Jones Dail: Education Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Jones Dail: Education Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19055. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I have read the Education Amendment Bill (No 3) and I can say that the speech that Anne Tolley has just given bears no relationship to what is actually in the bill. The member created a speech and she has been determined to give it come what may at some stage during the latter part of this year. Tonight seemed to be the time to do it. But what she has just said has no relationship to what is in the bill. I am absolutely astonished that the National Party is prepared to allow people who are not vetted to have unsupervised access to young and little children. That is what this member would allow to happen by opposing this bill.  
This bill is about the safety of children under 5—student safety in the early childhood and compulsory sectors—and the vetting of the people in charge of those children. The National Party says that anyone can be in charge of those children regardless of what his or her criminal record may be. Essentially Anne Tolley is saying that she is not interested in the criminal record of someone who is in charge of a child under 5. She is voting against legislation that says that Parliament wants to make sure people supervising young children are vetted by the police. Surely that is a fundamental point. We do it in every other area of the community; why should we not do it for the early childhood sector?  
Of course the issue in respect of playcentres has to be considered carefully. They have been around for a long time. We know the care and concern that parents have for children in playcentres. But the situation today in New Zealand is unsatisfactory. People with criminal records get involved in these areas for one unsavoury reason and the National Party is opposing legislation that will ensure that there can be vetting of these people. I really do not believe it but I guess I have to. That is the level to which the National Party has reduced itself today.  
On the question of accountability for student attendance and engagement in the compulsory sector Anne Tolley goes on and on about truancy levels in schools and this bill makes a slight adjustment and improvement in this area yet that National Party member who is asking for something like this to happen opposes it now that it is happening even though in a minor way. How can we win with some people? 
Hone Harawira 
: You can’t. 
DAIL JONES 
: I agree with Mr Harawira. Gosh we have agreed for once! It is good to see that I can agree with Mr Harawira from the Maori Party. I say to Mr Harawira that we have to watch this as people might start talking. 
Hone Harawira 
: No chance! 
DAIL JONES 
: Ha ha!  
This bill makes largely technical amendments. We have just heard a dramatic speech from Anne Tolley about socialism in the administration of school boards. Clearly she has never read the Education Act 1989 or the provisions with regard to boards of trustees. She has never read the schedule of the Act that sets out the controls and the constitutions for boards of trustees how elections are to be held and suchlike. They are extensive. On occasions I as a lawyer have helped school boards of trustees with administering elections and suchlike. All those provisions are there already. This bill gives an option as to how that type of control can be exercised. It increases the opportunities that a school has as to the way in which the existing measures can be carried out. It does not reduce the options; it increases them. It gives more possibilities to a board of trustees in terms of how it can carry out some of its requirements. The bill does not limit the boards; it increases the opportunities they have.  
I have one question to ask the National Party. We have this bill. What is the National Party’s policy on education? 
Anne Tolley 
: You’ll see. 
DAIL JONES 
: The National spokesperson on education says we will see. Well we are just over a month out from the election yet the National Party still does not have a policy on education. How can the National Party be critical of anyone else’s policy when it does not have a policy of its own other than to oppose simple legislation of a technical nature? Just because the legislation was introduced by Labour the National spokesperson believes that it has to be wrong and she has given a speech that has no relationship to this bill whatsoever.  
I would have loved to see a bill introduced that introduces a non-repayable student allowance—a universal student allowance which is New Zealand First policy—but of course that might have forced the National Party to say whether it had a policy on that. As we know it does not support a universal student allowance. That is just an aside and I must move on.  
As I see it this bill is straightforward legislation. It deals with various administrative matters. There is nothing awesome about it other than the need to protect our children. For example clause 26 inserts new section 78C “Police vetting of persons with unsupervised access to students at school”. I want police vetting of people with unsupervised access to students at school. National does not want that; National is quite happy for there to be no vetting of persons with unsupervised access to students at school. New sections 78CA to 78CC set out when a police vet must be obtained they set out procedures relating to police vets and they also provide for an exemption. Some vetting-exempted agencies are identified by a  
Gazette 
 notice. So it is a very broad-ranging bill in that respect.  
I am absolutely staggered that National is moving away from a strong law and order policy. We saw that in the Law and Order Committee in respect of legislation relating to Wanganui and tattoos the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill. We saw that National members did not support the Wanganui District Council. We know that National is weak on law and order and that has been confirmed yet again tonight.  
The bill also provides technical amendments with regard to the matching of register information and information about payment of teachers’ salaries at payrolled schools. How can one possibly oppose legislation as technical as that? If there is a drafting error it will be picked up by the Education and Science Committee and we will consider what it says. The National Party wants to oppose a bill that includes the matching of register information and information about payment of teachers’ salaries at payrolled schools. I would have thought that those provisions would improve the situation of the teaching profession. New Zealand First wants the standards and conditions of the teaching profession to improve. The National Party obviously does not want the standards and conditions of the teaching profession to improve. That is why it is opposing this legislation.  
The bill also includes in clauses 50 to 53 provisions regarding the duration of interim suspension investigations by a complaints assessment committee of reports of convictions complaints about competence and the requirement that the Teachers Council must coordinate police vetting. What is controversial or difficult about this legislation? National even opposes a provision relating to the transfer of land.  
This is straightforward legislation largely of a technical nature. It ensures the protection of young people who are in a situation where there is unsupervised access to them which is clearly defined in clause 77 “Interpretation”. The definition of “vetting-exempted agency” is set out there and I am sure the Education and Science Committee when it considers this legislation will have no difficulty working with Playcentre to make sure that its concerns are well noted that steps are taken to make sure that the children concerned are always supervised and that any problems with regard to unsupervised access are taken care of.  
I understand that one of the worst paedophile cases reported was a case involving not a parent but a gardener who was working around a playcentre area. He was the paedophile. We must make sure that that sort of thing does not happen again and we must make sure that unsafe people who are involved in an unsupervised access situation are caught at an early stage.  
New Zealand First has no difficulty supporting the welfare the benefits and the protection of children under 5 and we will be supporting this bill. I am absolutely staggered that a contrary view could be taken by any party in this House.