O'Connor Damien: Education Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
O'Connor Damien: Education Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9660] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to speak for a short time on the Education Amendment Bill. I was not on the Education and Science Committee but I acknowledge the wisdom of that select committee. Reading through the notes I see that clearly some changes were made that improved the bill and I acknowledge the efforts of all members present at the select committee. 
Labour supports the bill. It is effectively an evolution of Labour’s Education Amendment Bill (No 3) but with some omissions; I will speak to those omissions shortly. I am sure it is a huge blow for some members on the other side of the House. Mr Joyce in particular would have been hugely disappointed that the wisdom of the select committee removed the ability for corporates to step in when there are problems with a school. I guess it endorsed what is current Government policy around individual responsibility. The select committee in its collective wisdom decided that should there be problems at a school an individual should be responsible rather than some corporate stepping in and taking over. Of course I know that his long-term agenda and that of the National Government is to corporatise schools and all their property. Thankfully the select committee stepped in. 
Labour supports the bill for another good sound reason. I have just been reading an article called “Animal welfare: whose responsibility is it?”. I then ask about children’s welfare—whose responsibility is it? It is the Government’s. It is our collective responsibility. Whether it is animal welfare law and order or biosecurity we should always support legislation in this House that provides good guidance. In recent times we have seen—I am ensuring that I reference back to the bill as I always will—that penalties have been increased across the board with the belief that it will improve behaviour. If the Government had taken a consistent approach with this legislation it would have doubled the penalties for anyone who inappropriately interfered with a child or did not ensure that high standards of education were carried out at a school thus ensuring that we get the best outcome. That is dumb. That is what the Government did in the areas of biosecurity animal welfare and law and order. 
Quite rightfully this bill because it is an evolution of Labour’s own bill puts in place some preventive measures. These measures provide the ability to deal with the sad reality that we have in this country which is that not everyone who wants to be part of our education system is actually there for the welfare and the benefit of the children. Some people—and we have seen them—need to be checked before they get into the education system. This bill makes some improvements in that area. The schools can go directly to the police—and I am sure that that process will not be abused; we hope it will not be—for the right reasons: to ensure that the people coming into their schools are not potentially harmful or will not carry out any harmful acts against the children. It is a sad reality but we need to be aware of it. 
I was also pleased to hear the National Government members spouting on about the wonderful benefits of teacher registration. I remember that same party objecting to registration of people in the early childhood sector. Those members absolutely objected and said there was no value whatsoever in it. This bill upholds the value of registration of teachers in the education system and that is great. I wish that the National members would reflect back on some of the idiotic things they said about the registration of early childhood teachers that we were promoting which we knew was of value to the early childhood education system. The National members when in opposition were absolutely opposed to it. Well they have done another U-turn. That is great because it will benefit the children of this country. 
I will not talk for too long but I will say that the bill is not as good as it could have been. It removed from Labour’s Education Amendment Bill (No 3) some key provisions that the Government talks about but does not always follow through. What we had in the original bill that the Government picked up— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have already talked to two members of the House. This is an experienced member of the House who knows well the limitations of second readings. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: He’s talking to changes in the bill. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: These are not changes; this is a new bill introduced by this Government. For a member to talk about what the previous Labour Government might or might not have wanted to put in a bill is outside the scope of this debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I make the point that when members get up to make a point of order they should not refer to the character of the person. Then I become perplexed and wonder whether members are really making a point of order or whether they are doing something else. We seem to want to confine this debate to Standing Order 107(1) and (2) which requires members to specifically talk about the bill as printed. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: I am always referring to the bill to what it could have been and to what it is not. That is reference to the bill. The bill in its original inception was very good. The Government had the wisdom to pick up the key objectives of that bill and turn it into the bill we have before us. The select committee in its wisdom has made some amendments. I applaud the members in spite of—I am sure—the objections of the Minister of Education. She has yet to understand many things in the education system. 
The bill should have in it—I know these issues were discussed at the select committee—the original requirements that placed responsibility on the school boards. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: It never had that. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: The Minister does not see the value in having some requirements on school boards. She stands up to object to my saying this because she does not believe in the provisions that were in the original conception of the bill. The provisions were about the boards of trustees having responsibility to ensure that every person who is entitled to be enrolled is enrolled at the school. The boards of trustees should have as a core legal responsibility to ensure that education is provided to every student at that school. She does not believe most important—and it goes the heart of what we as a Parliament want— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry but this is not in this bill. It has never been in the bill. If the ruling that you gave before was to confine the debate to the bill then the member should come back to what is actually in the bill. 
Chris Hipkins 
: This bill makes amendments to the responsibilities of schools’ boards of trustees. It must therefore be relevant to talk about the responsibilities of a school board of trustees which is exactly what Damien O’Connor was doing. I appreciate the Minister may not agree with everything he said but— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I gave a little warning earlier that members should not talk about character and what other people might be thinking because then I am bound to start thinking that the member is speaking to the point of order in order to score another point and I wish that members would desist from doing that. I have been listening carefully to the debate. I think that the member has been a bit nearer to the bill than some other members who have been speaking but we have established some rules and I ask the member to be conscious of speaking to the bill. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. I have no wish to hold up the House in the passage of this bill because Labour supports it. It is as I said a good attempt to try to improve governance arrangements for schools but I was saying that it could be better. We in this House must not limit ourselves to current thinking but ask what could have been and say what we should move on to next. It is absolutely essential that the Minister has some vision. If she thinks that this is the last word on good corporate governance in schools or good governance then she has a lot to learn. She has a lot to learn. I think that she will be back in this House; she may even introduce amendments and Supplementary Order Papers and I challenge her to do so. I challenge her to bring adjustments into this House that will legally instruct schools and boards of trustees to promote a school environment that supports the highest standards of achievement for all students—for each and every student who comes into the system. These principles were thrown out by the National Government when it made adjustments to this legislation. 
We support the bill because we think that it is an improvement but there is much to be done to ensure that each and every individual child regardless of where the child lives or of which school the child goes to is offered the best opportunity. In the House today we heard that there should be different standards for kura across the country but that there should not be different standards for other schools. I do not accept that. I have schools of different deciles in my area and they are different schools with completely different backgrounds in terms of parental guidance parental contribution and the upbringing of the children. They are fearful of the standard that this Minister will bring in and the judgment that the education system will impose on them. 
We are all in here everyone in this House to try to offer the best opportunity for children in New Zealand now and in the future. We have to get it right. This bill is an improvement but there are many omissions that the Minister could have included. I challenge her to bring to this House Supplementary Order Papers that will improve this legislation. Thank you.