Lees-Galloway Iain: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15633] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I am slightly surprised to be on my feet and taking a call on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). People who are regular watchers of Parliament will know that Labour has taken up its full number of calls but the Government—in particular the Government’s junior partner the ACT Party—for some bizarre reason has chosen not to take its calls on a bill that you rightly pointed out Mr Assistant Speaker Roy is raising a lot of passion and a lot of concern. I think the Government should be taking its full number of calls to explain to the public why this bill is a good bill to explain why it is urgent and to explain why putting New Zealand’s children at risk of harm is such a good idea— 
David Shearer 
: Under urgency. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: —under urgency. This Government is shirking its responsibilities and it does not even have the guts to stand up and tell New Zealand why it is doing so. 
As has been made quite clear by Opposition members we oppose this bill. Although it has a number of fairly inconsequential matters in it a number of things in it are of such consequence that it is clear we have to oppose this bill. One key area is the exemption of limited-attendance centres from early childhood education licensing standards and in particular the requirement for those taking care of young children to undergo a police check to make sure they are of good enough character and do not have anything in their history to suggest they are unfit to take care of small children. The other area of particular concern to us is of course the hereditary entitlement for children who would not ordinarily qualify to go to a school within a certain zone to be bumped up the list. Jo Goodhew mentioned ideological differences; I suppose that the idea of inherited entitlement is an ideological position of National. It fits quite well with those members so it does not come as much of a surprise. [ 
Interruption 
] What was that Colin? Mr King has something to say. 
Colin King 
: It fits very well with yourself—entitlement. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: The member has lost me. He has lost most people in New Zealand to be fair. 
I will address some of the comments made by Louise Upston. I have had a chance to spend some time with Louise Upston away from Parliament and I know that she is passionate about education but I thought that some of her contributions on this bill were at times somewhat nonsensical. She started off with the old chestnut that the Government is spending more than ever before on education. That is absolutely true. It is true because every single year every single Government spends more on education than it did the year before. It is just like health. The question is whether that increased funding is keeping up with inflation and whether it even allows the system to stand still. It does not matter whether the Government is spending more; Governments always will. That is one thing we can rely on. Death taxes and Governments spending more on health and education—those are the three certainties in life. But to get up and crow about it and say it is something special that this Government has achieved may show that the Government has achieved so little that its members need to crow about something as insignificant as that. 
Louise Upston went on to say that trades academies will be able to function with more flexibility. That is not true. The policy legislated for in this bill first of all did not particularly need legislation anyway. It is one of the schizophrenic parts of this bill. On the one hand the Government seeks through this bill to cut red tape but on the other hand the bill is unnecessarily bureaucratic with regard to its provisions for secondary and tertiary education. Trades academies will not be able to function more flexibly. Ms Upston— 
Louise Upston 
: Mrs. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: —OK Mrs Upston—talked about many members having recently attended prize-givings around the country and that is true. I have and probably just about every other member has. I have seen plenty of awards being handed out by trades academies and industry training organisations to school students who have been engaging in the transition phase between secondary school and trades or tertiary education. A number of students have been studying at university level as well which is pleasing to see. 
Sue Moroney 
: Not new. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: It is not new. Louise Upston said it was a very important policy that National had stood on at the last election. Well that is interesting because it was Labour policy. If National members are proud of Labour policy then that is good news. We will take that one and notch up another one for Labour. 
With regard to limited-attendance centres and glass panels Louise Upston focused a lot on the fact that her gym has a glass panel and she can see her children through it. First of all this bill is not just about centres at gyms; it is also about centres at shopping centres. The weight of responsibility should not sit on parents’ shoulders when they go to a shopping centre. Parents should not have to figure out whether the centre has employed someone who is capable of taking care of their children. They should have that certainty. Parents should have the certainty— 
Sue Moroney 
: Anne Tolley says they should just ask them. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: That is right; Anne Tolley says they should just ask: “Excuse me are your staff members child sex offenders? Could you tell me about that please?”. I would like to see the Minister of Education going into a centre and asking that question. Parents should not have to ask that question. They should have certainty available to them. The Government is saying to parents that the Government takes no responsibility. If something goes wrong and a parent’s child is abused the Government says: “That’s your fault. That’s your responsibility. You should have taken more care about where you left your children.” That is absolutely wrong. It is far too much to leave up to parents. Parents should have certainty. The Government should create an environment where parents have certainty. 
Jo Goodhew said that businesses will not want to put themselves at risk. I think that is a fair call. For the most part businesses will not want to put themselves at risk. But these provisions are not about early childhood centres that have an interest in the well-being of children; they are about businesses that have nothing to do with children whatsoever—be it a gym a shopping centre or whatever it is. They are not people whose bread and butter trade is dealing with children and the safety of children. When the squeeze goes on as in the post-recession times we are in at the moment when costs are being cut and people are looking for every last little place where they can cut costs maybe it will be overlooked; maybe the police vet that National members say the business will take responsibility for will be overlooked. Why? Because the business does not need to do it. It is a cost that it does not have to include and overlooking it might just help make the bottom line look a little better. 
I agree that 99.9 percent of the time things will go smoothly but would the Minister like to be the parent of the child involved in that 0.01 percent situation? Would the Minister like to be the parent of that child? 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: Ask the centre. 
David Shearer 
: Pass the buck! 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Yes. The Minister says that it is not her responsibility as the Minister of Education as a Minister of the Crown in this Government to create an environment in New Zealand where children are safe and where parents have certainty about the safety of their children. “It’s not my responsibility.” says the Minister of Education. How about that for a message to the parents of New Zealand. The Government says it is not prepared to ensure the safety of children in New Zealand. That is the message the Government is giving in this bill. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: That’s not right. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: That is absolutely right. That is the message that you are sending to New Zealand. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I am sorry; that is the message that the Minister is sending certainly not you Mr Assistant Speaker.