what is not getting rid of the non-contentious stuff identifying any room to move where things are contentious and if there is not making it clear. Members accept that. The process generally works well. I have never heard people who have come to that committee say that they have not had a fair hearing. That is not something we could say about all select committees. It does not mean that people always agree with the results but that is politics and that is life. In current circumstances I wish Allan Peachey well. 
There are some things that Labour disagrees with in this legislation. In the earlier stage Chris Tremain referred to the inherited rights to attend a State school. It is just a straight question of what one believes in. Labour does not believe that people should inherit their rights to attend a State school. We think that the priority should go to people who live closer to those schools and the idea that some people must go further away in order to give up their places to others who have rights based on who sired them or who their mother was is wrong. 
There is an acceptance that the limited-attendance centres legislation that Labour introduced fairly late when it was in Government went a step too far because it treated those early childhood education centres areas as being for very short-term care with no pretence of education. The changes that have occurred now come closer to getting a balance. I want to place on record at the third reading that Labour campaigned to ensure that police checks are maintained for people who supervise young children at limited-attendance centres and those checks have been maintained. We will support at the third reading the changes to the Health and Safety in Employment Act but we will be opposing the changes to the Education Act. 
There are some other matters and I want to focus on the Law Commission’s report  
Private Schools and the Law 
. Through the debate this issue probably has not had the focus that it should have and I think many people work on an assumption that all schools publish their disciplinary procedures and that all schools including private schools follow due process in implementing those disciplinary procedures. But unfortunately that is not the case. There have been a number of examples recently. I know quite well a couple of examples where schools have not followed the process. I can accept the fact that I was ignorant in the area. I was the Minister of Education for 6 years and I sat on the select committee for a couple of years but I was not aware that we had a vacuum in the law on the rules until the Law Commission reported on it. I accept that the current Minister of Education picked up a couple of the recommendations but I do not think she provided a good explanation for not picking up the rest of them. When a Law Commission report recommends draft changes it has to be a question of whether we will implement the changes and if not why not. The Law Commission conducts very thorough research and the assumption is that its recommendations will be implemented. That is not always the case and clearly the Government can take a different point of view but the Minister has not provided us with any reasons why the recommendations are not to be implemented. 
The next point I make—and I will put myself in some relatively dubious company here—is that I support Cameron Slater in the comments he has made— 
Grant Robertson 
: They don’t even support Cameron Slater. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No Cameron Slater hardly supports National any more but I will support the comments he made on the way that teachers’ names are suppressed when there is no good reason for that to happen. The Teachers Council rules are currently drafted—and I am not blaming the Teachers Council—so that there is a $1000 fine. It could draft all the rules it likes but if the maximum penalty for a breach is $1000 then media organisations will breach. The point that Cameron Slater makes is absolutely correct—that is there are a lot of teachers whose names are blackened as a result of the activities of a very few. Having a presumption of openness for the hearings and the ability to suppress the names of the victims currently does not exist. The cases are either opened or closed and there is no suppression ability. If we could have that sort of arrangement—it probably would not satisfy Cameron Slater who might want to have all of the details—it would go a long way as far as most reasonable media is concerned in order to not have names blackened in those particular cases. 
Seeing that the Minister of Justice is in the House and he is bringing in legislation I presume to deal with the courts he might like to note that I have a question relating to those organisations that have rules so out of date and much poorer than those of for example the medical legal and accounting professions. I ask whether as he changes the rules for the court he can consider mirror legislation and create a package where all of those professions are considered together rather than separately. I think it is fair to say that the principles are very similar. In fact the principles that he has outlined are so good that I picked them up and incorporated them into a Supplementary Order Paper that the Committee decided not to pick up. 
Hon Simon Power 
: It’s part of the Criminal Procedure Bill so it’s actually tacked on to another piece of legislation. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I am sure that the Business Committee would be quite supportive if the member wanted to consider an omnibus bill. I am not sure whether the Clerk of the House would be entirely supportive but I am sure that the Business Committee would be supportive of an omnibus bill in order to get all of those related matters out together. I think having consistency through that legislation would be a good idea. It might be the last refuge of fools but having different rules especially when we are doing a total rewrite in both areas does not seem to me to be logical. It might actually help the ministry to get on with its basic redraft of legislation as well. 
I thank the House for moving to accept the maintenance of protection of little children who are in care. We will all be voting for that part at the third reading because it is a separate vote but we will not be supporting the bill because there is too much that is wrong in it. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a brief call in the third reading of the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). I will focus on one particular area and it is a point that was well made by the other side of the House. Quite often we have too much regulation around education. I direct that comment particularly to new clauses 31A through to 31L. My experience in respect of the secondary-tertiary programmes is that there is a considerable push-back within the curriculum and academia largely to do with the people who want to spawn grow and develop programmes that will aid people who are hands-on learners. I disagreed with Trevor Mallard when he said that these things can happen already. The truth of the matter is that there needs to be direction from the Government to make sure that the seeds of these initiatives are allowed to develop and grow. 
On that basis it gives me great pleasure to support the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) so that we can see a lot more growth and diversity and innovation and it is not stymied by the difficulties of fitting within periods and structures of the academic curriculum of today. I certainly support this bill’s passage through the House. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
:  
Mr Deputy Speaker 
tuatahimaku me whaiwahiahau ki te mihi atu ki tera o ngatuahine a te Honore Hekia Parata kuatohua hei Minita o te Karaunaiterawikikuapahureakenei i te wahanga o te tautohetohe. Kuawarewareahau ki te mihi atu ki a koe Hekia. Na reira tenara koe moteneihonoretanga hei rungai o pokowhiwhi me ki hei rungai a tatou te iwi Maori. Na reira tena koe tena koe tena koe. 
[ 
The first thing for me to do Mr Deputy Speaker is to set aside a moment in the debate so that I can acknowledge that sister politician of ours the Hon Hekia Parata who was appointed a Crown Minister just last week. I forgot to do that Hekia. Congratulations on this honour placed upon your shoulders—let us say upon us the Maori people. Well done congratulations and good on you 
.]  
Labour will not support the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) aside from the part Trevor Mallard has just mentioned that protects children in day-care centres. I am glad about that because I believe that the bill will do very little to raise achievement whereas I believe that all education legislation and education policy should be targeted at raising achievement. 
I think we spend too much time focusing on peripheral issues such as whether children should have hereditary rights to attend the schools their parents went to. I think that is a total waste of our time. Perhaps when we have covered all the other main issues in education which would take a number of decades I believe then we might finally get to that issue which might be at the top of the priority list but right now it is in my opinion way down at the bottom of the list. We should be focusing on the core issues that will raise achievement. 
I have already spoken a couple of times in the House about making sure that teachers are given the conditions in which they can weave their magic. It is up to us in this House to create those conditions as politicians and as policy makers. We need to make sure teachers understand that they have to account for the effect size on the strategies they use. They need to know and prove that what they are doing in classrooms in tertiary institutions or in early childhood centres is making a difference. They need to question their practice and they need to have those skills. That is what we need to be legislating for and it is what we need to have policy on—making sure teachers can question the efficacy or otherwise of their practice challenge their assumptions and go on to make changes where necessary. 
We should aim for 100 percent of our students right across New Zealand to leave school at the end of year 13 with a National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 3 or university entrance on top of that. I do not think we do enough to engage kids in school. That is something else that teachers need to be able to do—engage students at school right through until the end of year 13. Research states that the success of students in their adult lives is not so dependent on how high their qualifications are but rather on the length of time they spend at school. So in other words if a student stays at school right until the end of year 13 and achieves only NCEA level 1 they have more chance of being successful as an adult then if they got NCEA level 1 in year 11 and then dropped out. So we need to encourage students and create the conditions where students will stay at school right through to the end of year 13. 
We need to work with parents as well. It is about engaging parents in the education of their children so that they set in their children’s minds at the very earliest age and consistently apply the expectation that their kids will stay in school until the end of year 13. A student would be better off eating their lunch for 13 years at school than dropping out in year 9 year 10 or year 11—but I do not want people to think that is what I am encouraging students to do. 
We really really need to support our teachers with professional development. This morning I was up just north of Wellsford at the opening of a marae and I heard a story from Bishop KitoPikaahu. I thought it was the perfect metaphor to describe the place of professional development. He told us a story about two men who were given an axe each and told to go and clear a hill of scrub. One guy had to clear the left-hand side of the hill and the other guy had to clear the right-hand side of the hill. The guy who was clearing the left-hand side of the hill was known to be a hard worker who could work from dawn to dusk without stopping. The other guy was not quite so athletic and he decided that every hour he would take a 10-minute break. At the end of the day when they came back down the guy who worked his guts out without stopping had cleared three-quarters of the hill. The guy who took a 10-minute break every hour had cleared the whole side of the hill. The guy who worked his guts out could not understand why that had happened so he asked the other guy: “Why is it that you were able to clear the whole side of the hill?”. The other guy said: “Well every time I sat down for a 10-minute break I sharpened my axe.” 
That is a metaphor for always making sure that teachers have regular time to sharpen their tools and to hone their skills. There is no point for them to just go on working and slogging their guts out for 10 15 or 20 years without having regular professional development where they can sharpen their axe their tools. I think we need to create the conditions where teachers are able to do that. We need to support teachers; we do not need to keep hammering away driving them like slaves. 
I already said in the Committee stage that this bill looks at secondary-tertiary programmes and I think those programmes do have merit. I know there is no evidence to say that they will definitely make a difference to a student’s education but I think there is a perfect opportunity for researchers to follow them for the next 5 or 10 years in order to determine whether they actually make a difference. I really hope they do work because they change the context in which students are learning. 
The programmes give an element of choice to students who are not comfortable or not succeeding in the traditional school setting. Those students have the opportunity to go off and to work in a tertiary setting. The programmes are mainly apprenticeships which is great. We need to encourage students to follow different avenues. But I do have a concern that those students who have the brains particularly if they are difficult students to teach may be encouraged to head off down a trade-type line instead of being encouraged to stay in school. Regardless of those side issues I think it is an opportunity worth exploring and one I think we should take further in terms of changing the context in which students can learn. 
We should set up specialist schools or perhaps a pilot in an inner-city area where parents have the choice not to send their children to just a regular school where they do maths science social studies and English but instead to say an arts school. The children still learn to read and write but they would do that around the theme of art. They could learn about art history they could practise different types of art they could learn dance they could learn drama or they could learn to sculpt. The students could do whatever. The school would be based around a particular context and a particular theme so that the children hopefully are engaged in their learning. For example if we wanted to teach a child in a regular school how to play the violin we would have to hope that someone who could play the violin got a job there as a music teacher whereas if we had an arts school where music was part of the curriculum the school could apply especially for a violin teacher and we expect that teacher who could play the violin would have an intense passion and flair for what he or she was teaching and a love of that subject. We would hope that having that teacher would get better results because he or she could bring that passion into the job. 
Again I say I am glad. We will vote against this legislation other than Part 1A which protects kids in day-care centres in malls. I think that is a sensible thing to do. It was a dangerous oversight I believe to omit that provision in the original bill and I am glad that that provision has been returned. Kia ora. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on this legislation. I acknowledge the work that my colleague Catherine Delahunty has done in terms of the Education and Science Committee and of generally maintaining awareness of the way this legislation has been going. 
It is undoubted that the education sector is in need of change and possibly some legislative reform is required to facilitate changes in that sector but we do not see that the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) in total delivers much of value or engages with the very serious real and substantive issues of the day that affect the sector and the people in it. There is a considerable atmosphere of distrust in the entire education sector at this time. To us this legislation seems to be just tidying-up or messing around at the edges rather than going to the heart of and addressing some of the more substantive and indeed more urgent issues. It is never a bad thing to tidy up some of the small shortcomings of legislation or of practice but it seems to be an opportunity lost and time not well spent to be dealing with the lesser issues and leaving the larger ones untouched. 
It is clear that the education sector as a whole the ministry and—dare I say it—the Minister of Education seem to be almost in a state of war. Something of a battle is raging out there particularly over the issue of educational assessment. The Principals Federation the teachers unions several hundred boards of trustees and the Porirua City Council have had opinions and many parents groups are clearly concerned about the absence of any trialling of the national standards that are being imposed. 
A perceived threat is hanging over the early childhood education sector as it is forced to cut quality. That sector is being put in the unenviable position of either raising charges or cutting the quality of the service it delivers and it simply ought not to be put in that situation. 
The tertiary education sector is in some disarray as enrolments for study are capped. In the meantime instead of dealing with very substantive issues we are focusing on the rules about people leaving their children somewhere while they go to the gym and shopping in malls. 
Some reasonable objectives are contained in this bill connected to refunds for international students. There is some useful spelling out of the relationship between schools and tertiary providers in terms of trades training. There are changes regarding teacher registration. We have challenged those changes in terms of the process undertaken to achieve them but we see some value and benefit in the content of those changes. 
We are voting against this legislation despite the fact that there is some good content. Some valuable changes are accommodated in it but overall the bad changes in this legislation certainly outweigh the good. The parts of this legislation that we cannot support are clearly ideologically consistent with the Government’s overall philosophy about the myth of choice and the belief in protecting the privileged. 
The clauses relating to limited-attendance centres were bizarre. They were very strange in that they reduced the protection for children in order to facilitate some undefined convenience for parents. We are not disputing that those creches are limited to childcare rather than education; we agree that they do not need the same level of educational scrutiny audit or regulation. But it is an absolutely critical responsibility to ensure the safety and the protection of children and we are pleased that that matter has been attended to. We acknowledge the determined campaign that has been led by Mr Mallard in order to effect that change. We will be very happy to support that amendment which has become a part of the new legislation. 
The Green Party remains fundamentally opposed to the idea of the proposed changes and the priority settings for enrolments of out-of-zone students. These changes do not accurately reflect an egalitarian approach to education nor do they sufficiently acknowledge our mobile and diverse population. They clearly offer privilege to those with parents who once attended a school or to the children of members of boards of trustees which creates a sense of entitlement among certain groups for no really robust or sound reason. Public schools need to maintain the integrity of the open access and the lack of special privilege that our education system was built upon and we think that philosophy is certainly worth maintaining. If parents are determined to maintain some sort of dynasty or some continuation they have the option of going private or they can simply stay in the zone. 
We see the clauses relating to private schools as an opportunity lost. The Law Commission review of private schools provided some useful recommendations—some relatively light-handed recommendations—some of which have been included but too many of them have been ignored. The human rights of all children need to be protected in law and we agree with at least one submitter that that has not been achieved in this legislation. 
As has been noted we are on record speaking against the late amendments brought to the select committee relating to the powers of the Teachers Council. We listened to the teachers unions which were summoned at the last minute to comment on changes to the suspension rules. The New Zealand Educational Institute said that as representatives of a large professional body it did not support the changes to the working conditions and rules governing its profession without appropriate and adequate consultation with its membership. We think that is a reasonable stance for it to take. There was no substantive argument in favour of this change being rushed through. It may indeed be a good idea but it is important that a robust process be put in place; without such a process we cannot agree to this part. 
We believe that the sector and the Government need to work together to deal with some of the substantive problems that are obvious and that have been mentioned but the current climate is such that there is not the degree of engagement or trust needed to enable or facilitate that open and necessary conversation. We will continue to be available and will continue to work with and within the sector to advance the debate that we ought to be having in this House today instead of the rather lightweight and disappointing discussion that is occurring. We will continue to oppose this legislation. Kia ora. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am always proud to stand in this House to support education reform and legislation. I spoke earlier today about two of the priorities of this Government and this legislation adds the third priority to the list. This area is a strong reason that the Prime Minister is so widely supported up and down the country. This legislation maximises participation and keeps students engaged in education across all levels. 
I was quite shocked to hear the analogy that one of the Labour members raised which was probably a plagiarism from Stephen Covey. Most of those of us in business would understand the concept of sharpening the saw. Businesses up and down this country would love to have the luxury of 14 weeks a year in which to sharpen the saw which is what our teachers get. I know that many businesses would dearly love to have that opportunity but unfortunately they do not have it. 
The specific point that I will make about this particular legislation which I am immensely proud of is the changes to enrolment schemes. I had a member’s bill in the ballot on this point and that is now part of the legislation that we are passing today. I remind the House that the focus of members on this side of the House is on students being engaged in their learning. One of the strong aspects of having students engaged in their learning is their connection to the school and their parents being connected as well. If we talk to parents at the moment who are getting wonderful reports at home from their school we find that it is a fantastic opportunity for them to engage with their children their schools and their learning. That is why I am enormously proud to support this legislation. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 It is extraordinary that that member Louise Upston cannot pass up the opportunity to put the boot into teachers. There is such an enormously long queue of people waiting to become teachers just to enjoy their 14 weeks’ holiday! I am sure that the teachers who are listening to the debate will be saying: “Oh goodness me! Not again. This National Government does not understand what we do and the importance of our role.” 
One really interesting point in the OECD report that came out in the last few days is that it put New Zealand very high on the educational ladder but behind Finland. The Finnish society values its teachers much much more than we do here in New Zealand. They are paid more they have better conditions there is a queue of people waiting to become teachers and schools choose from many more people who apply than are actually selected to be teachers. As a result needless to say no surprise Finland has a better-performing education system than we do. We could take a leaf out of Finland’s books in order to improve our education system. I think the member Louise Upston has got it dead wrong. 
As has been said Labour is not supporting this legislation but it does do a number of things in terms of tidying thing up. I have mentioned in an earlier speech that there are the good the bad and what I would describe as the ugly parts of this legislation. I think the ugly parts have been removed but there are some parts of the legislation that are not so good. 
As I said in the Committee stage I believe that the secondary-tertiary partnership option that has been selected is a good one. I think it provides more opportunities—particularly as it has been trialled in South Auckland—for Pasifika and Maori kids to go on to tertiary education. Many of those kids may not have performed so well in a secondary environment and this provision might provide a more amenable environment for them to be able to take on trades particularly in the industry and manufacturing sectors. 
The legislation also makes some changes to international students and their obligations towards institutions here in New Zealand. By notice the  
Gazette 
 sets the period during which international students on courses of 3 months’ duration or longer can withdraw from their course and receive a refund on their course fees. Basically that means that private training establishments will be able to retain more money and to recoup more money that has been sunk into recruiting an international student if the student pulls out of the course much earlier than he or she would have. It means that the students will face higher financial costs if they want to pull out of the course. That amount has not been reviewed since the early 1990s and I think it is overdue for change. It will mean that there will be a lot less of the waka-jumping that we have seen up until now and it will possibly also have the effect of deterring students from coming to New Zealand on the pretence of joining an educational institution and then leaving their course shortly after they arrive here and staying on in New Zealand. This is a tidying-up part of the legislation but I think it is a useful and good part of it. 
I turn to the aspect of private schools that both Mr Mallard and David Clendon have spoken about. I think it was 90 years ago that this legislation was last looked at. The Law Commission has made a number of recommendations and most of them are very sensible. Some of the recommendations have been taken up and others have not— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No good reasons given as to why not. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: I think the point I say to Mr Mallard is that many of the Law Commission’s recommendations were pretty sensible. I do think that the commission could have tightened up a lot of the regulations around private schools but that will not happen. Our disappointment on this side of the House is that there could have been a more rigorous examination of some of those recommendations and a fuller uptake of them in this legislation. 
I will also mention Labour’s position in terms of the enrolment scheme priorities. Again David Clendon and my colleague Trevor Mallard talked about this. I think what we will end up doing with this type of legislation if we are not careful is rewarding continuing privilege. I would like to think that all children have an equal opportunity to go to a school in their area rather than if their father or mother is on a board or their parents attended the school some time previously. I would like to think that we have a system whereby children are able to attend a school on the basis of merit and geography rather than on privilege. That is something that I believe pretty much all New Zealanders other than the ones who have attended schools of privilege would agree with as well. 
I spoke on the issue of limited-attendance centres in the second reading of the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). I thought this was an anomaly—and more than an anomaly. It could have ended up being something that we as members of Parliament would want very much to distance ourselves from. There was a lot of empty reasoning for why we could not put police checks into limited-attendance centres. I could not for the life of me understand that reasoning other than that it was bureaucratic and there was always some way around it. We have found a way around it. We will now have police checks for those people who are involved with creches gymnasiums and shopping centres etc. It means that the parents who bring their children into a shopping centre and decide to leave them in a creche for a couple of hours can have some confidence that the person working in the creche is not a paedophile. That was the real issue we were facing before this amendment was agreed to. It shocked me that we could not come to an agreement on that point because it was so obviously in the interests of both children and their parents that that should be the case. 
I do not think the provision gives 100 percent protection for kids—we are always going to have exceptions—but it goes some way along the road. I remember that in some of the submissions that we looked at there were recommendations for example that children should be able to be seen in creches that they are open and that if the person in charge of those children has to go to the bathroom for example there is some means by which they would be supervised. Also basic first-aid treatment should perhaps be available. I thought that was a pretty obvious feature that should be an obligation. We will not be arguing for that. We recognise that this is a lighter hand of regulation but I think the most important point is that making sure that the police checks are now mandatory is a real step forward. 
A number of speakers tonight have spoken on the fact that they believe that a lot of this legislation is unnecessary. If Paul Quinn wakes up he will recognise— 
Hon Simon Power 
: What is the member doing to assist him to wake up? 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Well I would like the camera to focus on Paul Quinn and his enthusiastic participation in this debate. I have to say that in some ways I am starting to miss Mr Quinn. I am starting to miss his random interjections those volcanic eruptions that happen from time to time—thoughtless and meaningless but nevertheless loud. I have not heard them for some time. A number of members who have contributed tonight have talked about the fact that this legislation is not addressing the real issues. I acknowledge RichiePoulton from Otago University in Dunedin who is head of the longitudinal study. He picked up the Frank Josef prize of 1 million Swiss francs in Zurich last week. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Mr Quinn can multitask. He does show he has a softer side. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I thought I would have a go at waking up Paul Quinn as well. I can tell members that after this debate I will get the video clip of Louise Upston saying she thought that teachers had 14 weeks of holiday a year and I will send that to every teacher in the country because I think when they see National’s view that teachers have 14 weeks of holiday every year they will all come flooding to the Labour Party in droves. Teachers will be so outraged at that. I know that Louise Upston may think teachers have 14 weeks’ holiday but she does not seem to allow for the fact that in order to be in a classroom and teach students they actually have to have time to prepare the lessons they will deliver and to mark the assignments of the students. It is not holidays that the teachers have for 14 weeks. Perhaps if that member visited one or two of the schools in her electorate she might have a bit of a—Anne Tolley seems to be shaking her head. She seems to think that teachers have 14 weeks of holiday as well. I think that probably just confirms what most teachers in the country think about the Minister of Education already. 
I am happy to take a call on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) and I particularly acknowledge the work my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard has done in regard to the drop-off early childhood education services and limited-attendance centres—I think that is the term the Government uses for them. I think the amendment that has been put forward in the name of Trevor Mallard and passed with the Government’s support is a particularly important one. I think it is vitally important that when parents leave their children with an early childhood service if people in that service have access to those children without any other form of supervision there should be adequate safety measures in place to ensure those children will be safe regardless of where it is and the duration of the stay. I think the amendment put forward by Trevor Mallard will help to ensure that that happens. 
I also think it is good that the Government has finally come to the party on that amendment after spending weeks and weeks denying that there was even a problem with what it was trying to do as we have seen at question time over and over again. It is very good that my colleague Trevor Mallard supported by the other members of Labour’s education team has not let this issue go and has continued to push it. We have dragged the Government kicking and screaming to what will be a sensible outcome in that regard. However there are many other things in the bill that will result in Labour finally opposing it. 
Before I move on and stop talking about early childhood education I will pick up on some of the comments that have characterised the debate in relation to limited-attendance centres. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Two minutes! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: The more the Minister interjects the longer I will speak. 
Hon Simon Power 
: No he won’t. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is an invitation; I ask him please not to hold back. Some of the debate about limited-attendance centres has characterised the uglier side of the debate in relation to early childhood education in general. It really gets my back up every time I hear Government members referring to early childhood education as babysitting. We hear that far too much. We have heard that description in this debate about limited-attendance centres. [ 
Interruption 
] I can go back and find quotes from Government members of Parliament talking about limited-attendance centres as being no more than babysitting facilities—no more than babysitting facilities! I tell members that the teachers who work in early childhood education get really annoyed when they hear the Government talking about early childhood education as being nothing more than babysitting. The Government does not understand the difference between early childhood education and babysitting and this misunderstanding has often characterised this debate. A number of MPs on that side of the Chamber do not understand the difference between what a child in a limited-attendance centre will be doing and what a child in an early childhood centre will be doing. They actually do not understand the difference. 
I had a National Party candidate show up in my electorate in the last election and stand up in front of a whole lot of early childhood teachers and kindergarten teachers talking about babysitting. I do not think the National Party got a single vote out of that room—the member was practically booed out. There are members on that side of the Chamber—too many of them—who do not know the difference. They do not understand what quality early childhood education is all about. I suggest that they might want to take a little bit of time to learn the difference and to gain some understanding of that. If they did then perhaps they would not be making the other changes in early childhood education such as cutting funding for centres to have fully qualified staff. The kindergarten association in my own electorate has lost half a million dollars in funding because the Government does not understand the importance of quality early childhood education with fully qualified and fully trained teachers which is what kindergartens have a proud tradition of having. But that has been compromised by this Government’s changes to the funding system for early childhood education and it is absolutely disgraceful. 
Anne Tolley is shaking her head and no doubt she will be saying: “Oh the centres can just increase their charges.” 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: I’ve never said that! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Rubbish—absolute rubbish! Rimutaka Kindergarten Association will lose half a million dollars in funding next year; where will it get that from? Where will it get the half a million dollars in funding it is going to lose? 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: How much do they get? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: The Minister of Education cannot give an answer about where the Rimutaka Kindergarten Association will get the half million dollars in funding it has lost because of her Government’s budget cut. The Government does not understand the importance of qualified staff in early childhood education. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: Yes we do! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Why have they cut the funding for it then? It is trimming everything the Minister said. That is right. The Government knows the dollar cost of everything and the value of nothing particularly when it comes to early childhood education. 
I will move on to some of the other provisions in the bill before I run out of time. I want to talk particularly about the inherited privilege provisions in the bill that deal with the enrolment schemes for schools. The provisions basically give kids whose parents or siblings have gone to a school the right to enter that school even if they live outside the zone. The provisions give them preference. How is that fair? It is inherited privilege—nothing short of it. If the Government wants to have that debate in an election year and go and tell people in my electorate why they cannot send their kids to the school they live closest to—because it thinks people with an inherited privilege should have a higher priority—then I will happily stand on the campaign hustings and say that I think National is totally wrong in that. I will tell them that for the people who live the closest to their local school their kids should have the priority of access to that school and they should not be pushed out because of inherited privilege. That is good old-fashioned Tory inherited privilege which is what the provisions in this bill will protect and deliver more of. I think that stinks. I definitely will not be supporting that and I will happily have that argument with National on the campaign hustings at every available opportunity. 
Finally I will talk about the pathways between school employment and further education which are covered by this legislation. The workforce has changed and the range of available training opportunities for young people has changed significantly over the last couple of decades. In the Schools Plus initiative that the previous Labour Government was putting forward before the last election we recognised the need to continue to build on programmes like Gateway the Secondary Tertiary Alignment Resource and Young Apprenticeships which were all programmes introduced by the last Labour Government. We recognised the need to continue to build on those in order to ensure that every kid under the age of 18 was in some form of education or training and leading towards a more qualified workforce. We also recognised the need to invest in upskilling the current workforce. We have to recognise that most people who will be in the workforce in 20 years’ time are already in the workforce and we need to invest in upskilling those people as well. 
Hon Simon Power 
: What? Most of the people? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Yes. That member should go and do the demographic analysis. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Most of the people in the workforce now will be in there in 20 years? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Yes that is dead right; that is exactly what I said. I tell that member to go and do the analysis now. Most of the people who will be in the workforce in 20 years’ time are already in the workforce today. So we have to think about how we will provide them with upskilling opportunities. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Will the member be old enough to get a real job then? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Oh! I do not know what that comment says about Mr Mallard. If I do not have a real job I am not entirely sure what that says about him seeing that he has been here since he was about—well for the last couple of decades. He has been here since they were publishing  
Hansard  
on stone tablets. That is how long Trevor Mallard has been in the House. So I am not entirely sure that to say that members of Parliament do not have real jobs reflects particularly well on him. 
Grant Robertson 
: This is not helping Trevor! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Well he opened himself up to that. 
Overall Labour will not be supporting this bill because there is too much in it we oppose so we will be voting against it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 40 
New Zealand Labour 35; Green Party 5. 
Bill read a third time. 
Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill read a third time. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I call on Government order of the day No. 12 which is the Committee stage of the New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill. Members as I require a temporary Speaker I have asked Chris Hipkins—[ 
Interruption 
] He is to babysit for me while I move into the Chair for the Committee stage. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to know whether it is appropriate for Minister Hide to have taken his position in the chair before you have put the House into Committee. 
The TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Chris Hipkins) 
: I can resolve that issue. I declare the House in Committee for consideration of the New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill.