Smith Nick: Education Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Education Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18082] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 It speaks volumes about the lack of commitment from this Government to education that in a mad rush before Christmas under urgency we are introducing major education legislation. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: National would never do this! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I highlight for the member who has just suddenly perked up—he did not want to contribute to the debate— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Remember benefit cuts? I remember those. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member may want to reflect on the fact that in visiting schools in my electorate this month I have gone from one school to another that has a huge deficit. Nelson College and my other major colleges have huge deficits at the same time as this Government sits on a surplus of $6.3 billion. That is the priority the Government gives to education. 
We hear from the Minister of Education Trevor Mallard and from members about early childhood education and about how much they supposedly care about it. We read on the front page of the  
Dominion Post  
today: “Rotting playcentre faces closure”. The Government has turned down the Kelburn Playcentre for a grant of $71000 because the Minister says he is not clear about what the issue is. Well one need only look at the picture in the paper of that disgusting facility in this very city and that situation exists because of this Government’s early childhood education policies. Is it not interesting that the Minister Trevor Mallard can find $755000—$75000 more than was asked for—for a kohanga reo in his own electorate but cannot find $71000 to fix this appalling early childhood education centre? That is a disgrace. That is the sort of policy we get from this Labour Government and that is one reason why New Zealanders will next year change the Government. 
Government Members 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: We hear from the arrogant members opposite. That arrogance is also one of the reasons there will be a change of Government. We hear so much from the likes of Chris Carter about how Labour is opposed to discrimination yet in this bill we see the Government’s early—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will withdraw that remark. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I apologise for calling the member a bigot. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will stand withdraw and apologise for that. The member knows he cannot repeat what he has been called to order for. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The problem with the Government is that when we attempt to hold it to account for its appalling early childhood education policies and what those policies mean for New Zealand the best we can get from the Minister is a phrase that I will not repeat—just some personal abuse. What a disgrace to this institution of Parliament! Again that is why there will be a change of Government next year. People have had a gutsful of that sort of arrogance. 
The Government is saying in respect of early childhood education that it is not the needs of children that matter—it is political ideology. It says through the provisions of this bill that it is the bricks and mortar of an early childhood education centre that matter not the quality of the care and not the needs of the children. We will see thousands of children in New Zealand discriminated against simply because their parents choose to use an independent early childhood education provider and that is a serious mistake. This bill further chips away at parents’ choices and rights. There is absolutely no respect in this Government for the fact that parents play an absolutely pivotal role in raising children and that they should be able to have a choice about where their children go for early childhood education. 
We also see in this bill further development of the mess in respect of the issues around the qualifications of people in charge of early childhood education centres. What the Government has done in that area is an absolute mess and as Treasury has rightly said it will see up to 400 early childhood education centres start 2005 in breach of the mad regulations that have been passed by this Government. The Government is so obsessed with regulation that it says of people who have served early childhood education well for 20 to 30 years: “No you’re not good enough. You can no longer be in charge of an early childhood centre.” The mistake it has made is although it is acceptable for the Government to say that a new qualification—a diploma—is required for someone to be in charge of an early childhood education centre it is wrong and it is insulting to say to a 50-year-old person generally a woman who has served in early childhood education centres has years of experience and is very good at the job: “Sorry for Labour you’re not good enough. We’re changing the rules. We’re going to dump you on the scrap heap.” 
Darren Hughes 
: What is National’s policy on that? Is it going to repeal that? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I tell the member that National’s policy is very simple. It is the same policy that we had when we were in Government a good policy that had support and it is that it is OK to have a diploma requirement for new people coming into the sector. That is what we have for doctors. That is what we have for accountants. That is what we have for engineers. Why when it comes to the early childhood education sector are we going to throw away very experienced people by having a new requirement in that regard? 
I want to raise concerns specifically about section 139C inserted by clause 29. I will read what it says because it is quite bizarre. Again it shows the way in which this Government will screw the scrum to suit its own. The section states: “Every person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $1000 who while on the premises of any registered school … and within the presence or hearing of any student of the school intentionally insults abuses or intimidates any teacher or member of staff of the school.” Members may ask what is wrong with that. Well I first want to ask what is different about a school. All sorts of personal relationships and tensions arise but why is this provision only in respect of a teaching staff member? It is true that there are parents who have abused and insulted teachers. It is also true that teachers have abused and insulted parents. But why does the law cover the relationship going only one way? Why do we have that special protection for the teacher but not for the principal? There will be many who see it simply as a provision—as so correctly pointed out by Bill English—that many principals who are trying to get a better performance out of their teachers will have used against them as they try to raise the standards in our schools. 
My real question is why we have to have this special provision regarding insults abuse and intimidation in schools alone. Why does it not apply to hospitals or to Parliament? Why do we not have it in all other areas? Why are we creating a specific law for teachers only when there is nothing for parents and when it is all about changing the power balance? This Government is determined to undermine the leadership role that principals play in our schools to undermine the role parents have in choosing which school to send their children to and to undermine the right of parents to choose where they send their children for early childhood education. This section 139C which is intended to make a criminal of a parent simply for questioning a teacher about his or her child is over the top. Even if our criminal law currently is not satisfactory there is no reason for creating a special law that applies just within schools and that provides for the protection of teachers alone. It suggests that it is only principals or parents who ever insult abuse or intimidate people. I say that it is just another dose of political correctness from this Government. 
Again I stress that it is a disgrace that Parliament under urgency is debating such important legislation in a mad rush.