Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16322. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Education Amendment Bill (No 2) 
In Committee 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek leave to suspend Standing Order 256 relating to omnibus bills to allow the Committee of the whole House on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) to consider an amendment in my name that proposes amendments to the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.  
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I am pleased that we have finally got to the debate on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2); I think it is fair to say that it will not take quite as long as it might have previously. I think there will be an interesting debate when we get to new Part 1A which we will debate after Part 1. 
That leaves us with a number of areas where Labour disagrees very firmly with National. The first area I will focus on is the question of whether entry to a State school should be a hereditary right; whether in the end someone whose parents or even grandparents went to a school should have a right to enter that school over and above someone who lives close to the school and who would otherwise be in the zone. It is the view of Labour—the very firm view of Labour—that State schools in New Zealand should not be subject to entitlement rights. People should not be able to pass down the right to attend particular schools. Generally this is from father to son; it is more often that way than from mother to daughter. The rule just about always concerns single-sex schools. I know National is firmly in favour of hereditary rights but generally that is not the case in New Zealand and for that reason we have amendments that focus on that question. 
Some amendments sitting on the Table focus on the question of private schools and their disciplinary procedures. The Law Commission undertook a very very thorough review of the law as it related to independent schools and made a series of recommendations. To give the Government credit it picked up a few of those recommendations but it did not pick up some of the more important ones and it was totally unable to tell the Education and Science Committee why. I am not blaming officials in this area—it is not their job to defend Government policy—but we were looking for reasons why some of the suggestions of the Law Commission were not picked up after its well-researched project. Because we did not get a good explanation we have in fact picked up two of the Law Commission’s recommendations ourselves. 
The first recommendation is pretty simple. It would make private schools’ disciplinary procedures available on request to students and their parents when students are facing suspension exclusion or expulsion. That seems pretty reasonable. We are not saying that the procedures have to be printed; they could be on a website and people could get them that way. They could be in a booklet. If we are to have a just approach to discipline within the private school system then having a system that records those processes and makes them available to students is as the Law Commission recommended pretty reasonable. We cannot see why a Government would not want to do that. 
In a similar vein the commission said schools should adhere to some basic procedural requirements. When students have been suspended their parents should have the right to request that the suspension be lifted or varied and have the right to make submissions in support of the request. Adequate notice of the proposed exclusion or expulsion should be given to the students and their parents. There should be a reasonable opportunity for the parents to attend a meeting. Again anyone who has any sense of natural justice would say that none of that should be a problem; it should be pretty much automatic. 
I do not want to in any way portray the Labour Party as a defender of independent schools but I say that most of them have very good processes. I think that very very few of them would have a problem with these recommendations. But as the Law Commission makes clear a few independent schools—some traditional and some I might describe as weird and wonderful—do not have processes that work in an appropriate manner. I see no reason why they should not have good processes. 
The next area I will focus on is the question of disciplinary processes to do with the Teachers Council. I thank the Minister in the chair the Minister of Education for inviting me to her office to give me a group of areas in relation to which she was proposing to table a late Supplementary Order Paper in the select committee. I think members of the select committee will agree that I probably ended up promoting the Supplementary Order Paper within the committee because I have no doubt that the disciplinary procedures for the Teachers Council are dated and do not work effectively. 
I acknowledge and I warn Ms Turei that Catherine Delahunty a member of the committee was not happy with that process. I agree with her: it was not good process. We asked both the unions the Teachers Council and the School Trustees Association to appear. None of us thought it was good process but then again none of us thought it would be worth waiting another couple of years till a similar bill came down the track and just leaving the gap there. That call was made. 
I must say—and I feel slightly surprised about this—I have read recently about a plan by the Minister for Tertiary Education for another Education Amendment bill mainly dealing with tertiary matters. It is too late now for this particular part but it might have been better process if in fact it had been associated with that legislation. As we are learning when Education Amendment bills occur they can be very broad. That would have been better process but that was not the case. 
Having said that the Minister and I talked about one area that we thought we would progress but which after she received further advice she chose not to move on. For me it was probably the most important issue that sat there—that is the fact that so often when cases are before the disciplinary tribunal there is a reflection across quite a big group of teachers because of the very poor suppression arrangements in the rules of the Teachers Council. Some very good work has been done by Simon Power on the suppression issue. 
I have picked up on that issue in Supplementary Order Paper 183 in my name. It would add new clauses 12DA and 12DB. They effectively incorporate those principles into the processes. We would move to an assumption of openness but then have the committee closed and have the ability to suppress names. No one wants to see the names of kids who have been molested by teachers published. But at the moment the rules of the Teachers Council are basically all or nothing. It is either all open or all closed. They do not have an ability there. 
There are two approaches. One is that we can write the rules for the council and those are set out in my Supplementary Order Paper. The Teachers Council says that it has not changed the rules because it thinks that the $1000 fine imposed on media organisations that breach suppression is not sufficient. I agree with the council. Media organisations want to get a lot of publicity. It is fair to say that probably the Minister and I both get calls on Friday nights and Saturday mornings from Sunday papers with case after case that they glory in. But they do have a case. It is reasonable that there should be an ability to focus on it. 
The alternative is set out in my second Supplementary Order Paper. New clause 12DC changes the $1000 fine to a $100000 fine. It does not rewrite the rules. That amendment would allow the Teachers Council to redo its rules and have proper suppression rules. It could name the teacher but protect the child. I think that would be reasonable and it would have a presumption of openness. At the moment that is not the case. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 In my opinion the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) represents why we have the tail of underachievement that the Minister in the chair the Hon Anne Tolley often talks about. She talks often about the one in five children who fail at school. If we look at the five general areas in the bill four of those areas would fail to raise achievement in any way in my opinion. It is my ongoing concern that we have Education Amendment bills that actually do not focus on the core purpose of the education system—that is to make sure that children learn. 
One of the areas in this bill deals with secondary-tertiary programmes and I believe that has real merit. I commend the Minister for taking a gamble on this. There is no evidence that this will make a difference to raising student achievement but I think it is something that should be explored. It should have researchers following it along so that in time we can see whether the secondary-tertiary programmes do make a difference. Then if they do not we need to have the courage to do away with them. There is a very simple way that we can check whether they are making a difference. If members refer back to education research such as that by Professor John Hattie they will see that he talks about the effect size of educational initiatives. If a programme has an effect-size of greater than 0.4 then it is making a difference to student learning. 
Just about every initiative or strategy that teachers use in class could be said to work to some effect or another. But it is the strategies and innovations that work the most that we really need to encourage. As I say if over time research goes to show that secondary-tertiary programmes do not have an effect size of over 0.4 then we need to have the courage to try something else. 
I think this part of the bill is a good start. I believe we could go further in terms of the secondary-tertiary programmes. They change the context of a student’s learning. Instead of being stuck in the form rooms of a traditional school setting where students are bound by the school rules—they have to wear their uniform pull their socks up tuck their shirts in and those sort of things—they have the opportunity to move into an educational setting where they are treated more like adults. It is interesting to note that a teacher I used to work with often commented to me that while a child is at a school in the compulsory learning sector they should be called a pupil and it is only when they go into a tertiary setting that they should be called a student. What we have with secondary-tertiary programmes are pupils moving from the old traditional school setting into a more adult setting. I think that is a really good change of context and in itself that could be a motivating factor. 
However secondary-tertiary situations will not make a difference if the lecturers in front of the students are not expert practitioners. That is the crux of what we always have to consider whenever we talk about education legislation that the people in front of the students are highly skilled practitioners. We need to keep focusing on what will make students learn and what will make 100 percent of our school students achieve beyond their potential. Of course it comes down to the expertise in front of the students and whether the strategies teachers are using have an effect size above 0.4. As I have said an initiative with an effect size between 0.4 and zero will be in the bottom half of the strategies that make kids learn. Some strategies would have an effect size of 0.01 which means there is a tiny improvement in students’ achievement . 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am sorry that I did not get to my feet quickly enough at the conclusion of the Hon Trevor Mallard’s speech. I wanted to acknowledge his assistance with Supplementary Order Paper 177 on the Teachers Council amendments in particular and explain to him that although we discussed name suppression—and I am keen to promote that on behalf of the Teachers Council—we believe that going ahead with those changes at this time would be out of step with the work that my colleague the Hon Simon Power is also doing on name suppression within the criminal law system. Mr Power’s bill has gone to a select committee so the proposal is that we wait for that bill to come back to the House and ensure that whatever we do is in step with that legislation. Although we will be voting against the amendment today we support doing something as soon as we possibly can. 
The second issue is to do with the proposal to increase the maximum fine. I am advised that this would be totally out of step with other provisions—for instance the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act which has a maximum fine of $10000 for the breach of a similar order. We need to make sure we are in step with other legislation. 
Finally I say to Mr Davis that he is absolutely right but unfortunately we cannot legislate for high-quality teaching. We know that it makes the most significant difference in schoolchildren’s learning. The way we do that is through the support we put behind the teaching force with things like professional development resources tools and techniques. It is the support that we put behind our teachers. Unfortunately we cannot legislate for that quality; legislation changes the structure. Mr Davis is right with regard to the trades academies that we are attempting to change the structure to create new opportunities and of course we will evaluate the effectiveness of those changes. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I will speak on behalf of my colleague Catherine Delahunty who is the Green Party’s education spokesperson and a member of the Education and Science Committee which considered the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). She has asked that I raise a number of points during the Committee stage today. 
The Green Party has real concerns about a number of aspects of the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) and we will continue to oppose it. The areas of concern are those that have been outlined by submitters such as the Law Commission the Human Rights Commission and of course the early childhood education sector. The issue of limited-attendance centres for children and the loss of police vetting has had some media coverage and for good reason. The Green Party agrees with Labour that the rationale for removing safety aspects at creches in malls because they are not educational facilities does not stack up. The police vetting of staff working with children should be a bottom line and we would like to see clarity as to which legislation protects children before those clauses are removed from the Education Act. I am aware that there is a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table to fix the situation which the Green Party will support. 
We were also concerned about the issue of staff ratios. The whole approach to limited-attendance centres is classic laissez-faire politics. It sounds great to say that we should leave it to parental choice but we do not think parents realise that standards will be removed from those centres. The baby is being thrown out with the bathwater because regulation is allegedly bad and children’s needs are not at the centre of the argument in these clauses. 
We are opposed to the changes to out-of-zone enrolments—again we understand there is a Supplementary Order Paper to deal with that—and the criteria that give priority to children of former pupils or board members from outside the zone for the school. That kind of privileging is not warranted in public schools. The Green Party is opposed to that provision and if there is the capacity to change it we would certainly support it. 
One submitter raised the issue of the management of private schools indicating that the bill has missed an opportunity to address recommendations from the Law Commission on a range of issues from suspension to governance. Although the Green Party does not prioritise issues in the private sector because we have our hands full trying to keep a free and equitable education ethos in the public school system of Aotearoa New Zealand I know there are also Supplementary Order Papers on the Table on this issue which may attract Green support. Children have human rights in all areas of education private or public and there are genuine gaps in the law and in the process of natural justice so we are looking at those Supplementary Order Papers carefully. 
We also oppose the late amendments to the bill which Labour and National presented to the select committee and education sector in the last stages of the process. It is not good practice to shoehorn even more complex elements into the bill and to expect the education sector to have any ownership of it. The provisions around broadening the powers of the Teachers Council to suspend teachers needs a much more careful discussion with the sector itself and that has not happened. Therefore despite parts of the bill appearing inoffensive the Green Party will not support this bill and we will not support the Labour Supplementary Order Paper concerning the Teachers Council. Thank you. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 Firstly I will respond to what the Minister of Education said about being unable to legislate for good teaching or words to that effect. I agree with what she said but I think that as a Minister she is the person who is able to create the conditions in which teachers can weave their magic. 
One of the conditions that will have some effect is the provision of secondary-tertiary programmes. I would like to think that the Government could have taken the whole change of context idea a step further and perhaps it could have introduced an idea that I raised in the second reading around specialist schools. Legislating for specialist schools could provide something similar to secondary-tertiary programmes in that they change the context in which students are learning. 
I know that the ACT Party and the National Party often talk about choice for parents and students but that choice normally revolves around a student in a decile 4 school in one part of a city being able to go across town during the day to a decile 8 school. That is fine for upwardly mobile folks but it does not address the issue of choice for those who cannot get around cities. The problem is that a decile 4 school teaches basically the same sort of stuff that a decile 8 school teaches whereas with specialist schools someone who lives in the middle of a city could within 20 minutes go to a school that offers a different type of learning such as specialisation in the arts specialisation in sports or specialisation in science or technology. The Minister could legislate for different contexts that provide real choice for parents and students and I would like to lay that thought on the table. 
To go back to the parts of the bill we are debating I point out my that colleague Trevor Mallard has already brought up the enrolment scheme priorities and changing the law so that the children of former pupils can attend the school their parents used to go to. How many students will pass National Certificate of Educational Achievement purely because they were able to attend the school their parents attended? We are talking about maybe a couple of hundred pupils at the most. It will not have an effect on the greater need of students across schools in New Zealand. So I fail to see why this provision has any real need to be discussed at a time such as this when we have more serious concerns—for example the fact that one child in five is failing. This adds nothing to the raising of student achievement. 
Likewise if there is someone who lives in the Hutt Valley but is a member of a board of trustees here in the city so that their child can go to a school here in the city how many students are we talking about who will benefit from this? The critical mass of students across New Zealand will not have their educational standards lifted by this. I believe that it is just another example of education legislation focusing on the wrong issues when we should be fairly and squarely focusing on the aspects that will raise achievement the most. 
I believe that there has been a change in position in relation to limited-attendance centres since the second reading. I thought that was silly lawmaking at its worst in that limited-attendance centres would not have to vet people who were going to work there. I thought that was absolutely ridiculous and in fact dangerous for the little kiddies who would be attending those limited-attendance centres. There is no way on earth that a parent taking their child by the hand to drop them off at a limited-attendance centre for a couple of hours while mum or dad goes and does the shopping— 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on a couple of matters. It may come as some surprise to members opposite—and it might even wake up Paul Quinn if I am lucky—that I am going to speak about the fact that there is unnecessary law. I think that I have a reputation amongst members on the other side of the Chamber for liking big Government and lots of laws and regulation which is grossly—Colin King is nodding. 
Colin King 
: Absolutely! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: There we go. Well this is the exception proving the rule. In particular I will speak about the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 176 which some of us felt was more appropriately placed within the State Sector Management Bill because it is a matter of the organisation of the State sector but we lost that debate with the current Chairperson earlier today as to its placement and we respect his ruling entirely in that regard. But what this particular Supplementary Order Paper does is change where the policy function for tertiary education is placed. I can see that I really am not doing very well with Mr Quinn at all. Currently that policy function is held within the Tertiary Education Commission—I say to Mr Quinn that he needs to wave a white flag not a blue one—and it is to be transferred back to the Ministry of Education. That is not a position that we on this side of the House necessarily oppose. The functions of the Tertiary Education Commission have been overburdened. It has certainly had some issues with getting some of its core mandate completed and the policy function did not always sit easily with the commission so that is to be transferred to the Ministry of Education. 
The question we have on this side of the Chamber is why we need to do this at all through this process. Why are we doing this through a legislative process? We do not think it needs to be done in this way in any way shape or form. The reorganisation of the State sector does not necessarily require any kind of legislation. We had to do it earlier today in terms of Archives New Zealand and the National Library because of the statutory functions of the Chief Archivist the National Librarian and the Turnbull librarians. In the previous debate we were changing the parts of the Public Records Act and the National Library of New Zealand (Te PunaMatauranga o Aotearoa) Act that deal with how we protect particular functions. On this side of the Chamber we felt that those protections were not adequate. That is not what this bill is about though. This bill is simply about a policy function of a particular Government agency that the Government has decided to shift. On this side of the Chamber we do not have a problem with that concept but we ask whether we are making law just for the sake of it here. Perhaps the Minister in the chair the Minister of Education might want to respond as to why we have gone down this path. 
The whole question of whether laws are required to do some of the things in this legislation also came up during the select committee process in respect of the issue of secondary-tertiary partnerships. There are in fact a number of very good models of secondary-tertiary partnerships in New Zealand and that is covered in Part 1 of the bill. There are a number of such programmes and members would have visited them. For example there is the tertiary high school at Manukau Institute of Technology which is an excellent model of working with kids— 
Colin King 
: But they have legislation though. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I say to Mr King that the question is whether legislation was needed—that is the point. It is happening. The point I make is that it is under way. It is actually operating. One of the concerns expressed to members on this side of the House was that if we move into a more legislative framework around this matter we would be restricting the flexibility that is inherent in making these sorts of programmes work. A lot of us know about different kinds of programmes like this around New Zealand. 
Concern was expressed by some providers that if we start putting in tight legislative rules about how these secondary-tertiary partnerships operate then they might not be able to continue to be the flexible responsive kind of operations we want them to be. Again we make it very clear that members on this side of the Chamber are strongly supportive of partnerships like this. In fact we need more of them. We need to make sure that children who are not coping in the traditional environment of secondary schools have a vehicle with which to continue in training and education. I am sure that the Minister in the chair the Hon Anne Tolley is nodding. She may well have visited the Manukau campus too. It is an excellent model but it is not the perfect model for every town region and city in New Zealand and other models can be explored. This matter is covered in clause 10 which will insert new sections 31A to 31L into the Education Act 1989. 
The question we ask is whether we are restricting ourselves. We do not oppose this move but it seems that on both these counts the law may be unnecessary. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I will respond briefly to the point made by Kelvin Davis about clause 6 “How to select applicants who live outside the home zone” particularly in relation to new section 11F(1)(d). Mr Davis argued against why we might want to include this provision and I will give an opposing point of view to his. 
I believe that this paragraph provides for tradition in a world where we have become increasingly transient. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Inherited rights to go to a State school— 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Members should listen to me. We end up as Diaspora all around the world and around New Zealand. It is like a marae if for some reason someone could not go back to their marae because they no longer lived in the area. I think that within all sorts of schools across the decile levels as families stay in those schools over time they build whakapapa tikanga and tradition which encourages a sense of community that I believe we are losing. 
I think this provision helps to build community across all the deciles. From that point of view when brothers and sisters can go back and be part of those schools and those communities it builds tradition and I think that is a very good thing. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I look forward to having that debate on the hustings. Mr Quinn is saying that people can go to Hutt Valley High School because their parents went there but people who live a lot closer cannot. 
Colin King 
: After—after you’ve got that— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I make it very clear to Colin King that the way the system works is that there is a zone and when there is a lot of demand on a zone it shrinks. There will always be someone who is just outside the border who if the inherited rights did not apply would have got in to a school because the zone would have been bigger. Colin King knows that. I look forward to the people who are on the wrong side of Waiwhetu Road saying that they would have got into Hutt Valley High School if it was not for the Government’s rules that have inherited rights for people to go to Hutt Valley High School. That is what will happen. That is the way it will work. Colin King knows that. I look forward to debating that. 
Colin King 
: No I don’t. Nor does Allan Peachey. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well Allan Peachey does not think there should be zones at all. Allan Peachey thinks we should just be able to flog any kid from anywhere and the principal should decide. Those were the rules under a former National Government before zoning came in. 
I go back to a point that my colleague Grant Robertson made—that is the way we are shaping up education legislation. When I was the Minister of Education there was a general review of education legislation going on. I do not know whether we made a lot of progress on it over 6 years but there was a hope to get a new education Act that was slimmed down and did the things that legislation needed to do. I see that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Education is nodding; that review is still ongoing. It will be good to see it and do some work on it. The idea was to remove from the Education Act the stuff that did not need to be in legislation. I see the Minister is nodding that this is occurring under the National Government. 
My question for her is: why then are we putting into legislation which Government agency should run the policy function for tertiary education? That does not need to be in legislation. A Cabinet minute is fine. A Cabinet minute would cover that. I think something has happened similar to a couple of little boys having a competition to see who can pee further up a wall. The Ministry of Education won and it wants that written into legislation. That is essentially what happened. There is no need for it at all. All it is proof of is who won the competition. It is proof of who won the competition and that could have been in a Cabinet minute rather— 
Hon Simon Power 
: Get some sleep man. Get some sleep. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I hope to get some sleep. I hope to be out of here by midnight tonight if not half-past 10. 
The other point that I will make is very similar. In fact it is probably more important. It is about the secondary-tertiary programmes in the bill. I reinforce what my colleague said. There are a lot of very good programmes going on around the country. There are not enough and not all of them are good but there are a lot that are good. They are running very well at the moment as a result of the application of ministerial discretion and occasional Cabinet decisions. They work. That is all that is necessary. 
The problem is that when we start putting that sort of detail into legislation it gets quite hard to change. The flexibility is lost. The ability to take the moment and to move when a community is ready to go is lost. There is a danger that the community will not only have to come back to Cabinet but also have to come back to Parliament to make the change. We all know that could take a couple of years. I think we also all know that when communities are ready to move in this area they do not want to do it slowly and they should not have to do it slowly. We should not be a brake on innovation. I accept that the Minister is genuine and she thinks this will help. I just warn her that it will make it worse not better. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I take a brief call on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). In many ways we are largely in agreement on the aspects that were being talked about. I will pick up on a couple of points. One is the secondary-tertiary interface. The option of partnership which has been taken up is the right one. That was certainly reinforced by many of the people who spoke in submissions at the Education and Science Committee. I think this is where education is heading towards: encouraging many more of our young people through school and if school is not an appropriate vehicle for them enabling them to move on to a tertiary education system that provides them with more flexibility in order to carry on and in a sense regain that confidence in schooling. The Manukau Institute of Technology which has started this has been mentioned. That went through in an earlier piece of legislation late last year or earlier this year. Fine work has been done there by Stuart Middleton who is a former teacher of mine who actually taught me in the seventh form. 
Hon Member 
: He didn’t do a very good job! 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Well he has been around for a while I have to say but he is still looking pretty good for his age—in fact he does not look very different. I will send him the  
Hansard  
at the end of this debate. 
Grant Robertson 
: What about you? Do you look different? 
DAVID SHEARER 
: I look very different from the way I did back then! 
I will comment on something that has not been picked up yet which is the—again welcome—change with regard to the refund provision for international students. I reinforce what has already been said about the period during which international students on courses of 3 months or longer can withdraw from the course and receive a refund of their course fees. It really helps a lot of the waka-jumping that has continued to happen. It will protect many of the institutions that have actually felt very much disadvantaged by the fact that this has been able to happen. The refund provisions here will help protect and strengthen our institutions and not put them at an economic or financial disadvantage as a result of this occurring. I think it is a welcome step and again it is a part of this bill that seeks to tidy up a lot of the extraneous types of things that are not really affecting our education system profoundly but nevertheless will help it to be much better than it was. 
On that note it was great to see the OECD report come out earlier this week that showed that in maths and science we are in the top five in the OECD and in reading we are in the top 10. But—and I think the “but” is significant—the range between the top and the bottom was one of the widest in the OECD. In part that is because our top is so high but also it is because our bottom—particularly amongst Pasifika and Maori kids—is so low. If there is one area we could focus on and in part the secondary-tertiary interface being improved will help it is making sure that those kids at the bottom end actually get helped up and pushed into continuing on with tertiary education. 
I echo some of my colleagues’ position on the enrolment scheme priorities. We will obviously not oppose this but I am not so sure that I agree with Chris Tremain on the issue of tradition. I think traditions are a fine thing but it speaks to privilege and access more than it does to tradition. 
With those short remarks on those three or four key points I say that those are the interventions I would like to make. I look forward to this legislation going through this evening. Thank you. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I too will respond to Chris Tremain’s comments and his analogy about not accessing one’s own marae if one lives way away from it. Quite frankly I would just go to the nearest marae just like if my children could not go to the school that I went to I would send them to the nearest school. This is exactly what I have done in Kaitaia. I grew up in Kawakawa an hour and a half’s drive south and it would not be practical for me to bus my kids down to the school I went to so I just send them to the local school. 
I will address the amendment from the Hon Trevor Mallard inserting new section 35RB after new section 35R in clause 11 of the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). Subsection 1 of 35RB says: “Any student who is facing suspension or expulsion from attendance at a school registered under section 35A or the parents of that student may request details of that school’s disciplinary procedures.” I think that is common sense. In fact it was my impression as a former principal that schools were meant to put out to their community their complaints procedure at the start. So if a parent or a student— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: State schools have it but private schools don’t. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: Private schools do not have that requirement. That to me is an inequity and should be remedied. Private schools should be required to put out their complaints procedures to parents so that if there is a complaint they know the procedure to go through so that little complaints do not get blown up out of proportion. I think this is just an extension of the requirement that disciplinary procedures be put out to parents and to students. 
Something else I will add is that a student’s disciplinary record should be put out too. When dealing with the misbehaviour of students as a principal I know that in the case of a lot of parents we would notify them when their child misbehaved but when the child got to the point that he or she was going to be stood down or suspended the parents came storming in and said that they had not been informed. We would be able to pull out a record of the times we had informed the parents by way of letters and phone calls that their child had misbehaved. That requirement could also be included somehow so that parents have the complaints procedures first of all they have the disciplinary procedures and they have their child’s disciplinary record. 
New section 35R itself is I believe unfair on State schools. Subsection (2) states: “Unless the student is within a reasonable time reinstated at the school or enrolled at some other registered school”—this is if they have been excluded—“the Secretary must … (a) arrange for the student to be enrolled at some other reasonably convenient registered school that the student can attend; or (b) direct the board of a State school that is not an integrated school to enrol the student at the school;”. I find that a bit unfair. As a State school whenever we sadly excluded students from our school we did not have the facility for them to have the Secretary for Education direct the board of a private school to enrol them. It is really unfair that private schools can dump their unwanted kids on State schools and the State schools then have to manage them as best they can within the resourcing private schools have. Really that is a bit of discrimination in my mind towards State schools in that they have to deal with the students that have been excluded or expelled from private schools. 
With that I say that Labour will not support this bill. Going back to the reasons that I started off my speech with my personal feeling is that the five main parts of this bill do not actually address what we really need to address in education. I would hate to see us come back for a third education bill at some stage in the near future. I would hate to come back in a few weeks or months in the new year and debate further issues that will not really make a significant difference to raising the achievement of the critical mass of our students. Kia ora. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit subclauses (1) and (2) and substitute the following subclauses: 
(1)Section 11F(1) is amended by repealing paragraph (d). 
(2)Section 11F(1)(e) is amended by omitting “fifth” and substituting “fourth”. 
(3)Section 11F(2) is amended by omitting “or fifth”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 38 
New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 5. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to insert the following sections after section 35R: 
“35RAProcedural requirements for suspension and expulsion 
“(1)When a student has been suspended the student’s parents have the right to request that the suspension be lifted or varied and to make submissions in support of their request. 
“(2)Before expelling or excluding a student schools should be required to— 
“(a)give adequate notice of the proposed expulsion or exclusion to the student and his or her parents: 
“(b)provide the student and his or her parents with a reasonable opportunity to attend and be heard at a meeting.” 
“35RBPrivate schools’ disciplinary procedures available on request 
“(1)Any student who is facing suspension or expulsion from attendance at a school registered under section 35A or the parents of that student may request details of that school’s disciplinary procedures. 
“(2)When a request under subsection (1) is received the school must provide details of its disciplinary procedures within 5 working days.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 38 
New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 5. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 183 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to insert new clause 12DA and to clause 12E be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 33 
New Zealand Labour 33. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 5; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 183 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to insert new clause 12DB be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 33 
New Zealand Labour 33. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 5; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 186 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to insert new clause 12DC be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 38 
New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 5. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: We now come to the Minister’s amendments as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 176 and Supplementary Order Paper 177. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 38 
New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 5. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon Anne Tolley to clause 12 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 38 
New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 5. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
New Part 1A Amendments to the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 This is the path that I think we have finally come to and if we had come to the agreement earlier than we have come to now we probably would have come to it on 9 December rather than 11December. 
Chris Tremain 
: We’re still on the 9th aren’t we? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We might be on 9 December on the wall and the member might be living in the past but outside it is Saturday. I think it is fair to say that we are here today unnecessarily as a result of the failure on the part of the Government to reach a compromise on this bill. I think all members in the Committee know that it has been my strong personal view and the view of Labour that the removal of police checks for adults looking after children in gymnasium and shop creches was an error. There was a lot of debate about whether that removal was intended. The Minister on the first reading of the bill indicated that that was not the intention but it then became clear that the papers she had received earlier had made the fact clear that that was occurring. 
The fact is that wiser heads have intervened and we have reached a point now where we are reinstating police checks through the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992. I frankly do not care what the legislative vehicle is. The key thing as far as I am concerned is that the law of New Zealand is the law of New Zealand. If the law of New Zealand says that people who are looking after children in that situation have to have police checks—as it currently does—the idea that those checks will be withdrawn is not acceptable. I do not mind at all which vehicle is used to ensure that children are protected. 
I emphasise that this is not a total protection. I think all of us know from the cases that go before the Teachers Council that a lot of people who have been vetted end up offending against children. In fact some of the most sickening conversations I have had in my life have been with chairs and directors of the Teachers Council and have related to cases where people in positions of trust have abused children. This bill will not stop that happening. It will not stop it happening in limited-attendance centres but it will give the opportunity for the police to indicate the times in the past when there has been a conviction or even when there has been an investigation or a suspicion. The police quite often in these situations deal with a lot of cases that do not go close to prosecution because of the age of the child or the quality of the evidence. But a flag is still kept on an individual’s record which would mean they would fail when getting a check. I also say that a lot of people will not have been caught. There is a possibility of their getting through the system so people should be very careful about relying on it. 
My view is that it is always better whatever sort of early childhood centre it is for it to have a lot of glass in its walls. I think there is a very big protection in having children and adults being able to be viewed from other rooms at all times so that there is no temptation and so that kids cannot be in corners or in cupboards. Unfortunately the sorts of creches that are set up too often in gymnasia and shopping areas do not have that sort of openness. They are more likely to have ad hoc arrangements. I do not want to describe them as cupboards but I have seen converted storerooms which I think are not good places in which to keep kids. 
Although we covered the issue in Part 1 I am sure the Chair will not mind if I go back and say I accept that some of the regulation in that area went too far; we have removed that. But with the removal of police checks we went further than we should have. In particular I thank Gerry Brownlee and Simon Power for their work in this area because I think we have now got to a reasonable situation. It shows that we as a Parliament are determined not to weaken the law around the protection of children. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I agree entirely that it is sensible that police checks have been put back in the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). The fact is that police vetting has to occur for employees working in creches. I doubt that there is a parent who would go off to do their shopping with their child in hand and wanting to leave their child at a limited-attendance centre who would ask employees whether they had been police vetted and whether they had any convictions for child abuse because nobody would say yes. So I think that is a necessary protection. 
As has been mentioned it will not totally eliminate untoward things happening to little kiddies in those limited attendance centres but it is a measure of protection. It will give parents a lot more confidence in leaving their children in places such as in shopping malls. So I am grateful that this has occurred and that there has been some sort of compromise so that this protection has been given back to these kids. 
I also agree that there needs to be the type of protections that the Hon Trevor Mallard spoke about such as for glassed-in areas. As a former principal I used to instruct staff male staff in particular not to put themselves in compromising situations or be left in a room with girls on their own. It is an unfortunate fact but we had to provide those protections for our male staff to make sure that there would be no opportunity for anything untoward to happen and no opportunity for any accusations to be made about them. It is good that this measure has been reversed so the parents of these kiddies in the limited-attendance centres in malls will have confidence that their kids will be looked after. 
This is a short call just to say that I think it is good. It is appropriate. It was a silly part to overlook in the original bill and it is great that this has been remedied. As I said parents can take their kids to those limited-attendance day-care centres and have just that extra measure of faith that their kids will be well looked after. Kia ora. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to insert new Part 1A be agreed to: 
Part 1A 
Amendments to the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 
14APrincipal Act amended 
This Part amends the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992. 
14BInterpretation 
Section 2(1) is amended by inserting the following definitions in their appropriate alphabetical order: 
“ 
limited child care centre 
 means any premises used regularly for the care of 3 or more children (not being children of the persons providing the care or children enrolled at a school being provided with care before or after school) under the age of 6 none of whom attends for any period exceeding 2 hours per day in circumstances where the children’s parents or caregivers are— 
“(a)in close proximity to the children and are able to be contacted; and 
“(b)able to resume responsibility for the children at short notice 
“ 
limited child care service provider 
 means the body agency or person who or that operates a limited child care centre”. 
14CPurpose 
The purpose of this Part is to ensure that only suitable people are employed to supervise children in limited child care centres. 
14DNew sections 13A to 13E 
The following new heading and sections are inserted after section 13: 
“Education Amendment Bill (No 2) 
“Duties of employers in relation to Police vetting of employees at limited child care centres 
“13ALimited child care centre employees must be suitable 
A limited child care service provider must take all practicable steps to ensure every employee employed to care for children in a limited child care centre is suitable for that role. 
“13BPolice vetting of employees at limited child care centres 
The service provider of a limited child care centre must obtain a Police vet of every person— 
“(a)whom the service provider employs or intends to employ in a position at the limited child care centre; and 
“(b)who is to work at the service during normal opening hours; and 
“(c)who is not a registered teacher or holder of a limited authority to teach. 
“13CPolice vetting of contractors and their employees who work at limited child care centres 
“(1)The service provider of a limited child care centre must obtain a Police vet of every contractor or the employee of a contractor who has or is likely to have unsupervised access to children at the centre during normal opening hours. 
“(2)In this section  
contractor 
 means a person who under contract (other than an employment contract) works at a limited child care centre. 
“13DPolice vet must be obtained before person has unsupervised access to children 
“(1)A Police vet required under section 13B or 13C must be obtained before the person has or is likely to have unsupervised access to children at the centre during normal opening hours. 
“(2)The service provider of a limited child care centre that is required under section 13B or 13C to obtain a Police vet of a person must apply for the vet no later than 2 weeks after the person begins work at the centre. 
“13EProcedures relating to Police vets under section 13B or 13C 
The service provider of a limited child care centre that applies for a Police vet of a person under section 13B or 13C— 
“(a)must ensure that strict confidentiality is observed for Police vets; and 
“(b)must not take adverse action in relation to a person who is the subject of a Police vet until— 
“(i)the person has validated the information contained in the vet; or 
“(ii)the person has been given a reasonable opportunity to validate the information but has failed to do so within a reasonable period.” 
New Part 1A agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to.  
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Clause 3 agreed to.  
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Anne Tolley be agreed to: 
to cause the enacting words clauses 1 2 and 3 and Parts 1 and 2 to be a separate bill to omit the Part 2 heading and to substitute for the enacting words clauses 1 2 and 3 and Part 1 heading the following enacting words and clauses: 
Education Amendment Bill (No 2) 
The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows: 
1Title 
This Act is the Education Amendment Act (No 2) 2010. 
2Commencement 
(1)Sections 15 to 17 come into force 6 months after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent. 
(2)The rest of this Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. 
3Principal Act amended 
This Act amends the Education Act 1989.; and 
to cause Part 1A to be a separate bill and to substitute for the Part 1A heading the following enacting words and clauses: 
The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows: 
1Title 
This Act is the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act 2010. 
2Commencement 
This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill pursuant to the amendment in the name of the Hon Anne Tolley. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.