Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) : I move, That the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. As I stated at the first reading, this bill implements policy changes that this Government has committed to as part of our priority action plan for education. The bill delivers on that commitment by raising the standards of achievement and attendance in compulsory education.

I start by first of all thanking all the speakers who have contributed from this side of the House in support of the first reading of this bill. Also, I particularly want to congratulate Kelvin Davis on his very thoughtful and pertinent contribution. I could not disagree with anything that he said, and I congratulate him on the work he has done with his teachers and his community for the children who have been under his care and guardianship. I think he has done an outstanding job. I ask him why he is so afraid of ensuring that every school throughout New Zealand is doing the sorts of things that he was doing for his community and his children. Why is he so afraid of that? How could he possibly vote against this bill when all it seeks to do is set in place the framework that will ensure that that happens, so that all New Zealand children have the opportunity to be taught by teachers who respect them, who care about their aspirations, and who are prepared to work to those top standards that this bill enables the Minister to set. Why on earth could he not vote for a bill that would enable every child to get that sort of education?

The previous Government ignored reality and the Minister ignored his own Education Review Office, which reported that fewer than half of the schools in New Zealand were doing an excellent job like that. More than half the schools were failing to ensure that the children who were under their care had that quality of teaching—

Hon Chris Carter: Where are the resources? Are you going to put in more resources? How much?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes, we have. The former Minister asks me whether we are putting in the resources. In our policy we have said that there is an extra $18 million a year going in to support the teachers once they have identified the children who are not meeting those standards.

One of the speakers from the other side stood up and said that the introduction of national standards is potentially dangerous. We had the old secret agenda out again. Apparently it is potentially dangerous to set standards for children. We heard from Dr Pita Sharples what has happened to Māori children in this country year after year under that Labour Government. What is so wrong with lifting the sights of those children and setting the standards so that all children have an opportunity to get an excellent education? Why is the Labour Party so afraid of making sure that all children have the opportunity that a good education can give them, and why is the Labour Party so afraid of making sure that parents know what their children are doing, where their children excel, and where they need some extra help? What is wrong with a parent knowing that?

I tell this House tonight that I have been deluged with emails from people since this bill was mooted. I have been deluged with parents saying: “We cannot get that information about our children from our schools. We want to know what we can do to help our children, and our schools will not tell us. Thank you, Mrs Tolley.” They are saying: “Thank you for taking the opportunity under this new Government to be part of the education of our children.” They are grateful because they want the best for their children and they want the opportunity to take part in that.

I again ask the members of the previous Labour Government why they are so afraid of a bill that lifts aspirations for children and includes parents in the educational process. Why is that potentially dangerous for New Zealand children? I think a Labour Opposition that is intent on keeping too many children, and particularly Māori children, uneducated, illiterate, and innumerate is potentially dangerous for this country. Those members will not accept that there is a need for standards in this country. We are committed to a policy of national standards, but we are also committed to working with the sector to—

Hon Chris Carter: Why don’t you care what the sector has got to say?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have been talking with the sector for months about the consultation process that we will go through.

This bill does nothing more than enable the Minister to set the standards. It does not set the standards; it enables the Minister to set the standards. We have stated that we will go out to people in the sector and consult them about how those standards are set and what they should look like. The literacy progressions are already out there. I have talked to the sector about the literacy progressions, and they are not scary. They set out expectations of what children could and should be learning right throughout their schooling. That is the sort of thing that we are talking about with the sector, because at the moment there are a whole lot of guidelines out there. There is the Literacy Professional Development Project, the targeted achievement for Pasifika programme, and a whole range of different benchmarks out there. Well, this National Government is saying no. We will have one set of national standards that everybody understands that can lift every child and give every child the opportunity to get a good education.

I do not understand how a former Labour Government could vote against that. I do not understand how the member Kelvin Davis, who was a principal, who knows how this works, and who has proved what we can do with children with constant assessment, and by putting support in around individual children, involving the parents, and telling them what they can do and where their children are, could vote against this bill. It does nothing more than allow the Minister to set some standards that are agreed with the sector. I do not understand how he can vote against it.

The second part of this bill is about truancy, and we have not heard much about that tonight. We believe that it is important to send a strong message that if children are not at school, then they cannot learn. A member opposite asked what will happen when the children turn up to school on 4 February. Well, I will tell the member what will happen. If they turn up to school, they will have an opportunity to learn. They will not be truant and, therefore, the truancy part of this bill will not apply to them. But there are children out there who are kept at home by their parents to keep their parents company. There are children out there who are kept at home to look after siblings. There are children out there who are deliberately kept away from school by their parents. Those children are being denied the opportunity of an education, and National is going to make sure we send a strong message that that is not acceptable.

Every child has the right to go to school and get an education, because we know that a good education will lift children out of the poverty that the Green member Metiria Turei spoke so eloquently about. The only opportunity children will get is a good education, and it is unfair if their parents are deliberately keeping them from school, so we will put the fines up for truancy. Let me say this—I want to finish on this. If members think that $3,000 is too big a fine, I say that in this country we have a maximum fine of $3,000 for failing to register a dog. I say that it is more important to send one’s child to school.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Before I call the next speaker, let me just caution members—firstly, about interjections. Members know that they should be rare and reasonable. At times it got close to a barrage of interjections, and I do not believe that is appropriate. Rare and reasonable interjections are fine.

The second thing I ask members to desist from is engaging in barrages that go backwards and forwards across the Chamber. They were quite apart from the exchanges with the member who was on her feet. I was reluctant to interrupt her speech, but members need to desist from doing that, as well.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) : This bill is nothing more than a desperate attempt by the new National Government to cover up the fact that it has no new ideas on how to address underachievement in our schools. Those members have no new ideas about how to deal with literacy and numeracy problems. They have no new ideas about how to keep kids in our classrooms. This bill will do absolutely nothing to address those issues. It is completely unnecessary, and it even states that it is unnecessary in the explanatory note of the bill.

This bill will narrowly focus the education system on teaching kids a very, very narrow range of knowledge. The teachers will teach to the test, rather than teaching to the curriculum. It will grow the gap between the achievement rates of students at rich schools and the students at poor schools. This bill is completely unnecessary.

Let me read from page 4 of the explanatory note, which states: “The Minister of Education can set national standards through the existing provisions of the Education Act … either by way of the national education guidelines or by regulations. Regulating for this power could achieve the same policy objective as legislating,”. So we are off to a ripper of a start with our red tape reduction! Instead of creating regulations, we are going to create unnecessary legislation. The ACT Party is clearly doing well on its red tape reduction. We have already seen bills rammed through the House with pathetic regulatory impact statements.

This bill will give parents no new information. It will give parents no more information than they can already get from teachers if the teachers have the opportunity to talk to them. I draw the attention of the House to the National Education Guidelines; the ones that the Minister seems completely unaware of. Paragraph (iii) of national administration guideline No. 2 states that each board of trustees, with the principal and teaching staff, is required to “report to students and their parents on the achievement of individual students, and to the school’s community on the achievement of students as a whole and of groups”. So why do we need this bill?

The requirement in the national administration guidelines specifically identifies a number of areas, and it specifically requires schools to report on students who are not achieving or who are at risk of not achieving, so the bill is totally unnecessary. It does not increase in any way resources going to the schools or to the teachers. It does nothing to help them. There is absolutely no evidence that setting national standards and forcing primary schools to set exams, which is what this bill will effectively do—

Hon Members: Oh, rubbish!

CHRIS HIPKINS: I would encourage members to read the general policy statement at the front of the bill, which states: “The changes will require State schools to assess students, and to report the progress of students, against the national standards.”. So this bill is very little more than national testing for primary schoolkids.

The evidence from overseas suggests that national testing does nothing to lift student achievement. In fact, it has a number of detrimental impacts. It encourages teachers to teach to the test—to train pupils to pass the test, rather than to gain any understanding of what they are learning. It means that kids do not develop any higher order thinking skills. And if we want to see any evidence of the impact that has, we need only to look at the benches opposite us. A research review in the UK found that national testing leads pupils to regard learning in terms of passing tests, rather than in terms of gaining any understanding of what they have actually learnt.

I would draw the House’s attention to another publication from overseas—a Demos publication called “Beyond Measure: why educational assessment is failing the test”—which concluded that the assessment system measures recall of knowledge rather than the depth of understanding and that it tests only a narrow section of the curriculum. The report goes on to state: “the notion of measuring a cohort of learners as a whole is absurd. We know children mature at different rates. What we need is assessment by demand.” This bill does nothing to increase the support for teachers to do assessment by demand. It does absolutely nothing.

What about the students? What does this bill mean for students? A survey of parents in England, where a similar system is being put in place, found that one in 10—one in 10—7-year-old kids was reduced to tears and lost sleep because they were worried about sitting tests. The same survey found that two-thirds of 11-year-olds showed signs of stress in preparing for the tests, with 9 percent suffering from anxiety attacks. And that is what this Government wants to do! In Oldham an 11-year-old was hospitalised for stress because of those tests. How is stressing out primary schoolkids going to do anything to raise standards in our schools?

Another report from the UK highlighted the negative consequences of national testing on teachers, including overload and stress. It found that national testing distracted from teachers’ daily classroom performance and contributed to a number of teachers leaving the profession altogether, because national testing does not tell good teachers anything they do not know already. As some of my colleagues have outlined, there are far better tools that could be used instead.

I noticed that Nick Smith has been commenting on it today. He said “I openly concede that the information can be used destructively.” It was Nick Smith who said that. One way it can be used destructively is to develop school league tables. The Minister was quoted in the Dominion Post this morning as saying that that would not happen: “Education Minister Anne Tolley denied the results could be used to compile league tables, saying the full data obtained would be available only to the Government.” I do not see anything in this bill that repeals the Official Information Act. I see nothing in the bill that repeals the Official Information Act and would stop people from getting hold of the data and using it to compile exactly that.

We know from past experience that once the data is there, people will get hold of it. In fact, the National Party used to advocate for that data to be released publicly to create league tables. Bill English spent months and months arguing for National Certificate of Educational Achievement league tables to be created using the same kinds of data in secondary schools. This will drive a massive wedge between the rich schools and the poor schools. It will create an incentive for the good teachers to leave the poorer schools and move to the rich schools, or leave altogether.

We know that once the Government has this information it will use it to introduce performance pay for teachers. We know that is what the Government wants to do. It wants to introduce performance pay for teachers. It will put them on 90 days’ probation, and it will give teachers the shove at the first available opportunity. [Interruption] Oh, the 90-day period does not affect teachers. Anne Tolley stood up and said that the 90-day period would not affect teachers, and that they will not be covered and they will not be sacked. Well, I have news for Government members, because the bill that they passed does exactly that. So how long will it be before we are back in this House debating performance pay for teachers?

This bill shows that the Government has no new ideas on how to raise student achievement. In fact, the teaching profession knows that and does not want it. Ninety percent of primary school principals surveyed said they did not want it. They are opposed to the National Party policy. Eighty-seven percent of primary school teachers opposed it. Seventy-five percent of high school teachers opposed it. Sixty-nine percent of school boards of trustees opposed the National Party policy. They did not want it. Who wanted it? [Interruption] Why does the member not stand up and take the next call and tell us who wanted it? In fact, those people surveyed do not want the bill rammed through under urgency, either. I quote from the Auckland Secondary School Principals Association: “It’s a matter of trust, … When bills are rushed, and the sector is not consulted, it will create a wedge and a sense of suspicion with the Government.”

Nobody wants this bill rammed through. The New Zealand Educational Institute said that it does not want it, because it believes that openness is critical to ensure that any decision on teaching and learning is educationally sound and will lead to increased student achievement. Yet, despite all of the blather from members opposite, we have not heard at all about how this bill will increase student achievement. We have heard nothing from them about how this will increase student achievement. The New Zealand Principals Federation said: “National testing is such an old-fashioned idea, … National testing is, quite simply, a backward step.” This bill introduces national testing by any other name.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) : The young member for Rimutaka, Chris Hipkins, should fire his speech-writer, because that speech will come back to haunt him in his time in this House and on the streets of his electorate.

I take a moment to acknowledge my former colleague Mr Davis. I know Mr Davis to have been a school principal of the highest integrity. I had the great privilege of spending time with him in the far north, visiting the school that he led, and talking to him at great length about the nature of school leadership and how children learn. I can affirm as correct everything he said about the success of that school. I would like to say to that member that in this place it can be very, very difficult for members to retain their integrity in respect of issues like education, but the price they pay for doing so is one that is well worth paying. I would express the hope that within the member’s caucus, the wisdom and the experience—and the common views that we share—will be heard.

I will address issues raised by the former Minister of Education Mr Mallard. I spent years thinking that the reason the former Prime Minister dumped him as Minister of Education must have been that he jackbooted his way across the country, kicking communities and schools. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe the Prime Minister recognised that his thinking in education was so backward-looking that even she could not retain him in that position, and he demonstrated that backward-thinking tonight to perfection. What did he want to talk about? He talked about progressive achievement tests and national averages.

In this debate, when we are talking about setting national standards for literacy and numeracy, it is important that we understand very, very clearly some differences. There is assessing a child against a standard, which is what we do now through the National Certificate of Educational Achievement. We tell children “Here is what you need to be able to do, and as many of you as can do that get the standard, and as many of you who cannot do it do not get the standard.” Members who want to keep talking about national averages are more concerned with statistical movements than whether children actually know anything or not. I would have thought that the former Minister would have understood that, but in effect what he said reminds this House of just how far we have to go to make people in this House and in the education sector understand the significance of standards. I am sure the previous Minister of Education knows exactly what I am saying—and now I am referring to Mr Chris Carter, obviously, not to Mr Mallard.

This is about children who through no fault of their own are not learning to read, write, or do mathematics to the minimum level required for them to find a contributing, positive place in a society and in an economy. Right through the debate today, in my view, there has been insufficient acknowledgment of that fact.

I listened with great care to the Green view on all of this.

Metiria Turei: No you did not. You didn’t listen to it at all!

ALLAN PEACHEY: Well, I shouted a little bit, and I am sorry about that. There are still parliamentarians representing parties in this House who do not understand that the single most significant driver to get children out of poverty is the quality of education they receive—and the previous Minister of Māori Affairs sitting opposite will understand that, in terms of the constituency that he represented—and who are still prepared to tolerate, unchallenged, all of these social and economic excuses that adults make, and that children do not need them to make.

The statement in this bill about national standards is the statement of the National Government, supported by our colleagues, that the language around children’s learning and success must change. I am very, very troubled, and I suspect that my former colleague Mr Davis is equally troubled, by the very seriously diminished view of schoolteachers that has been taken by some of the members opposite who have spoken, particularly the young member from Rimutaka. All of this talk about teachers teaching to the test and all the rest of it is, frankly, offensive. People like me have spent 32 years teaching under a secondary school system where we taught youngsters to pass examinations. During the 16-odd years that I headed schools I knew that the performance of the school that I led would be ranked on the front pages of the newspaper in my community, without fail. I had to manage that. That is how it is.

If we listen very, very closely to the arguments members opposite are putting up against national standards, we find that one of the critical things they are saying is, in effect, that we must keep this stuff from parents.

Hon Members: No, no.

ALLAN PEACHEY: Opposition members need to go away and look at just how accessible truthful information about the performance of schools is to parents. One of the great things about having national standards is that there will be a clear standard and parents will know whether they are sending their children to a school where children learn. Members should just remember that this is not about teachers, it is not about educational theory, and it is not about left-wing researchers overseas. It is about our children and their future.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) : It is my pleasure to speak in the second reading of the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill. The bill sets out to do two things: it allows the Minister of Education to set national standards for literacy and numeracy, and it requires, I notice, State schools to assess and report students’ performance against those standards. It also requires that fines be imposed on those who refuse to enrol their children at school; there is an extra matter relating to that, as well. So the overall purpose of the bill is to raise standards of achievement and attendance in the compulsory education sector.

During the election campaign, the public was promised a crusade for literacy and numeracy. Those are strong sentiments, and that is a strong image to project—that there will be a crusade. I will talk a bit more about it in a minute, but, first, I want to say that a crusade is a vigorous, concerted action to promote or eliminate something. It is vigorous, it is concerted, and it is considered, making it more widely acceptable. In this case, the crusade is to eliminate poor achievement in schools, and to eliminate truancy. If this bill is the crusade, then it fails on a number of grounds, and I shall touch on those in my comments.

For the bill to have a good chance to succeed, a good chance of being a crusade, the problem should have been carefully analysed. For a crusade to be well developed, advice should be taken from those with the best information. One should have gone about getting advice from a wide range of sources. And the crusade should include quite a detailed, comprehensive plan, which should be laid out so that one can see it quite easily. Each aspect of the plan of attack of a crusade should be clearly identified and, again, put before us. It should have been designed with some care, then systematically implemented. The crusade that the electorate was promised to eliminate something as important as poor achievement and truancy still has some way to go. I think that if this bill is the crusade, then it has faltered. It is not likely to achieve the high goals that we have been promised or the high goals that are identified in this bill.

It is also important to understand the assumption on which this particular crusade is based, and I have tried to understand it. I think it goes something like this. There are students in our schools who do not achieve in numeracy and literacy. Well, there is enough research to show that; we cannot argue with it. They do not achieve because—and this is the second part of the logic of this particular bill—we do not have numeracy and literacy standards. Well, OK, that is the logic being followed. The third stage is to set those standards, assess every child against those standards, and report the results to parents, and—voila—our children’s achievement will improve.

With the greatest of respect, and with all the honesty I can muster, I have to ask: is that it? Is that the crusade? Is that what will get us there? Is that what the electorate was promised? Is this bill strong enough to do it? I shall develop my arguments around that in a minute, but if this bill is all that it takes, then I wonder whether we have understood the very basics of how to construct a question, analyse it, and consider the other factors I have identified. I have to ask whether this bill is the best we can come up with. One can honestly ask whether it is poorly designed policy, given that the very people who will be required to implement it—and this is a serious test of a policy—do not agree with it. If they do not agree with it, then, as members opposite will know—because they have run organisations and done pretty demanding things—all kinds of impediments will be put in the way to confound it.

Let us look, then, at the major assumption that schools do not teach to achieve particular standards at the moment. The explanatory note of the bill is quite helpful. It tells us that in—

Hon Anne Tolley: It’s not an assumption. There’s an Education Review Office report that says it.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Well, I am going to quote it. If the Minister listens, she will hear the argument in a minute. In 2007, 14 percent of students left school without achieving the numeracy and literacy credits they needed to attain level 1 of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement. That gives us some idea of the percentage of school students we are talking about. It may be a little more than that—I think National’s figures in the election campaign were 20 percent. It also means that the system we currently have that the Government wants to change is working well for 80 percent of school-leavers. If the system is good for the overwhelming majority of students, why is such radical surgery needed at this stage?

Hon Anne Tolley: They’re not assumptions.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: The Minister will soon follow the argument; it is a carefully constructed one.

As any business person knows, one must first identify the problem, then look at all the alternative solutions, select the best one—the Minister will soon get it—implement it, and review it. I have serious doubts that that actually happened in this case. I have identified what such a process would reveal. Instead, the Government is ramming through under urgency a set of proposals that, at least in the view of quite of few people, is not likely to achieve the very things the Minister wants to achieve, and might even make matters worse. It might be that the small amount of dollars that is being put aside is gobbled up in just implementing these very proposals. There are plenty of examples of that in social policy, in public policy, and certainly in education policy.

The Minister might like to listen to this. I spoke to several teachers today and this is what they told me. These are honest brokers; they are the people who will implement the Minister’s particular programmes. They said they were already reporting to parents, and those reports are based on concrete evidence from the classroom, from the records they keep, and from early numeracy and literacy testing. They are doing what they are required to. The teachers I spoke to today told me—

Hon Anne Tolley: The Education Review Office says they are not all doing that.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Well, maybe that is what needs to be fixed. I tell the Minister that one does not use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. One understands what the problem is, looks at the options, and picks the best one. I know that that is difficult for the Minister, but there is science behind it, and if she uses the science, she will be a better Minister and she will make better decisions. It is not difficult. There are people around to help her to do it.

The teachers tell us that testing will impose further burdens on them.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh!

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Maybe the member opposite should speak to some teachers. Maybe some members opposite have; maybe they have spoken to the teachers who teach their children. They should talk to them about what happens. The teachers tell me that they are interested in producing effective children, rather than supporting a system that actually prevents them from doing the very things they want to do. The teachers also told me today that this type of testing can set children up for failure.

Hon Anne Tolley: This isn’t national testing.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: The Minister should at least listen to what the teachers are saying. She has not consulted them; I am sorry, but she has not. If she really believes that, she should send the bill to a select committee and, at least, let us contest it.

Hon Anne Tolley: Read the bill.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: I have read the bill.

The Minister will want to know about the next point I want to make. If this idea is the best thing around, then why is so much research against it, and why are so many people who know more about this subject than I and the Minister do not happy? Ninety percent of primary school principals surveyed opposed National’s policy, 90 percent of high school principals surveyed opposed this policy, 87 percent of primary school teachers surveyed opposed this particular policy—

Hon Member: Who did the survey?

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: The Minister might like to look at the survey and the methodology—not at who carried it out. That is quite important.

Hon Anne Tolley: But look at the question they asked. What about our policy?

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: The Minister knows that the New Zealand Council for Educational Research is a reputable organisation with good methods. If the Minister would like to question them, she should make a statement about that. Thank you.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : I have been quite interested in the genesis of this policy, which comes from national standards. It has been very interesting listening to, especially, Allan Peachey talk about it in the context of the US and the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, which was part of the Bush administration’s major educational reforms. I will talk about those, especially in the context of the policy and how it impacts on disparities in education. I will talk particularly about the gaps between what in the US would be described as black and white populations, and about the way in which such reforms might impact here on Māori and Pākehā populations and the difference in educational achievement between the two.

Normally, of course, in a second reading speech we would be talking about the submitters who had come to the select committee to tell us about their experiences with regard to the legislation and their views of it. Just as an aside, I have always enjoyed that part of the select committee process. It is the most valuable and probably the single most democratic process that this Parliament has—the opportunity for direct engagement by the public with MPs, where people can tell us about their experiences and about the way they think the legislation will affect them. I find that process extremely valuable, and I think it is disgraceful that legislation of such import as this Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill has not gone to the public. We have not had families, the Secondary Principals Association, teachers, unionists, the Post Primary Teachers Association, or even school students tell us how they think this bill will impact on them. They are the ones, of course, who are affected by it. But I guess we might expect more of this from National—the secret, rapid passage of legislation and policy that is actually based on ideology, and I will go through that now.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 introduced standards and testing in US schools, along with a whole range of Draconian measures—which National has not yet implemented, but we will wait and see. For example, schools that fail to reach the target standards and tests have a graduated level of punishments inflicted against them. In some circumstances they might be required to transfer or provide for the transfer of students from their school to another school, to replace teaching staff, or to remove or to decrease management in their schools if they did not meet the standards. Schools that fail to meet the standards can even be required to turn over their school administration to private companies, which would then be able to run their schools for them.

This is the part of the No Child Left Behind legislation based on the standards and testing regime. Because that policy has been in place for some time there has been quite a lot of analysis of its impacts. In particular, I just point members to two reports. One is “Exacerbating inequality: the failed promise of the No Child Left Behind Act”, which was produced in a race and ethnicity education publication. There was another one, “Testing and Social Stratification in American Education”, and I will just look at some of that analysis.

The research done on the policy found, for example, that urban schools—predominantly poor schools and predominantly black schools—suffered the most from the policy, suffered the most in terms of punishment as a result of failing to meet the test, and had, therefore, the graduated levels of punishment enacted against them. There was a real concern that the standardised testing was unreliable, had major negative consequences, and was highly politicised. I think it is worthwhile remembering that with the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill, the Minister has the right to define these tests and standards, so it is a politicised process or standards test, whichever way the Minister wants to spin it. The fact is that it will be a politicised process here, just as it is in the US.

The testing and standards regime set a benchmark so that even the schools that were demonstrably improving over time were still considered to be failures and, therefore, they suffered the consequences. That then impinged on their ability to keep on improving over time. So those schools that were trying to do better were being punished for their success at trying to do better, to the point where many of them failed completely.

There was an obvious correlation between the test scores and income. This system did not remove the disparities between test scores of the poor or low-income families and more wealthier families. In particular—and I note this for the benefit of the Māori Party, which is considering supporting this legislation—the research has proved that the testing and standardised regime resulted in fewer students of colour and fewer students with disabilities completing high school. The dropout rate for the students of colour and students who had some form of disadvantage, if you like, increased by 17 percent in just 2 years after this legislation was passed.

Teachers were required, in effect, to teach to the test, and there has been some discussion of that with regard to this bill. Even in coloured schools, poorer schools, and urban schools where there was an attempt to teach to a much higher level of achievement, the teachers had to teach to the test to make sure that their kids would get through it. So instead of having a more expansive and intuitive form of learning and teaching between teachers and kids, teachers were forced to teach those children how to write five-paragraph essays so that they would meet the requirements of the standardised test. This led to a downgrading in the achievement levels and the downgrading of the quality of teaching of those kids, particularly those from the poorest and the most discriminated against communities.

Many schools had to reduce the resources for non-tested subjects and divert those resources into the subjects that were being tested in order to help make sure that their kids would reach those standards. Children for whom the standards or that area of learning was not their strong point and was not where they had their talent were then discriminated against, because the schools had to divert resources away from other areas. Those children lost out in the process because the test took over from what was best for those students. I remind members that this research has been done on this policy over many years, and members will have access to it when I table these papers soon.

The other consequence—and we have seen it here in New Zealand with some schools—is that academically weak students were forced out of school or were kept back in their classes until the school determined that they were more likely to pass. That has happened here. I think that was what happened in Cambridge, and there have been other places where it has happened, too. In fact, it still happens in secondary schools where schools will not allow students to sit exams if they do not think they will meet the high standards the school sets in order to keep those schools high up on what is the New Zealand version of the league tables. The dropout rate for the students who needed the most help to succeed and to pass the tests increased, as well. There was a higher dropout rate for the students who needed the most help and who were the most disadvantaged.

I repeat for the benefit of the Māori Party that in relation to the situation in New Zealand, we are talking about the poorest students from low-decile communities. They are predominately Māori and Pacific Island students, and they often have special needs because lower-decile schools have a higher ratio of special needs children than high-decile schools. They will be the kids for whom the policy fails, and the research proves it. This policy increases the difference and discrimination disparity between those communities. It focuses advantages and privileges on wealthier kids in wealthier schools, and it discriminates against poorer kids, Māori kids, and poorer schools. The research has proved this point.

National’s policy is ideological. That is why it has not taken it out to the public. It really does not want there to be any real scrutiny of this analysis at all, because this kind of research, which proves, shows, and demonstrates the failure of this policy in other jurisdictions, would come to light in the public eye here. Parents would know about it. The teachers in schools would know about it. They would know that this policy is a failure and that it is an ideological approach, not one based on proper evidence, proper science, and proper research about what works best for the children at the bottom end. This policy will push our Māori kids who are at the bottom.

I find the Minister’s condescending, sycophantic description about how fabulous National will be for Māori students absolutely sickening, when the policies and the law it has passed in the last few days absolutely discriminates against them. This keeps them poor, keeps them in jail, keeps them out of work, and keeps them out of school.

Hon HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) : I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to speak to the second reading of the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill. That was another interesting contribution from the Green member. It seems to have completely escaped her that the ACT Party and the National Party campaigned strongly on education, and that was probably one of the main reasons the majority of people in this country voted for a change of Government. That fact seems to have escaped her completely. I am pleased the member mentioned No Child Left Behind, because that is exactly what we should be aiming for in this country—no child left behind. In fact, we should accept nothing less.

The Opposition clearly feels very threatened by the thought of national standards in literacy and numeracy. All we have heard is attack, attack, attack about national standards, but we have heard nothing about the first part of this bill, which is also very important in relation to school enrolment and attendance. All that Opposition members are focusing on is national standards, because they know that it is the right thing to do. Shame on them for standing up, member after member, and not supporting this initiative! Shame on them! Why are they doing it? Because they fear that it will show that we have an education system that is letting our children down. That is the problem for them—fear that it will show up the last 9 years as a complete failure for the education system in this country.

Hon Chris Carter: What a pathetic joke!

Hon HEATHER ROY: We have had a prescription in the last 9 years. They might joke about it, but we have had a failed prescription for the last 9 years that has not worked. The current education system, which is about to be radically changed, is failing far too many of our children. Although it can be quite good for the academically able—those who will do pretty well, no matter what—many children are not learning even the basics and are achieving poor qualifications or, frequently, no qualifications at all. We should not be happy or content to let this situation continue. Despite rising expenditure, New Zealand’s education standards are falling and we have now been overtaken by other developed countries.

Hon Chris Carter: What nonsense!

Hon HEATHER ROY: Mr Carter should try reading the literature. The worst-performing schools are in the poorest areas, and parents have limited choice as to the schools they send their children to. Too much is spent on the bloated bureaucracy when it could be spent on schools and on educating children at the front line. Teacher morale is low and many secondary schools suffer poor discipline.

What we should be striving for is equality. Every single child in New Zealand, regardless of family income, should have the right to a quality education. No child should be left behind just because of where he or she lives or because of the parents’ financial position. Education is first, last, and always about children. It is not about the Government or bureaucrats. We need to increase the role of parents and decrease the role of Wellington. That is the commitment I see from the National Party, and that is the commitment the ACT Party brings to the incoming Government. Parents have the right to send their children to the school of their choice. After all, it is their money, paid in their taxes, and their children’s futures.

Here is what ACT wants for all Kiwi kids in terms of education. It will be universal. All school students will get State funding. All schools will be held to account for the success of their students through an assessment system that is objective and transparent, and that is what this legislation is about. That is why it is important that it is put in place as quickly as possible. There will be choice. Under ACT, parents will be free to choose a school that best fits the needs of their children. It will not matter whether the school is public or private. ACT’s policy will allow diversity in education. It will encourage; it will not stymie, hinder, and put up road blocks. It will encourage different kinds of schools and new kinds of teaching.

We will abolish the excessively bureaucratic system of classifying and funding schools according to their character and who owns them. That is not important. We want to see funding of all schools on the same formula, and we will give them greater freedom to develop special characteristics. These are the discussions we should be having about education in this country. We should not be having discussions about who owns the school. We believe in diversity and we reject the one-size-fits-all approach to education, as does every party on this side of the House. [Interruption] Our critics, these people over here, should stand up and take a call. Our critics prefer State monopoly and State control to parental choice and diversity.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member for interrupting her speech. The reason I have done so is that she has made a series of policy statements, using the word “our”—our position, etc. I am not sure whether she is giving a position of the new National - ACT - United Future - Māori Party Government, or whether she is giving the position of the ACT Party. Through you, Mr Assistant Speaker, I suggest that it would be helpful for order if she would tell us that, for, indeed, if it is the former we are in some trouble.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The point Mr Hodgson has raised is a pure debating point. He is destructively breaking up a very good speech from Heather Roy, and I think you should discipline the member for disrupting a speech in that way.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I would say to the honourable member who has just made the point that if the Speaker disciplined every member who raised a point of order that was not a point of order, there would be an awful lot of discipline in this House. The member, though, is correct. It was a political point. It is a debating matter.

Hon HEATHER ROY: The member who made the point of order in the first instance clearly was not listening when I said: “Here’s what ACT wants to do for all Kiwi kids.” If he had listened a little more carefully he would have heard that from the start. But we have a Government now that is prepared to think, that is prepared to look broadly for solutions to problems that exist—problems that have been caused by 9 years under the Opposition when it was in Government—and that is prepared to listen and think broadly about solutions to advantage the children in this country. Now the Opposition is rejecting striving for excellence, rejecting expectations, and rejecting having standards as a measuring tool so that parents know how their children are doing—as they ought to be able to expect.

The Labour member Kelvin Davis actually made a very good contribution earlier, I felt, and several people on this side of the House have mentioned that. He talked about excellent teachers raising achievement, and he is absolutely correct. He mentioned a whole number of initiatives that are very important—things that members will routinely hear from speakers on this of the House—and I would like to congratulate him on those comments. But I am sad he came to an absolutely bizarre conclusion after putting forward those very good points. I look forward to the member making some useful contributions on education, but the conclusions he came to bore absolutely no relationship to the comment that he had made.

I would say to the member that it is not a situation of “either/or”; we should be striving for excellent teachers to raise education standards and achievement at the same time as encouraging excellence in teaching. The two are not mutually exclusive; it is not “either/or”, it is “both/and”, I say to Mr Davis. I want to keep hearing that sort of initiative from his side of the House, because that is the sort of thing that can further education and achievement in this country.

The Hon Bill English’s first reading speech made some very good comments about expectations, and this is what this bill is all about: it is about having the right sorts of expectations for our children in education. When we expect excellence, when we expect every child to achieve to the best of his or her ability, we will actually have excellent teachers, excellent standards, excellent schools, and excellent education in this country. So how do we meet these expectations? ACT believes they can be met with school choice. I say to Mr Hodgson that the ACT Party is supporting the National Party—just in case in two sentences’ time he has forgotten I said the word “ACT” and worries about where this initiative might be coming from. ACT believes that the expectations can be met with school choice. We campaigned strongly on this, and it played a large part in our negotiations, which resulted in the National-ACT confidence and supply agreement.

We are pleased that National has stated that it will work over time to increase the educational choices available to parents and pupils so that families have more freedom to select schooling options that best meet the individual needs of their children. We look forward to the setting up of the inter-party working-group, which will be resourced as necessary to consider and report on policy options relating to the funding and regulation of schools, which will increase parental choice and school autonomy. This bill we are debating tonight is a great start in that process, and I welcome this initiative that has been brought to the House tonight by the National Party. The ACT Party will be supporting it through its entire course.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, tēnā tātau katoa. E te uri o Te Tai Tokerau, ka nui te mihi ki a koe. Tautoko i ngā mihi, ngā kōrero a ēnei ki a koe ehara, wāu kōrero he tika tonu me kī te ngako o ērā kōrero. Nō reira, ka nui te mihi ki a koe, otirā, ki a tātau i tēnei pō.

[Greetings to you, and to all of us. Much admiration to you, the relative from Te Tai Tokerau. I endorse the accolades and comments expressed by these ones to you. My word, what you said, at least the nub of it, was on the mark. Therefore, much admiration to you, and indeed to us tonight.]

The concept of setting standards—high standards—is something that is expressed in many whakatauākī Māori: “Ko te manu kai i te miro, nōna te ngāhere. Ko te manu kai i te mātauranga, nōna te ao—the bird that eats the miro berry can claim the forest, but the bird that eats, or feasts on, education can claim the world.” And there are others, of course. I believe that it was a theme that was referred to in the House just recently by my colleague Hekia Parata in her maiden speech. The aspiration, of course, is pretty easy, but it is of no use if there is educational system failure.

In 2006 more than 10,000 16-year-olds did not achieve minimum requirements in literacy and numeracy. Is that a standard that we can feel proud of as a nation? I do not think so. For Māori, 40 percent of our tamariki, by the end of year 11, and 44 percent of Pasifika students did not meet the literacy and numeracy requirements of year 11. Can we feel proud of that national standard? Hell, no! What are we doing so wrong? More to the point, what are we doing so right for other students—namely, 76 percent of Asian students and 79 percent of Pākehā who did meet the literacy and numeracy requirements for level 1?

This bill cannot remedy these institutional and longstanding inequalities in its mere three pages, but perhaps it is a kick-start to the conversation. This bill will enable the Minister of Education to set national standards in literacy and numeracy and then assess standards against them. The Māori Party suggests that the real test for us would be if the Minister of Education were able to assess the competency of schools themselves to respond to the unique and distinctive needs of their student population. The research by Professor Russell Bishop, which resulted in the Kōtahitanga project, suggests that there is a lot to do here.

In the Māori Party policy document He Aha te Mea Nui? our priority is both to help young people to succeed and to improve the performances of schools. We want to ensure that the public be provided with better information on school performance, including Māori and Pasifika achievement. To do that, we suggest there are specific and tangible steps that the Government can take. The Government could support professional development for teachers, particularly around the notions of cultural competency. The Government could invest in key support staff such as those focused on improving levels of literacy and numeracy. The Government could establish incentives that reward schools’ success and innovation in reducing underachievement and disengagement. The Government could invest in mobile literacy and numeracy services that can reach children, parents, and whānau in rural areas. These are just a few of the many ideas that the Māori Party—the awesome Māori Party—will be willing to contribute to the education portfolio with the appointment of Dr Pita Sharples as Associate Minister, along with the honourable Minister Anne Tolley.

Our ideas actually dovetail quite nicely with the recommendations presented in the report that the Education and Science Committee released to the House in February of this year. So they should. That inquiry lasted almost 2 years and I was pleased to be a part of that committee when we had a cross-party inquiry into making the schooling system work for every child. There are a whole host of recommendations that are useful in the context of raising standards of achievement in the compulsory education sector.

An interesting observation of that report was the comment that teachers have plenty of suitable assessment tools at their disposal but that the schooling system as a whole is not using the huge potential of these tools to support programmes to improve student achievement. Our report recommended that more resources be devoted to the provision of comprehensive professional development in assessment practice so that by 2010 all schools have experienced appropriate training in the collection and use of assessment data. The committee believed that this would make a considerable difference to student achievement, particularly among the so-called long tail of underachievement.

The crucial thing is our estimation that not just the right assessment tools are used and teachers are supported with appropriate professional development but also assessments are reported to whānau. Whānau need to know where their children are. Such information is not to label tamariki but simply to assist in showing them that they may need assistance or that they may be doing very well. The gathering of evidence would also hold schools to account, and the monitoring and reporting of achievement of Māori students is a policy statement that we intend to follow up over the next 3 years in our agreement with the National Government. Schools simply having information and not using it, and not being accountable for a lack of strategy to lift student achievement, must be considered in the near future. Having around half of young Māori men and women not achieving at least one single qualification before they leave school should no longer be tolerated, and the Māori Party intends to work cooperatively with the Minister to address this matter.

Although we are generally happy with the focus on national standards in literacy and numeracy, I have to say we are concerned about the other set of changes proposed in the bill, to do with truancy levels. Truancy rates have, for many years now, been highest among Māori and Pasifika students, yet the problem continues to be ignored, despite the inevitable disruption to learning that high truancy rates must create for Māori and Pasifika students. The implications of truancy are not associated just with underachievement. Several of our submitters, such as Family Court Judge Becroft, and others, emphasise that many of those presented to the court were illiterate, among other things.

So we agree absolutely that something must be done, but does that mean slapping a fine on those people, hoping that increased fines will lower rates of truancy? We do not think so. There is no evidence to suggest that hefty fines will lead directly to improved attendance rates. The bill raises the level of fines imposed on parents who fail to enrol their child at school, or who fail to ensure that their child attends school once enrolled. It also allows the Secretary for Education to prosecute parents for those actions. It doubles the daily rates of fines for non-attendance to $30 a day. It doubles the fine for first-time non-attendance offences from a maximum of $150 to $300, and it trebles the fine for parents who fail to enrol their child at school, from a maximum of $1,000 to a maximum of $3,000.

That is tough. The thing is, will bombarding parents with fines make a difference? We say no. The parents whom we are likely to be talking about, again, according to the evidence in the select committee report, are those who suffer from issues of poverty. Hitting them with a fine will, we believe, do little. In the United Kingdom the annual report of Christine Gilbert, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools, grappled with many of those same issues around non-attendance and rates of educational attainment. The 2007-08 report indicated a number of circumstances for individual institutions and providers from which improvements may emerge. They included, firstly, leadership with a clear and ambitious direction for change; secondly, objective, open, reflective self-evaluation of strengths and weaknesses; and, thirdly, dialogue and feedback to ensure that needs are being met in a culture of excellence.

It can be done; all it takes is a vision for excellence. We do support the need for national standards. There should be reporting back to whānau; schools should be held to account. We do not agree that increased penalties will promote whānau engagement in schools and increase attendance rates. To that end our preference is that the changes proposed to address truancy levels could be separated out from the bulk of the bill and treated differently. We have tabled a Supplementary Order Paper for the Committee to consider, and we believe that it might address this issue. With those words, kia ora tātou.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) : Firstly, I congratulate the new Minister of Education on introducing to the House a bill that I think will have a greater positive impact on the challenges facing our nation than probably any other issue that we will consider in the course of the next 3 years of this term of Parliament. This Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill is a litmus test as to whether members of this House are prepared to sit silently by and see one in five of New Zealand children fail basic literacy and numeracy, and whether we are prepared to take seriously a 50 percent increase in the number of students who are truanting from our schools.

Hon Chris Carter: What rubbish!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do not think, in all honesty, there is a member of this House, I say to Chris Carter, who can put hand on heart and say that the long tail of underachievement shown up in every piece of educational research on our schools is not a serious issue for our nation. I do not think that even Chris Carter, who is interjecting, in his heart of hearts really believes that that is an issue we should not be concerned about. So the question we as parliamentarians need to ask is what we should do. The truth is that it is not members of this House who stand up the front of classrooms each day and do the really important job of teaching our students, but we have to ask what we can do.

I believe in a very simple principle, not just in education but in other areas as well, and that is that we manage what we measure. If we are serious about lifting educational standards, then we should be prepared to measure them. I reflect on one of the really hot debates in this Parliament in the 1990s, which was about the issue of financial performance. This country had a disgraceful record in the management of public finances. One of the reasons was that we did not honestly report the state of our public finances. I was proud to be part of the National Government that passed the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which required independent, honest reporting of our public finances. That Act resulted in the years since in a substantial improvement in the state of our public finances. I say that education needs the same honest reporting.

Other countries have grappled with the same issues. Some countries that have been concerned about their literacy and numeracy standards have passed legislation that prescribes how teachers should teach. Some countries have passed laws—we have even had such a bill in this House—that require teachers to teach by phonics. Well, this Government does not agree with that. I will tell members why. We trust the professionalism of teachers, and it is not for this Parliament to prescribe how teachers should teacher—whether teachers should use phonics or whole language, or any of the many other, proper educational debates amongst the professionals. Other Parliaments around the world have prescribed the number of hours that schools should spend on teaching literacy and numeracy. The United Kingdom prescribes that teachers spend 2 hours on it; in other countries it is 2 hours and 30 minutes. Again, Anne Tolley and this Government say that, no, that is not the right approach. This bill says that we do not mind how teachers teach—whether it is phonics or whole language, whether it is for 2 hours a day or 2 hours and 30 minutes a day—but they do need to meet a national standard. I am proud to be a part of a Government that is prepared to say just that.

Let us look at some of the arguments—or I should say “excuses”—that have been put forward by the Labour Opposition, because they speak volumes about the difference between Labour’s values and the values that are held by this Government. I was very interested to hear the new member Mr Prasad say we should not introduce this measure unless teachers agree. Are we really so lacking in leadership, so prepared to let down the children of this country, that unless every teacher agrees, we are prepared to sit by, fail the leadership test, and not set the standard? I say to Mr Prasad that the responsibility of this Parliament is not to the teachers of this land but to the young people—the students, the children. I tell Mr Prasad that they are the ones to whom we owe our first responsibility.

The problem for the Labour Party is that it is captured by the teacher unions. That is one of the reasons why, over the last 9 years, we have gone backwards in education. Labour members are more interested in serving the needs of their mates in the teacher unions than in doing what is right for the children of this country.

I come to the point that was raised by the member who said that the provisions in this bill are wrong in that they give the Minister the power to prescribe national standards. What a facetious argument! Why did Labour members support an Education Act that allowed the Minister of Education to prescribe the full curriculum? They say it is OK to prescribe the whole curriculum but not OK to prescribe national standards of literacy and numeracy. What a pathetic argument!

Then we heard the arguments in opposition to the issue of assessment. I ask members opposite what their answer is to the report from the Education Review Office that 58 percent of schools in New Zealand are not providing for assessment. What is their answer? I will tell members what their answer was. After 9 years, the answer we got from the Minister of Education, Chris Carter, was the “Wassup!” badge. Well, the new Minister of Education wants more for the children of New Zealand than a “Wassup!” badge, and members on this side of the House are proud to back her up.

I want to bring this debate back to the very practical experience of a constituent who came to see me in my electorate caravan. Her child had just gone on to secondary school, to Nelson College. She was horrified to learn that her son had been put on a reading recovery programme. She brought to my constituency clinic every school record—

Hon Anne Tolley: School report.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —school report that she had received over the last 5 years. None of those school reports gave that parent any indication that her child was falling behind. I simply say to the members opposite that we need transparent reporting of school results. I say to members opposite that providing parents with honest reports on how well their children are doing is just what they need.

The last point I want to make in this debate is that it is interesting that not one Labour member has been prepared to talk about the truancy provisions in this bill. I will tell members why. It is because they are embarrassed by their track record. The last 9 years have seen truancy rates in this country go through the roof, and they are embarrassed and ashamed—

Hon Chris Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I say to members that when I call a point of order I expect there to be order, and I expect members to let the person who is raising the point of order to have his or her say. I do not expect there to be an increase in the barracking from both sides of the Chamber. Let us have some order.

Hon Chris Carter: The member Nick Smith in his usual extravagant and outrageous manner has just claimed that none of the members on this side of the Chamber talked about truancy. I myself did, as did Dr Prasad and others. Mr Smith again is not telling the truth in the Chamber.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): That is not a point of order; that is a debating point.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that no Labour member has debated at any length the truancy provisions in this bill. Chris Carter should hang his head in shame. He should hang his head in shame, because during his watch thousands of New Zealand young people who should have been in school receiving an education were not there, and he did nothing. The fact that Labour continues to have him as its education spokesperson shows that it is soft on standards, soft on truancy, and an apologist for failure. I am proud to back Anne Tolley and national standards, which will make a difference for this country.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) : I congratulate the National Government, and I call on my colleagues not to be quite so harsh on them because they are on a literacy crusade. I think I am on a crusade to give credit where credit is due. This is a kind of turbocharging of education in the first 100 days, and education is very important—there is no argument from this side of the House that it is not important. We can listen to all the maiden speeches; I think every one of us so far has talked about how education is the most important thing we can do as a nation.

Moreover, the members on that side of the aisle are right to focus on the problem of underachievement. In spite of the very creditable performance of our young people in the OECD rankings in science, literacy, and maths, the so-called long tail of underachievement is one of the major challenges this country faces. About that there is, I hope, no disagreement on our side of the aisle. So I congratulate the National Government for focusing on an extremely important issue.

However, it is not enough to identify the problem. It is not enough to campaign up and down the country spreading fear and anxiety. The members opposite are in the Government now, and they need something more than slogans and fearmongering. They need good, sound, practical ideas that can be turned into policy and law, but I have to say that at this point the National Government falls down rather badly. It is sad to say it, but I would have thought that 9 years was long enough to come up with better ideas than are contained in this bill.

What is the National Government’s response to this problem of underachievement? It is national educational standards. On the surface that is an interesting idea. We all want standards, right? But let us think about this. There is no point having standards unless we test. Otherwise, how do we know whether we are reaching those standards? What we are really talking about here, if we are honest, is standardised testing. That is the conceptual basis of this bill. The National Party has pulled a page from George W Bush’s playbook and his No Child Left Behind Act policy, as Metiria Turei has explained.

Paul Quinn: Saviour of the free world!

PHIL TWYFORD: I say to Paul Quinn that standardised testing is the tired old cliché policy of conservative politicians all around the world. This bill is a Trojan Horse for standardised testing. I will say more about standardised testing, but first let me make some other comments. There is a very interesting thing about this bill: it does not actually do anything. It is the National Party’s idea of virtual Government. It is very modern, it is like a hologram, it looks real, and it gives the appearance of substance, but in fact there is nothing there; it is a complete illusion. In this respect it bears an uncanny resemblance to the dreary bail bill that we spent the afternoon discussing. It is campaign rhetoric in drag. It does not introduce anything new, it does not provide any resources for literacy programmes, and actually it acknowledges—

Paul Quinn: They won’t like that in Mt Albert.

PHIL TWYFORD: It acknowledges—I say to Mr Quinn—that some very effective assessment tools are already at work in our schools.

This policy caused quite some confusion on the campaign trail. At a candidate debate in Devonport, my opponent, the honourable member for North Shore, was asked by a very nice woman in the audience whether National would introduce standardised testing. He said that, no, they would have assessment. She asked what the difference was. I have to tell members that there was a lot of huffing and puffing but not much light shed on the issue. I had some sympathy for my opponent, the member for North Shore. It is not surprising that he found it difficult to explain the difference because, after all, how does one assess without testing? Assessment is simply another kind of testing.

I was talking recently with a literacy and numeracy specialist who works at a school in Auckland. She said that the real question about this debate asks why we are testing. What is the purpose? Is it so we can improve the quality of teaching and learning, or is it so the school can publish league tables and market itself as being better than the school down the road? I think that that comment was very perceptive. The bill, in fact, requires State schools to assess and report student performance against national standards. This will inevitably lead to the establishment of league tables of winner and loser schools, and compound the challenges that lower-decile schools are already struggling with. That is exactly what has happened under standardised testing regimes in the UK and the US.

I lived for 4 years in the United States, which is a happy hunting ground for standardised testing regimes. My son was 9 years old, and in middle school in Maryland. He did four different sets of exams every year, and all the teachers and all the parents complained that all they had time to do in the academic year was prepare for an endless round of exams and testing. After 6 years of George W Bush’s No Child Left Behind policy, one commentator at the National Center for Fair and Open Testing said there was overwhelming evidence that the law was deeply flawed and doing more harm than good. It relies on “limited one-size-fits-all tools” that “reduce education to little more than test prep.” We hear exactly the same story in the United Kingdom. Introducing national standards and making schools accountable sounds good on a bumper sticker. It is very much like ACT’s “three strikes and you’re out” policy, or the Bail Bill that we discussed this afternoon. It looks good on a bumper sticker, but it is not really based on sound policy, is it—is it?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What’s your answer? Give us an answer. Give us a policy. Give us a single idea.

PHIL TWYFORD: If this is the rigour, the innovation, and the depth that the National Government will bring to education policy, the children of New Zealand should be very afraid, I say to Mr Smith—very afraid. [Interruption] Standardised testing, I say to Mrs Parata, is against fairness, it is against accuracy, and it is against quality. I will tell members why. For decades, educationalists have complained that standardised tests are unfair because the questions so often require a set of knowledge and skills that is likely to be possessed only by children who come from a privileged background. And the member should know that. Can members guess which kinds of children are best able to prepare for the tests? Can members tell me? It is the kids who come from privileged families who are best able to prepare for those tests. The quality of teaching suffers inevitably. Testing encourages the temporary acquisition of skills and information—

Hon Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This bill is about national standards. It has nothing to do with national testing. I ask you to remind the member on his feet to speak to the bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): That is not a point of order. It is a debating point, and the member knows that.

PHIL TWYFORD: The so-called long tail of underachievement is indeed a very serious problem, and it is one that I do not doubt that every member of this House, on both sides of the aisle, cares about. But this bill has nothing to offer. It is all sizzle and no sausage. It does not introduce anything new—actually, it recognises explicitly that effective assessment tools are already at work in our schools.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Half of them aren’t doing it.

PHIL TWYFORD: But, worse than that, I say to Mr Smith, the bill is based on shonky educational theory. It dignifies the concept of standardised testing as a valid educational tool for children as young as 5 years old, and it lays the groundwork for a National Government to impose national standardised testing on our schools. And that is the objection I have.

Finally, the National Party has been dining out for months—actually, years—on a line it got from Crosby/Textor about the nanny State. This bill demonstrates how shallow that rhetoric is. This bill is about the governess State. Do members know what? It is the National Government wanting to impose Victorian values of education on our children. It flies in the face of international best practice and everything we know about personalised learning. Next, the members on the other side of the aisle will have us lining up in the classrooms, rote learning.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) : The Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill is very interesting. It is an enabling bill, because it gives the Minister the ability to establish national standards. We can look at the explanatory note of the bill. For the benefit of members on the other side of the Chamber, I will try to talk quite calmly so that we do not excite them and waken them from their numbing sleep.

If we rely on regulation, we will stay where we are. We find, when we look at the Education Review Office reports, that there is considerable inconsistency. We have heard from the fine member sitting in the back corner what a good school is doing. We know that that is just so incredible. That school is made up of a relationship between teacher, pupil, and parents, and that is the way all schools should work. There are thousands of schools in this country, and we want to see them all succeed. But relying on a regulation that is implicit is not good enough. I agree with what Dr Smith said: if we cannot measure it, we cannot manage it. That is why the National Government will put it into law the standard that will have to be achieved. It is not appropriate that we are not all, as a nation, on a crusade to improve our children’s education. If we want to give people the opportunity of being able to put a foot on the ladder and go up and inspire, we have to succeed and we have to do better.

We could have a very, very long conversation about this legislation, but I believe that the weight of the argument is very much in favour of it. I must acknowledge what Te Ururoa Flavell said. I was also on that 2-year select committee review of making schools work for all our children. It was very, very enlightening. There are some wonderful teachers around. One person who came to the select committee said that he trained teachers for another year. I have tried to remember his name, but it escapes now. He had a private training establishment that was limited to taking only 100 full-time equivalents a year. He was limited because of the funding. Those teachers graduated, and were all picked up by schools, and they have all done remarkably well.

I am just so convinced as a parent and now as a grandparent that we can do better, and that what we must do is lay a solid foundation for that to happen and get on with it. That is what this bill does. It is an enabling and empowering bill, and I support it wholeheartedly. I commend Anne Tolley for having the courage to bring it forward. I think we have to keep away from the rhetoric of the negativeness, and on that basis I am very proud to be backing this bill. I recommend it to the House.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) : The member for Kaikōura promised us no excitement during his speech, and he was right. He has been right for the last 3 years. I rise to oppose the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill. I think that this bill might be called the “Tolley Bus Bill”. It is ramming through radical legislation—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that Labour Opposition members always revert to name-calling, because that is about as good as their debate is. But I think that as a new member he should be reminded that using such references to fellow members of the House is not appropriate.

Hon Chris Carter: I think it is a bit rich for that particular member to be talking about personal nasty attacks on members. He is notorious for his vicious attacks on members of this House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I draw the member’s attention to the point that he should address members respectfully.

BRENDON BURNS: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. This bill is being pushed through under urgency with no consultation with the sector it most affects—that is, the education sector. It gives the Minister the power to set education standards for every State school in this country, but when the bill comes through the dark tunnel of night, the Minister says that she will go back then to consult the education sector. That will be a bit late, and it is a bit rich to offer consultation after the fact.

My colleague Chris Carter acknowledged that the education system is largely collaborative. That is the strength of the system; that is what underpins the system. But this bill is about pitting teacher against teacher and school against school. It is a slippery slope. It is, if you like, a deluge. The member Hekia Parata has already referred to this bill as being the national standards/local testing bill, so the Government needs to get its lines clear about what this bill actually aims to achieve.

This bill has come about because during the election campaign the National Party had to present a moderate face to the electorate in order to be successful and win the election. It dropped the policy of bulk funding, which had been a National Party policy in previous elections. It made no mention of education vouchers. This bill is now the thin end of the wedge.

Hon Members: Oh no!

BRENDON BURNS: Yes, it is. Here is how this bill will work. It introduces standardised testing.

Hon Anne Tolley: It does not.

BRENDON BURNS: The member opposite said that it will introduce local testing following standards. That will then, I am sure, lead to schools being required and forced to publish those results. That will, of course, then lead to funding being linked to those results. As we already know, the National Government has indicated that it will weaken zoning, and that will of course mean that rich schools will get richer and poor schools will get poorer. That is exactly how it works.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh, the politics of envy!

BRENDON BURNS: No, it is not the politics of envy; it is the politics of reality, which always ends up with the poor paying the price. That is a feature of National Governments. This policy borrows very heavily from the Bush administration’s first Act in office—the No Child Left Behind Act. What that Act did in the United States was take away from schools that were underperforming. That is not me speaking; that is from the US Department of Education. I will read from the preamble to the commentary, for members opposite: “A key aim of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 … is to provide additional educational options to parents of students in low-performing Title I schools, specifically the opportunities to move their child to a higher-performing school or enroll their child in supplemental educational services.” The point about the educational services being provided in the United States as a result of that bill is this: I ask members to guess who is providing those supplementary educational services. Is it the State school sector? No, it is not. The private sector is now providing most of those supplementary services in the United States.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: So?

BRENDON BURNS: We have a State education system, and that is what we need to fund, rather than start to spin money out into the private sector.

The other fact that comes through from the US Ministry of Education’s analysis is that the children who have done worse since the No Child Left Behind Act are those for whom English is a second language. In my electorate of Christchurch Central there are 35-plus schools. There are some very, very good schools, and they range from decile 1 to decile 10, but the predominant number of schools are in the low deciles. There is no comparison between a decile 1 school and a decile 10 school.

David Bennett: You can’t say that!

BRENDON BURNS: If members want to put assessments on them, the comparison is that in a decile 1 school the primary importance for children might be something as simple as whether they had breakfast that day, not whether they sit an assessment or a test. There are schools in my electorate that have up to 55 percent of their students coming from Pasifika, Asian, and other ethnic backgrounds.

Hekia Parata: So what?

BRENDON BURNS: So the point is that if the American experience has been that children from non - English speaking backgrounds fare the poorest under that programme, then the likelihood is that it will apply here. I will come to the funding issue shortly. The point is about how a school with a 40 to 50 percent non-English speaking profile of students would feature under this bill. There is nothing in the bill about resources. There is not a mention about the funding that is actually what drives educational outcomes.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s called a budget.

BRENDON BURNS: That is right. It is about creating another level of bureaucracy—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

BRENDON BURNS: Yes, it is. It is about adding another layer in there. There are plenty of tools within the current framework to assess children, as my colleague Kelvin Davis so eloquently pointed out. The tools are there already in the current procedures. The Minister says that it is about resources. I think I have the figure correct when I say there is $18 million, once the assessment has taken place.

Hon Anne Tolley: Extra.

BRENDON BURNS: It is extra! I thank the Minister very much. The current funding for the primary sector is about $3 billion, and if the Minister is talking about adding $18 million to $3 billion, my calculations are that that is 0.00006 percent. So much for turbocharging educational achievement!

The second part of the bill deals with truancy—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Your numbers are wrong.

BRENDON BURNS: —I would be quite prepared to take one zero off—it is about holding parents accountable. I have no problem with the concept of holding parents accountable. The problem is that I do not think that parents are the key issue in terms of truancy. The greatest numbers of truant children are in secondary schools, and the numbers increase as they go through the secondary schooling system. Trying to get a 14 or 15-year-old to go to school who does not want to go to school is not going to be solved by having $4 million more for truancy officers, whose allocation, I worked out on the number of schools, would be about $30 a week per school or about two blocks of cheese. The other issue around the truancy issue is that it is strongly predominant in decile 1 and 2 schools—and, again, I say that comes back to issues of poverty and resources—and is not about decile 9 or 10 schools, which have six times fewer chances of truancy being a feature.

Pita Sharples from the Māori Party supports this bill. He wants teachers to be trained to lift up Māori. I ask what on earth in this bill does anything to lift Māori teachers or teachers teaching Māori students. If Māori are underachieving now, what will happen when we mirror the American and British experience and force teachers to focus on lifting those students around the middle of the expected standard, and keep those teachers focused on that rather than on delivering attainment across the board?

I also acknowledge the comments from a Christchurch truancy officer, Andy Parr, who has been in the job for 8 years, and who was reported in this morning’s Christchurch Press as saying that tougher fines would have no effect on the families he dealt with: “We feel that the social stigma or the embarrassment is the main deterrent, … The main ones we deal with are parents who have lost control and the student is usually calling the shots.” So putting the fines up to $3,000 is not likely to make one heck of a lot of difference; that is from somebody who is actually working in the field. Thank you.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) : What a great piece of legislation this will become when it is adopted later this week. Finally, after 9 years of a Government whose members are now sitting on the Opposition benches, we have legislation that will deal with the big issues. The big issues are the children of this country who cannot read or write properly. Is it not great that finally, after 9 years, we have a Minister of Education who cares about children in our country? Is it not great that we have a Minister who is willing to do the hard yards and who is willing to stand up and say that we believe promises are important? Promises are important.

I can understand that Opposition members would be concerned. They would be concerned that the explanatory note states that the bill gives the Minister of Education the power to set national standards in literacy and numeracy. I can see why they would be concerned, because how many Ministers of Education were there over the last 9 years, and how many of those Ministers of Education cared enough to set standards so our children would be able to read and write properly? I can understand their concern.

What is wrong with setting standards? What is wrong with parents knowing whether their kids are able to read and write properly? Every single parent in this country wants his or her child to do well, and I tell the House there is nothing at all wrong with that. Schools will be required to assess students and report to teachers in plain English—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Report to parents—the member can’t even read.

TODD McCLAY: —report to parents in plain English, and not in text-speak, I tell that member, or in little slogans that say “Wassup”. It should be in real common English that people can understand. That is the important thing.

This is about national standards, and that is the three Rs. That is not Rip Van Winkle and his two sleepy mates over there; that is reading, writing, and maths—arithmetic. That is what we need in this country, and that is what our teachers want to teach children in this country. I think it is disgusting that members on that side of the House firstly want to blame parents, and say they are responsible. Then they want to say the children are the ones who are responsible. Finally tonight in this House we have heard that it is the teachers who are responsible. Well, it is not the teachers; it is the system. And do members know who is responsible for that system? It is the Government of the last 9 years, the party sitting on that side of the Chamber that has not cared enough about our children.

As I sat here today I found a magazine in front of me, TheEconomist, which has just been published. I was flicking through it, because I am like a lot of other people around this country—mothers who are listening here tonight—who are concerned about the future of their children, but all we are finding from the other side of the House is rhetoric and concern. No wonder so many of our kids are concerned at the moment. On page 51 of TheEconomist—

Hon Phil Goff: They are awake at the start of the speech, but they won’t be awake at the end of it.

TODD McCLAY: I tell the Leader of the Opposition that it says “Hold your breath!”. I think that was written for him. It says “Hold your breath!”. Then when I moved over to the next page I thought “Oh, look at this; someone must have seen what has happened in this country in the last month. Somebody must have realised what happened on 8 November.” It says “On your bike!”. There is another one—it says “On your bike!”. This cannot be about New Zealand, but page 53 says “The Fading of Labour”. I thought “Well, that must be it. There can’t be anything else in here, at all.” But, sure enough, on page 56 it says “Stopping the rot”. This legislation is about stopping the rot that the Labour Party has allowed to develop over 9 years.

I am proud to stand up and speak on behalf of the people of Rotorua. I had a great opportunity to talk to thousands of the people of Rotorua, and they told me they like their teachers there, but they do not like what this previous Government did over the last 9 years. Do members know what those people said, after 9 years of listening? They said they wanted more for their children. They want more for their children in Rotorua, and they want more for the children in many other parts of this country. I am glad that this Government has been able to help them get better things, through this legislation—

Hon Parekura Horomia: Give an example! It’s on zero, mate.

TODD McCLAY: —and I am glad that member has finally woken up so that he can listen to a good speech.

I received a text from the people of Murupara that said “Todd, we’re looking forward to your speech, but you can tell one of those members on the other side that we would like to see the colour of his eyes when the person behind him is speaking.” That was from the people of Murupara. The member is welcome to come to Muruapara with me and we can go and see those people.

I went to Murupara 3 weeks ago when one of the smallest schools in my electorate held its annual prize-giving. Teachers are working hard at that school, and parents come to the school to help their children. The parents in Murupara say to me that members on that side of the House not only should wake up but they should know they need some more help. Those members should be making sure that the parents know how hard the teachers are working, and finally we have a Government that will help teachers, support teachers, and let them get on and do their job. How about no more complaining about the teachers, from that side of the House? How about supporting the teachers? I think there is still a teacher in Rotorua who voted for the member’s party. I say to the member that he should still support him.

I will finish here because the previous Minister wants to take the floor. When Labour came into Government—9 years ago—children were being born. This year, when Labour was thrown out of office, those children were 9 years of age. One in five of those children cannot read properly, cannot write properly, and cannot do his or her maths properly. It might have been all right for the last Government that New Zealand falls below Kazakhstan when it comes to maths, but it is not good enough for this Government.

I will conclude on something that is potentially dangerous. I have heard what is potentially dangerous tonight from members on that side of the House. They told us it is education. It is not education, it is the lack of education that is potentially dangerous—the lack of education. The people in the Rotorua electorate had a choice this year, and they stood up and said what was potentially dangerous for them was Labour Party sponsored underachievement. That is potentially dangerous for them. They also said Labour Party ignorance of mums and dads is potentially dangerous. But the biggest choice for people in Rotorua this year was whether to have another Labour Government that was potentially dangerous for our children. The people of Rotorua are wise, and I thank them for letting me stand here as their local member of Parliament to make sure that this Government will do the right thing by their children. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatū) : There has been an interesting and a frank exchange of views up to this point with regard to the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill. I want to talk to Part 1, which deals with the truancy issue, but I would like to preface my comments, and then direct some questions to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Anne Tolley. I preface my comments by saying I am sure that every person in this House wants to see in school every young New Zealand person who should be in school. That is a desire we all have. However, in order to do that we have to engage with the students who are truanting. Very few parents want their children to truant school. I think all of us would be hard-pressed to find even what we might regard as the most difficult parents who do not want their children to succeed.

However, I will concede—and I know this as the former Minister of Education—that a tiny minority of people actively encourage their children not to attend school. There must be penalties for them. Raising the level of fine is not something that in principle we are opposed to. But we in the Labour Party are concerned that parents who themselves are victims of their children’s own behaviour will be impacted on by this legislation. I would not like to see, and I am sure nobody in this House would like to see, any parent who really wants his or her child to be at school, and who is not aware that the child is truanting, be hit by this change in the law and get a $3,000 fine. We have put up an amendment to require that the proposed changes in fees will only impact on the most uncooperative of parents. I really urge the National members to consider supporting our amendment, because I am sure that they, like us, do not want to see good parents penalised by the behaviour of bad children.

I ask the Minister whether, in addressing the issue of truancy—which is a subject that she has asked me many questions about in my former role as Minister of Education in the last 14 months or so—the increased fines are her only step to address the question of persistent truancy. I remind you, Mr Chair, and also the rest of the Committee and particularly the Minister, that the previous Labour Government took a huge range of steps to try to address truancy. Indeed, in 2006, when the Hon Steve Maharey was the Minister of Education, we reviewed truancy services—

Hon Darren Hughes: The vice-chancellor.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: That is another subject,

Hon Phil Goff: Could Mrs Tolley tell us what a vice-chancellor is?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I know it has been reported to us by very reliable sources that the new Minister of Education had to ask the Tertiary Commission what a vice-chancellor does. I hope that Mrs Tolley knows what truancy officers do. We reviewed truancy services in 2006 and, as a result of that review, a whole series of resourcing actions were taken, including the provision of both organisational and financial resourcing to combat truancy. That is the only way to deal with the real problem of truancy. The issue is not about parents; it is about children and young people who are disengaged from learning.

Mr Peachey was a fine educationalist; we have different views, but I respect what he did in schools. He was, and still is, motivated by a desire to have good educational outcomes in our country. He has in the past acknowledged to me, and he will acknowledge, the contribution made by the setting up of the electronic enrolment system, with every school now on it. We put about $6 million into that, so that for the first time ever we know exactly which children are in school and which are not. Every school is online, and the staff report truants daily into a central computer database in our schools. For the first time ever we put that in, so we knew exactly what the truancy problem was. We also put another $2 million into individual schools where there were particular problems that had to be addressed and the schools needed support to do that. Again, the issue was not about fining parents, because we are talking about a very small number of students here. We are talking about a much larger number of disengaged students. So there was another $2 million of funding for the individual schools that were most affected by truancy.

We put another $4.5 million into district truancy services, so that the contractors and people who work with the Ministry of Education, councils, and schools could deal directly with the problem. The 89 district truancy services that were set up worked very closely with territorial authorities to try to deal with the problem of truancy. We employed 10 officials—the bureaucrats we hear about from National, which wants to get rid of them, scale down the bureaucrats, and use their salaries to enhance resourcing at schools—at the Ministry of Education to deal with very persistent, individual, hard-core cases of truancy, as well as with children who were under the care of Child, Youth and Family. Those are very special cases that needed very sensitive and professional care.

The Student Engagement Initiative at schools was again very extensively funded, with $1.8 million provided to help schools to deal with truancies. We introduced the Youth Apprenticeships scheme in schools. It started off in 10 schools, in the time I was the Minister it was in 20 schools, and 120 schools will have the scheme in 2009. Those are actual, practical things that engage students in learning. Schools Plus was the flagship policy of the Labour Party at the election. We promised to commit $170 million to it in order to explore alternative pathways for learning for young people, capture their interest, deal with Youth Apprenticeships, and set up the institute at Manukau Institute of Technology. Those are real, concrete resourcing issues that deal with disengaged pupils. That is how we deal with truancy and get kids back into school. Yes, we do need to punish parents, but that is a tiny part of the problem. The real problem is disengaged students and how we deal with them.

I ask the Minister, Mrs Tolley, how she is going to deal with persistent truants. We have left her a well-resourced sector. We have not solved the problem. We made good progress, but we have not solved the problem. It is a really difficult issue in education. We are not unsympathetic to increasing the penalties, but again I stress the issue of making sure that good parents are not punished by the behaviour of their children. I urge the Minister to look at our amendment that is on the Table over there. Hopefully she will look at it, but I do not think she has done so yet. I am sure that she also does not want to have good parents punished for the behaviour of bad kids.

I come back to the point I made at the beginning of my presentation that probably 99.9 percent of parents want the best for their children. They want their children to be in school, and they want them to be successful. Children who are not in school are mostly absent not because of their parents; they are absent because they are disengaged from learning. The key to solving truancy issues is to engage children in effective learning, keep them interested, keep them at school, liaise with homes, and have professional staff in place to deal with that. Schools are really struggling with the truancy issue. As I have said, we now know for the first time ever which kids are not at school, because of our electronic system ENROL. That will be able to tell Mrs Tolley exactly what the truancy situation really is at the moment.

I again ask the Minister to please consider protecting parents from the unintended consequences of raising this fine, because we do not want good parents to be punished for the bad behaviour of young people.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) : It is my pleasure to rise and talk to Part 1. I am rather sad to acknowledge that normally during the Committee stage of a bill as important as this we would be able to refer to the many submissions that we would have received during the select committee process. I am sure there would have been many submissions in the select committee process, had the new Government allowed that opportunity for the public, the parents, the education sector, and the many people who would have had an interest in this. I know we would have had a lot of very good submissions on Part 1 and the school enrolment and attendance issue. I feel very sad that we are not able to refer to those submissions, but there have already been many fine contributions during the course of the debate on this entire bill. If we think about the passion, energy, and information that has come through this debate just from the members sitting in the Chamber alone, I know we could have had so much more coming through had we had the opportunity to have public submissions on this bill.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: They wouldn’t want that!

SUE MORONEY: I am not sure why the Government would not want that, because I think it is a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity to engage the broader community. All parties across the Chamber have acknowledged that education is the key to our future. Our children and their education are the key to our future, and we should be taking some time to gather that information.

However, much has been made by the Government about clause 6. This is the clause that allows prosecutions to be taken by the Secretary for Education. I want to ensure that people listening to this debate know that prosecutions can and have already been taken over the issue of truancy in this country. I think it is really important to acknowledge that, and it is important that the new Government does not make it look as though this is something that it is bringing in, because this ability has been there all along. Sadly, on 29 November the Waikato Times reported on two families in the Waikato who were prosecuted for not having their children attend school. One was in the town of Morrinsville—a student from Morrinsville College—and the other was in Matamata—a student from Matamata College. It is rather interesting, because I come from Matamata and my good colleague Jacinda Ardern comes from Morrinsville, so we both knew those families. It was really very interesting to note that when we looked at the information and talked about those families, we knew that there were many, many issues going on for these families. Prosecution has happened in this instance. It probably is not the best outcome for those families; neither was the unavailability of their children—those students—from the education system.

But it is not as simple as just increasing fines. It is not as simple as just having an outcome at the end, after everything has gone wrong. Very complex issues are at stake here. It is really interesting when we observe the families who face prosecution. Often they come from the lower socio-economic ends of our communities, and this was certainly the common thread that existed in those two cases. There has been the ability to prosecute, and it has been happening. Certainly I think the initiatives the Labour-led Government put in place have helped to ensure that we know what the level of truancy is.

Again, there is a bit of a theme developing here. I think it is quite misleading to say that because we now know and can quantify what the problem is, it means, therefore, that there was not a problem before and that it somehow emerged just over recent years. Of course, these problems did not emerge just over recent years, but the Labour-led Government was committed enough and was brave enough, actually, to quantify and measure these problems. The Labour-led Government implemented the ENROL system that my colleague the Hon Chris Carter talked about before, and that helped us quantify what the nature of the problem was. That is a very important thing that the previous Government did.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : I want to briefly mention the Māori Party’s position on this part of the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill, and its amendment that proposes to split off Part 1 and Part 2 into separate bills. We certainly support its intention to do that, its reasons for doing that, and its acknowledgment that although Part 2 is an ideological argument that we will no doubt continue to have, Part 1 is about punishing the poor simply because they are poor, and there is absolutely no justification for it. I am very pleased that the Māori Party opposes Part 1 of this bill.

The fact is that the long tail of underachievement that is touted around here and was touted all through the election campaign is actually a long tail of poverty. Mr Peachey is wrong in his statement that somehow education is to blame for the increasing poverty in our communities. In fact, it is poverty that is to blame for the impossibility of many of our young people getting ahead and getting the education to which they are entitled. I am not surprised that Mr Peachey is wrong about this, but he is wrong, and it is important to point that out.

We are talking about communities where there are very low and very insecure incomes and where people are living in unstable and largely unsuitable homes. I think it was in today’s paper that we saw an article about 15 people living in one house—a family of seven in one room. There are ongoing health problems that arise from that level of poverty—for example, skin infections that are treatable. In fact, a large number of doctors who work in public health organisations say that one of the biggest disgraces of this country is the fact that so many children present with preventable diseases and illnesses like asthma, glue ear, eczema, and scabies. Those diseases are all the result of living in poverty—for generations, in many cases—and certainly that is the case for children living in poverty in those places. Poverty results in perpetual shifting, as people with very insecure housing and very low incomes keep trying to find adequate housing that they can afford. If they find that they cannot afford it, for whatever reason, it leads to perpetual moving.

This leads to children having to change schools very regularly. We often hear about this happening in South Auckland, but it happens across the country. Hundreds of children every Monday change schools because their families have not been able to find secure employment and secure housing, where they can set up a long-term base for the benefit of their children and their children’s education.

What then happens is that children who are continually moving from school to school are really living lives of absolute turmoil over which they have no control. It is impossible for schools to then be relevant to the needs of those children and their ability to concentrate, to stay well so that they can do the work, to be socially connected to the school and to that community, and to trust and have faith in and build relationships with teachers and other children. Those things are impossible when the children may well have to move in just another month or so because of the family circumstances.

Those are all problems and challenges that schools have to deal with in order to find some way to be relevant to these kids, who are living lives of turmoil over which neither they nor their parents have any control. This is not about families neglecting their children or wanting to keep their children out of school. It is completely reasonable to see why children would not want to go to school in those circumstances. Why would they want to try to go through the whole process of going to another school with more kids, more teachers, and more relationships, only to have that stripped away from them again because their parents have lost their jobs, they have not been able to keep up with the rent, they have been evicted, and they have to move and find somewhere else to live? This is the real lives of the people we are talking about.

What is the National Government’s response to these real, lived lives? Those members know barely anything about this issue, and they have virtually no contact with the kinds of communities that we are talking about here. What is their response? It is not to deal with the causes of the poverty that leads to this kind of turmoil and instability, is it? There is no policy here to deal with the dislocation of these children. In fact, the priority for National is to punish these families by fining them three times more than they would have been fined otherwise—$3,000 a family.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) : I rise to support the great speech made by my colleague Chris Carter in relation to what the Labour Government has done in the last 9 years. I see that Mr McClay has disappeared, but he was huffing and puffing about those young people who were 8, 9, and 10-year-olds and who are now 18, 19, and 20.

I would say to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Anne Tolley—apart from congratulating her because she lives in Gisborne—that the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill is quite a fascinating bill. We listened to debate on the bill providing a 90-day trial period for employees where National took away workers’ rights and said that it was good for them, and took 2 percent off KiwiSaver and said it was good for people. Now standardised testing, which has been tested internationally, is something that turns around to more bad practice. I wonder whether there is a hint of that in this bill, because when boutiques and the Esprit Group tried that practice in France and when people tried it in Wisconsin, it turned towards being a voucher system. I ask whether this bill is the lead-in to that, because it is quite incredible: we started off with the teachers being blamed, then the parents, and now it has become a monetary issue. If we double or triple the fine, will that fix up the issue? How cranky is that?

Mr Peachey said that a lot of the practices from his time in the classroom are now antiquated. Steve Maharey understood that, and he moved to modernise the classroom. As Chris Carter said, the Labour Government put a lot of effort into solving the problem of truancy, and that is why it declined by 24 percent. I am really happy and thankful that this Minister of Education, Anne Tolley, has said teachers will not be affected by the 90-day probationary provision.

Hon Darren Hughes: Courageous!

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: It is courageous stuff—great decision-making. I thank the Minister for that, because she knows she said that, like that beleaguered statement that was being tossed around over the other side of the House. We see the failed national standardised testing in the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill, and it is being linked to other activities that National wants to bring in. We know what bulk funding did, and we know how that practice got around. This is incredible.

In the last two days, when the Opposition has performed remarkably against a Government that is still trying to find its way, we have all said that education is the cornerstone to going forward. There was something in the Speech from the Throne about invigorating and turbocharging the aspects of enterprise. I see Hekia Parata over there, and she is a great educationalist. I am so proud of the Māori members in here. [Interruption] That is right, she is my cousin, and I am so proud of her. I am so proud of Nanaia Mahuta, who will most probably become the vice-chancellor of Waikato University. I am so proud of Te Ururoa Flavell, even though St Stephen’s School closed. He was the principal, and he knows about it.

Hon Members: What about Paul Quinn?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: And Paul Quinn went to Stanford University. I left school at 15, but I became one of the longest-serving Associate Ministers of Education in this country under the great Labour leadership, so I learnt a fair bit.

Few parents encourage truancy, and members know that full well. We practised Te Hiringa i te Mahara, which brought up the performance of schools up in the East Coast, led by Parata and well resourced by this Government. If members go to the Tolaga Bay Area School—do members know where Tolaga Bay is?—they will see that every student who leaves that school goes somewhere. I say to Mr Bennett that at Turakina Māori Girls College, where truancy was high, and at St Joseph’s School, all of those young ones go somewhere. They are not as privileged as he has been through life, and Governments have to be careful in this standardised testing stuff not to create a bigger class distinction, because a whole range of issues and ramifications, both social and cultural, are bound around truancy.

Mr McLay talked about Murupara. We gave the people of Murupara a curriculum that was relevant to what the community wanted. They wanted to teach Ngāti Manawa, and we did that. Truancy came down through the Labour Government. Government members should be thankful that we supported the Education Review Office, because if they want to construct frameworks of performance, they should be sure about what they put into them. The Minister has not thought this through well enough, she has just rushed this legislation, and bleated and bleated about this being important.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I noticed twice during the member’s speech that he talked about “his Government”. I hate to remind him, but there was an event on 8 November, in which Labour lost the election.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): That is not a point of order.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : I rise to speak in this debate this evening, and I want to endorse the comments of the Hon Chris Carter that truancy is indeed a bad thing. No one in this House would regard truancy as a good thing, and very few parents across New Zealand would regard truancy as a good thing. Tonight we are debating an issue that is sufficiently serious for the parents of this country to deserve a chance to discuss it and debate it. I am appalled that we are sitting here tonight when this bill has not gone through the select committee process. That is an outrage. There are parents out there with good and important views to be heard on the issue of truancy.

I want to ask Minister in the chair, Anne Tolley, a number of questions. How much work was done to talk to parents about truancy before this bill was put in place? How much work has that Minister done to find out the real reasons behind truancy? What are the real things that are causing students not to go to school? I am looking for the Minister to take a call and let us know how much research she has done on what is causing truancy in this country. The parents of this country deserve a chance to have a say about this bill.

This Government has come in and has been so arrogant within the first week that it is not even prepared to refer this bill to a select committee. There are important views to be heard from parents right across New Zealand on truancy, and I simply cannot believe that this Government would not be prepared to put the bill before a select committee. Is it because it is ashamed of the bill? Is that why it is doing this? This Government needs to know the views of parents, the views of teachers, and the views of truancy officers right across the country. We need a proper discussion about this, and the only conclusion I can draw is that the Government simply does not care about the views of parents. That is the conclusion I draw from the fact that there is no select committee process.

Allan Peachey: Rubbish!

GRANT ROBERTSON: I ask Mr Peachey whether he wants the bill to go to a select committee. Would he like to hear the views of parents? We need to have a proper debate on this issue. Mr Peachey is the chair of the Education and Science Committee. It would have been a perfect opportunity for him to have heard the views of parents from right across New Zealand.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. As I said, I would like to know from her what work she has done to talk to parents and to students who have been truants. What work has she done to find out what the real reasons behind truancy are? On this side of the Chamber we want to know a little bit more from Mrs Tolley about what research is being done around whether increasing fines will actually reduce truancy. What do we actually know about the impact of increasing the fines on truancy rates? Has the Minister got an answer for that? I look forward to her taking a call on that matter. At the moment, all we have is a bill that puts the fines up to $3,000 to make sure that the National Government can show it has done something about truancy in its first week. This is all about the politics of the National Government; it is not about reducing the rates of truancy.

I also want to hear from the Minister whether she has analysed any research from overseas about what has happened in the area of truancy. We do not know anything at this stage about whether the Minister has talked to educationalists around the world about what works when it comes to reducing truancy. That is the kind of information we would have been able to find out during the select committee process. But this Minister and this National Government do not want to hear real research and real information about what might work in terms of reducing truancy, because they simply do not care about the views of parents.

National has come in and had 1 week of shameful behaviour. It has been ramming legislation through the House, and not making any time for the views of parents right across New Zealand. That Minister needs to stand up, take a call, and answer the questions. Has she talked to truants? Has she talked to parents of truants? Does she know what the international research on truancy is? Can she tell us whether there is any research internationally—

Hon Annette King: She’s not writing it down.

GRANT ROBERTSON: She is not writing it down? Do we think she can remember the questions? I will ask them again for the benefit of the Minister. Has the Minister talked to the parents of truants? Has she undertaken any studies of truancy internationally that we can learn from? Where are the experts whom we could have heard from on this bill?

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) : It is very, very clear that this is a punitive measure, rather than a constructive one. This is not about making schools a place where students want to go; it is about punishing them when they do not make it through the gate. What is wrong with making schools places where kids want to go, rather than places where they are forced to go? That is a much more constructive approach.

Mr Flavell talked before about truancy being particularly high amongst Māori students, so surely a big part of that, and a big part of solving it, is making school a place where Māori students feel comfortable and a place where they actually want to be, rather than trying to make schools into one-size-fits-all places, which is exactly what the rest of this bill does. National will impose these standards and tests and make school a one-size-fits-all place, and if one does not conform, one will just get shoved out the door.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Nanny State!

CHRIS HIPKINS: That is right. I have a number of questions as well, and I hope the Minister will take the time to write these down. She has not written down any of the other questions—she will lose track, I am sure—but I am certain she will give us a good explanation. I am sure she will not listen to Simon Power, who put his finger to his lips to stop her standing up and taking the last call.