Henare Tau: Education Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Henare Tau: Education Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1347] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I thank the previous speaker for that absolutely riveting speech which no doubt was written by the Prime Minister’s office. 
First I congratulate the chairman of the Education and Science Committee on a good report. I agree with everything in it. I think our party agrees with most things in it. The problem we have is that when we read the report and hear what the Minister has just said we know a whole lot is going on that we are not privy to. That is really great. The Minister has just talked to the House about quality education in the early childhood sector but nowhere in that speech did he refer to the 20 free hours policy. That policy is a huge policy for teacher-led centres both in the private and the public sector. 
When did the Government come up with that policy? It was about 2004 in the Budget. The policy did not have any money any roll-out plan or any implementation plan. Oh no—the policy was just thought up the day before the Budget. The Government thought that it would give early childhood centres 20 free hours but it was just for the Government stoolies. Then all of a sudden just before the election Government members said to themselves that they had better roll it out for teacher-led private providers as well. However a year after the Government first thought of that policy there is still no implementation plan or roll-out plan and the Government still does not know how much that policy will actually cost. That is a huge mistake to make. 
How do we know that? We should look at the New Zealand Educational Institute agreement with the Kindergarten Teachers Association just last week. What did they get in that agreement? There is a 13-month agreement just to talk over the implementation plan for 20 free hours— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Say that again. Is that true? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: They got a 13-month agreement. Those guys went out on a national strike. Rick Barker knows what a national strike is. He has been on plenty. In fact he has been on one ever since he came to the House. Those guys got a 13-month agreement. There was no wage increase no better pay and conditions—as we might think the union would have battled for. What did they get? They got a 13-month agreement to sit down and talk about a programme the Government does not know how to roll out or what its cost will be. That is absolutely—well I am absolutely horrified! 
But here is the thing. Those 20 free hours are not available to kohangas and they are not available to playcentres because they are not so-called teacher-led. Why does the Government not take all this money it apparently has—the hundred million dollars that the 20 free hours a week policy will cost at the end of the day—and just give it to the centres and tell the centres to get on with the job of teaching our children? I know that bulk funding is not National policy but by crikey I am a real fan of bulk funding. I will tell members why. It keeps those members over there out of the business of teaching our children. I say we should leave the teaching of children to the experts not to the “spin machines” over there. 
What is disappointing tonight is the fact that the Minister of Education is not even in the House. He is not even in the House to talk to the bill. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It is called the Education Amendment Bill and he is not even here in the House. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Barker. I think I am aware of what your point of order is. No mention should be made of the absence or otherwise of any member. Is that it? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: That is it Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Henare. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I hear through the Minister that he and his side are going to introduce not just one Supplementary Order Paper not just two Supplementary Order Papers but a whole raft of Supplementary Order Papers. Now what does that suggest to the House? Well it suggests to me that they do not know what they are doing. You would have thought they would have got it right. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Yeah—I am saying: “You would have thought”— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No no. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise this issue with you and see whether we cannot do something about it. I am guided by you—am I allowed to say that? Yes I am. I am referring to the restriction on the use of the word “you”. I think it is archaic. I think it has to be removed and I seek some sort of ruling and guidance from you on that. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I cannot of course agree with you but I do not disagree. At the moment it is not allowed and the member may not use it. Most members occasionally use it but it is not allowed under Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders. So the member will desist please and continue his contribution. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it not amazing that the only people from the Labour Party—well let us put it this way. I know I am not allowed to do this but let us count the National Party members present: one two three four five six seven eight nine 10 11 12 13 14 15—15 members in the House at 5 to 10 at night— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Including the leader. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —including the leader of the National Party: the next Prime Minister of this country the man who does not go around the country spending $450000 on a pledge card. 
If Labour thought about all the stuff the Hon Jim Sutton talked about tonight in his speech it could actually put that on a pledge card. Labour could take the $100 million it has allocated—or not allocated—for the 20 free hours a week policy and give some money toward the pledge card so that maybe they could write down all those things they are going to do for instance like the regulatory regime. 
We have enough regulations in the industry right now. Why do we need more? This industry—at the moment I am concerned with just the early childhood sector—is over-regulated over-bureaucratised and over-sanitised. No one can do anything about it. My mother-in-law runs an early childhood centre. What she complains about most is not the kids or the teachers. 
Pita Paraone 
: The mokopunas. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No she does not complain about her mokopunas; she loves her mokopunas—especially my kids. What she complains about is the bureaucracy and having to fill out forms. Her job is having to fill out childcare subsidy forms. Why should it fall to her to do that? Why can the parents not do that? Or why can the parents not pick the subsidy up in a tax rebate? Those are the sorts of things this industry needs—and some clear basic regulations and standards. 
Those Government members always wanted to be early childhood teachers. They could not get there so they became members of Parliament. They could not do the training or the hard yards as those teachers inside our early childhood centres have done. 
Sue Moroney 
: They couldn’t teach that member. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh not that member—for the last 6 years I have worked in kohangas and Ms Moroney would not know what the inside of a kohanga looked like. She would not know what the inside of an early childhood centre looked like. It is not those members’ business but they want to tell early childhood centres how to run their businesses. It is not Government members’ business but they want to tell those teachers how to run their businesses—and that is the problem. 
Does the House know there is a regulation about the measurements of a toilet for goodness’ sake as to how far it is off the ground? For goodness’ sake children will go poo-poos wherever and whenever they so damn well wish! There is a regulation that states a teacher is not allowed to be left alone changing a child’s nappy just in case something might happen. For goodness’ sake the Napier earthquake happened but people got on with their blimin lives. They did not rely on the Government to get them out of the poo all the time. 
I commend this report because it is a good report. It looks at some of the regulations and proposes that we should tidy them up a bit. It could have gone further and I think it is imperative that we as a Parliament make sure we get rid of regulations that should not be there. That is why we are actually opposing it. It is a good report but it does not go far enough and it is time for us to go that extra step and cut the regulations. We should get rid of the regulations and then we will be on the right track and we will have our kids educated in the way they should be.