Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise to speak on the Education and Training Bill a bill that National opposes. As our previous speaker Dr Shane Reti said we do support a number of provisions in the bill and we do think it makes sense to consolidate education legislation and to do some of the tidying up that this bill achieves. However there are significant areas where we hold concerns and it is for those concerns that we oppose the bill. As previous speakers have said we hope to be heard both in this House during this reading and if it is to progress to select committee in the select committee process. We don't rule out supporting the bill if sensible changes are made. I want to in this contribution take you through a few of the areas where we have serious concerns and in particular I want to focus on some provisions in the area of early childhood education that I have particular concern about. But first of all let me turn to the changes around zoning because in effect this is the Government's major response to the Tomorrow's Schools Review. Now let's just remember the context in which these zoning changes have been proposed. Of course what the Tomorrow's Schools task force really wanted to do was completely centralise control of our schooling system. What the task force wanted was to get rid of parent-elected boards entirely and to instead have one grand bureaucracy operating in each part of the country dictating what a school could or couldn't do. Now that raised concerns across the entire community not just in the National Party but principals teachers even teacher unions were highly concerned about what that kind of centralisation would mean for our schooling system. Parents were very concerned as well. So the Government we are pleased has backed down on some of that but we on this side of the House remain sceptical that the stain of that intent remains in this bill—that intent to centralise and take control away from communities and parent-elected board of representatives. The zoning changes—Hon Andrew Little: You're disappointed the change was made just say it. NICOLA WILLIS: No we are very concerned Mr Little about the changes proposed in this bill in relation to zoning because this is very significant for schools and for communities. One of the key responsibilities that a board has is the ability to develop consult and review its enrolment scheme. Now we already have a situation where the Ministry of Education gets to say Well we think it's time you have an enrolment scheme" and I'm sure I'm not the only member in this House who's sat down with school principals who say "We really lament that we're having to have a enrolment scheme put on us. We know that we're doing a good job for children who choose our school for families who choose our school because of the particular kind of provision and we'll now have to exclude them because of the ministry's requirement." But of course schools at the moment do have power in this regard. They can consult with the community. They can talk to groups of interest about where that zone should sit how it can include families that have historically been connected with the school communities that have historically been connected. It can offer the opportunity for parents to have their say too as elected accountable board members have been put there by those very parents through a democratic process to be accountable to them about what their zone looks like and then to be responsible for reviewing it. Well what this bill does is it completely removes those fundamental powers. It says "No no actually we will not trust democratically elected school boards to make those decisions anymore. We'll take those powers away and we'll instead place them with the Ministry of Education." I don't blame the schools around the country the boards around the country the parents around the country who are a little bit sceptical about how good a job the Ministry of Education will do with that because frankly the Ministry of Education's connection to and relationship with and knowledge of individual communities is not as good as the elected parents on school boards. So National takes particular issue with the zoning changes in this bill. There are a number of other areas where we have concerns but I want to turn now to the changes in early childhood education because taken as a whole the changes that relate particularly to home-based early childhood education will potentially treat families who choose that form of education like criminals. Home-based education is a choice that many families make for a divergent range of reasons. Sometimes it's because families are shift workers and the normal hours of provision of early childhood education and a centre-based service don't suit them—if you're a nurse that's working the night shift and you're a single parent you require education and care to be provided at different times; if you're a family who are in a rural community and there isn't actually a nearby kindy; if you're a family that has difficulties with accessing transport. There are all sorts of reasons why people choose home-based early childhood education and that's the reason it has grown significantly—because it's flexible and it can meet the needs of families. However what this bill says is that what should happen now is that in a family who have chosen home-based early childhood education every single person who lives in that home has to be subject to a police vet. Now the bill is explicit—it doesn't matter if that person won't be there when the child is being educated. That doesn't matter at all. They will be vetted whether they want to be or not whether the family thinks it's necessary or not. The intent is clear: to take away a parent's discretion about who they trust to be in their home and give it to the State instead. And why does that apply? There are homes all around the country where there are people living with children who don't face a police vet. But why is it necessary? Because that family made the choice to have home-based education take place. I have some concerns about that and we'll explore those at select committee and we'll see whether there is in fact value in that provision. The second area I have some concerns about are the enormous new powers that are granted to the Education Review Office (ERO) here—that they are allowed the power of entry into a family home at a time of their choosing whenever they want without a warrant. And the concern I have here is: why is that necessary? Why can't the process simply be that a parent says "Yes well I'll give you permission to come in at this time on that day."? Why is it necessary for the ERO to have a universal right to enter? The concerns here relate to quite basic rights and freedoms in our community. I want to quote from the Cabinet papers that have been released. They say that this provision of warrantless entry into private homes "potentially engages the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993." Erica Stanford: The Greens will be upset. NICOLA WILLIS: I'm sure the Greens will be interested in this and I'm sure that those on the other side of the House who have particular concern with New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues when it suits them will be concerned about this. I am interested that there is no section 7 report on the table. I understand that advice will have been provided to the Attorney-General on this matter and I will be very interested to see that advice and to explore these New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications at select committee because at its core what this provision means is that if you're a family who choose home-based early childhood education you will be treated like a criminal when it comes to people's ability to enter your home without your permission. Warrantless entry into a private dwelling is a significant new power and I raise my concerns with it. The second significant change in relation to early childhood education relates to the licensing framework. Now I like members around the House have spoken to teachers and early childhood services who are concerned that many new centres are opening in their community and the pressure that places on them. At the same time I've spoken to parents who are thrilled that unlike with their first child with subsequent children they haven't had to wait on huge waiting lists. They've been able to get early childhood education when they need it they've been able to choose from a diverse range of services and they've been able to choose a service that suits their particular needs. So we shouldn't say that having lots more services is always a bad thing.What this bill says is that in future rather than centres having to apply for a licence subject to particular objective criteria that will be assessed by the Ministry of Education there will now be a two-step process and the first step of that process provides considerable discretion to the Minister to decide whether the applicant for a new centre is suitable and whether there's a need for a new service. Now I am concerned about the complexity that will create and I am concerned about the potential for that to create ambiguity when people are deciding whether or not to start a centre to know whether or not they're actually going to get that permission at all. It is fundamental when we give discretions like this to a Minister that we're clear about the way in which they exercise them and my concern would be a Minister using this power to simply pick on providers they don't like to say no where it suits them and frankly to be subject to lobbying by competitors who don't want a new competitor entering the Wellington market or the Christchurch market—who don't want a new centre opening up because it won't suit their bottom line. So we have concerns. We oppose the bill."