Donald Rod: Education Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Donald Rod: Education Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18079] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Greens will support this bill going to the select committee but we make no promises after that. There are two issues I would like to raise in the first reading debate. The first is our concern—shared obviously by Deborah Coddington from ACT—with the extension of the student number system from the secondary sector into the primary and early childhood sector. Currently these numbers are used in the secondary and tertiary sectors to collect and combine data for policy and analysis purposes to enable the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to record credits and qualifications gained by learners on the national qualifications framework and to allow tertiary education providers to use information on the National Student Number system to verify enrolling students’ identity. 
On the face of it the National Student Number system is used for fairly benign purposes but the Greens have always been concerned that these unique personal identifiers could be readily misused. The only other existing national ID number is the National Health Index number which is an identification number given to all children at birth. We are tracked for our entire lives. To that extent there appears to be very little information about the effectiveness of these numbers in the secondary and tertiary sector and virtually no checks on whether the numbers or the data have been misused. That is something we want to examine closely at the select committee to ensure that there is scrutiny of how the numbers are used and that there are mechanisms to ensure that the data is not abused. 
The bill provides for these numbers to be extended to the primary and early childhood sector primarily for the purposes of attracting students to minimise non-enrolment and to ensure no double-dipping. I point out to Brian Donnelly from New Zealand First that he has misrepresented us. We are not against numbers. We are not saying that everyone should have only a name because there is a need to ensure that children are enrolled and attending schools. But although there may seem to be a laudable purpose in this the capacity for the misuse of this data is very high. We want to know whether this information about non-enrolment will be shared with other State agencies such as Work and Income. We want to know whether it could be used to financially penalise beneficiary families for example. We want to know whether any other agency or body can be authorised to have access to this data under the bill. Without more information about the current misuse of the numbers already in use and concrete provisions to prevent unjustified sharing of information for punitive purposes the Greens do not think that these numbers should be extended. We look forward to assurances about that at the select committee. 
The second issue concerns clause 4 which amends section 14 of the Education Act. Section 14 concerns the suspension and exclusion powers of principals. The clause 4 amendment put up by the Government is merely a tidy-up which is hugely disappointing for the vast number of families from all walks of life who suffer from the abuse of these provisions. The 2003 report on stand-downs suspensions exclusions and expulsions shows that stand-down cases increased by 1946 from 17912 to 19858 while suspensions dropped slightly to 4887. Some programmes like the suspension reduction initiative are having an impact for some children and that is great but still we have nearly 20000 students being stood down every year. Nearly 5000 are suspended and the ministry confesses that a suspended child is away from school for 62 days on average. I see that Mr Carter is smiling. I do not know whether his partner is involved in any suspensions. 
Suspensions are a behaviour management tool used by schools but it is supposed to be used only as an absolute last resort. Sadly for thousands of families that is not the case. In suspending children a principal and a board exercise a statutory power of decision making. The only appeal for such a decision is to take a judicial review action to the High Court. The Ombudsman the Children’s Commissioner and youth advocates are inundated with complaints from parents who argue that their child has been wrongly unjustly or unlawfully excluded from his or her school. But where can they go to have their children reinstated? The only place they can go to is the High Court and only at considerable expense. Court fees increased again only 6 months ago and only two such cases have ever been taken in New Zealand. The fact is that the best way of keeping kids at school is to engage them in learning not kicking them out for stupid or unlawful reasons. The proposed change in clause 4 will do nothing for those children. 
My colleague MetiriaTurei has a member’s bill in the ballot that would establish a school review authority. That authority would be able to review the statutory decisions of boards and principals and make binding decisions on both the families and the schools. The costs would be minimal for families so justice would be accessible to all. The authority would provide legal guidelines to schools on how to properly use the statutory powers they have available to them which would provide a sound legal platform for schools. Such an authority would ensure that all our families have access to justice and that all our kids get the best possible protection of the law. 
The Greens are very disappointed that the Government’s bill does not deal with the real problems inherent in section 14 of the Education Act and the misuse of the suspension and stand-down provisions and we will pursue the matter further in the select committee. There are a number of other significant issues in the bill. We look forward to dealing with them during the select committee process.