Education Amendment Bill

When this bill was last debated I was outlining the position of King’s High School, Dunedin and the building of its performing arts centre, which the Hon Trevor Mallard’s Supplementary Order Paper 99 addresses. I was pointing out that the school built a performing arts centre that was 60 percent larger than was required for a school of its size. It had paid a rate that was 168 percent higher than the industry benchmark rate for this type of facility. It paid almost $4.5 million for the centre, compared with the ministry’s current valuation of $1.2 million. The situation the school is in now, of course, is that it took out a loan to complete the building of the centre. I am advised that the financial position of the school is healthy and that it is not in any trouble. I understand that it has investments of about $374,000 in the bank, so there does not seem to be any immediate reason, financially, for us to take this extraordinary action here today.

It is also unclear whether the change that the Hon Trevor Mallard has made in his Supplementary Order Paper would resolve the issue that the Ministry of Education would be in breach of the Public Finance Act 1989 if it provided funding in the clear knowledge that it would be used for a purpose other than which it had been appropriated for. So the point is made that the clause is still vague and creates some ambiguity. I repeat that allowing one school board to use 5-yearly agreement funding for a different purpose is a highly likely way of raising expectations across the sector that similar provisions would apply to all school boards. This is not a good way to make policy. It is policy on the hoof made around particular circumstances, and for that reason the Government does not support the Supplementary Order Paper.

There is a saying that an old friend of mine used with me on one occasion, and it went something like: “Slow horses, fast women, and lost causes.” I think this matter might be in the last category, but it is important to put on the record the Opposition’s reason for voting in this way. I will directly address the chief Government whip as I do this, and indicate to him that there will be four or five further opportunities this year when the Government introduces bills around the Public Finance Act, validation, and matters that are normally uncontroversial, and that the Opposition would normally support and not insist on a Committee stage for. But we will keep bringing in amendments to this effect in relation to finance bills until the Government sees sense in this area.

There is actually not a lot of debate around the Education Amendment Bill. Most of what the Minister of Education, the Hon Anne Tolley, says is true: the mistakes occurred in my time as Minister; the recommendations to the board occurred in my time, and probably in the time of David Benson-Pope. The matter was considered by Mr Maharey and Mr Chris Carter, and neither of them made the decision that I think is appropriate.

The Minister is right that three other schools are in this category: Kaikorai, Cashmere, and Rangiora. This amendment does not take account of those schools, but I make the point that their issues could be solved by the Minister if she chose to do so. The Minister made some points about the costing and size of the school facility. She said that the facility is 60 percent larger than a school of that size would normally have, and she is absolutely right, but it is a joint school facility for King’s High School and Queen’s High School. It is not a hall for one school; it is a centre for two schools, and the Minister left that out. She went on about the costing of the facility, and it was expensive. I happen to know quite well a house in south Dunedin, which is not very far away from the site of the facility, and there is no doubt that it is hard to put in foundations in that area. Because of modern requirements, about three-quarters of a million dollars’ worth of slab had to be put down for the facility to be built on, and that added to the cost. So we have to take those two factors into account. The Minister spoke about the full cost, but unfortunately she got mixed up between building costs and fitted-out costs. She added the fit-out costs into the building costs and was confused on that point, as well.

Notwithstanding all of that, as a result of the poor advice given to a previous board by a previous principal, we now have a situation whereby a school is paying $4,900 every month—not every year, but every month—to the Westpac bank, when, at the same time, it has a credit sitting in the ministry. If there was a little bit of flexibility on the part of the Government, that credit could be used, and it would not cost the taxpayer one extra cent. That money is set aside and ring-fenced for that school. The money is sitting there, and the school has indicated that the use of that money would be its highest priority. I think that it is a relatively simple issue.

I accept that the school made mistakes in my time. I think that the Ministers who followed me took the ministry’s advice in a way that they should not have. I think it is fair to say that some parts of the ministry are more rigid and think less about the quality of education and the purpose of operational funding than others. My view is that on occasion the property division of the ministry can be fairly narrow in its thinking, rather than having the flexibility to ask what the best thing is for kids, and what best educational outcome can come from the situation. The amount of $4,900 is enough for another staff member, and enough for a couple of nearly full-time teacher aides to work with kids with disabilities. That amount gives the school the ability to buy five computers every month and to do some routine maintenance. Lots of things, from my perspective, can add much more to the quality of education at King’s High School than giving $4,900 every month to Westpac. I reiterate to Government members opposite that I am not asking the Government to appropriate any extra money.

The Minister says that that measure does not meet the Public Finance Act requirements, but I am now briefed by two experts that it does. She says it is a terrible way to validate expenditure when it has not been properly validated in the past. I went to get a pile of legislation from the library on this issue and I pulled out at random the Appropriation (2007/08 Financial Review) Act 2009—and I emphasise 2009—passed under her Government. The Act validated tens of hundreds of millions of dollars of expenditure. The money was not appropriated; it was spent and validated.

It is the essence of our constitution that it is the role and the right of Parliament to validate expenditure or to amend its legislation, and there is no doubt that a specific amendment like this on a particular issue overrides the Public Finance Act for that issue only. No one should pretend that that is something unusual or does not happen often. As I pick up the legislation I see, on page 14, that the Department of Conservation had $44.988 million worth of expenditure validated in this way, and the Inland Revenue Department had $123.897 million worth of expenditure validated in this way. I emphasise that the expenditure in respect of education would not normally result in extra expenditure like those examples did.

In my concluding comments I will say to some of the smaller parties in the Chamber that I appreciate people who come to these things with an open mind. I appreciate Catherine Delahunty, who did things very quickly. But I especially appreciate the work that Sir Roger Douglas has done on this matter. Sir Roger Douglas and I very rarely agree on anything controversial. It is not often these days, to use the old expression, that we go in the lobbies together, but I can say that he can work out pretty quickly that something is silly in respect of a Government organisation. He can work out when money meant to be spent in one particular area is being spent on the wrong thing. I appreciate the ACT Party support for this amendment. It is something that we have worked through. Sir Roger Douglas helped to get the wording right so that it met his bill and did the right thing.

I say to the Māori Party that I am very, very disappointed. Kaikorai Valley College is a mid-decile school, which for Dunedin is relatively low. It sits in the poorest part of Dunedin.

In speaking to Part 2 of the Education Amendment Bill I will highlight the transitional provision in relation to police vetting. The Education and Science Committee spent some time, as I understand it, considering the matter of police vetting. There is a provision in Part 1, new section 78CB(2), that states: “The board of a State school, or the management of a school registered under section 35A, that is required … to obtain a Police vet of a person must apply for the vet no later than 2 weeks after the person begins work at the school.” That amendment to the Act came about as a recommendation from the Education and Science Committee. Its members had determined that the previous amount of time was too long and it needed to be shortened so that a police vet would occur within at least 2 weeks of non-teaching staff starting work, and that has been incorporated in the legislation.

Part 2 contains a transitional provision, and I would be interested to know from the Minister of Education what kinds of provisions will be put in place to allow this clause to be implemented. Clause 76, “Transitional provision in relation to Police”, states: “the board of a State school, or the management of a school registered under section 35A, or a service provider of a licensed early childhood service (as the case may be) must, within 4 weeks after the date on which this Act comes into force, apply for a Police vet of any person in respect of whom—(a) a Police vet is required … and (b) no Police vet has been obtained within a period of 3 years immediately before the commencement of this Act,”. In other words, it is a tidying-up clause that requires schools to initiate the process of police vetting within a period of 4 weeks after the date on which this legislation comes into force.

The question I have for the Minister of Education is: what consideration has been given to the communication strategy that is required in order for this to happen? Clearly the Ministry of Education, I presume, will be communicating with every school immediately after the passage of this legislation. This legislation will pass in due course because Labour is supporting it, despite our disappointment at the non-inclusion of some clauses that we were particularly keen on. However, it will pass, and I trust that there will be some communication to the schools and institutions that draws their attention, with some sense of immediacy, to the need to apply for a police vet of any person, particularly where no police vet has been obtained within a period of 3 years immediately before the commencement of the Act. So these are tidying-up provisions to make sure all the police vetting processes are in order.

Although I am sure the Minister can answer the question quite readily, this is still an important consideration, and it is one of those parts of legislation that sometimes do not receive a lot of attention but for the assiduousness of officials, who are obliged to draw this to the attention of schools. Obviously in this instance a vet is not an animal doctor, nor is it even an animal doctor who looks after police dogs, but it is a process of scrutiny and assessment of the fitness of people—teaching and non-teaching staff—who have access to children in our schools and early childhood education centres.

Nothing could be more important than the fitness of both teaching and non-teaching staff to be in contact with children right up to the age of exit from secondary school, in a teaching or non-teaching capacity. So the transitional provision requires some assiduous application of the ministry to advertise this provision to schools in order that they comply. In fact, the Education and Science Committee thought this was so important that it reduced the time from the 8 weeks that was in the legislation in its first iteration to 4 weeks. That requires even speedier compliance than was originally envisaged by the Minister. I presume from the Minister’s nodding a moment ago that she is very much in favour of this shortened time frame. I assume that her instruction will be very clear to officials to ensure that not only are the usual communication channels followed—the gazetting and things of that sort—but also there might even be additional communication to principals and boards of trustees that this requirement needs to be complied with within 4 weeks. That is a reasonably short order, but it is one of the essential components if we are to keep our learning institutions—our early childhood education centres and our primary and secondary schools—safe for the children who attend them.

The shortening of the period contained in this transitional provision is a good move by the Education and Science Committee. Obviously it has perceived the urgency of this provision, and the urgency of the issue behind it. There is nothing more important than the safety of the children in our schools and early childhood education centres, and the process of establishing the fitness of people who come into contact with them—not simply teaching staff but also non-teaching staff—must be paramount. So the process that determines the fitness of those people needs to be enacted, it needs to be complied with, and it needs to be satisfied in every letter and every respect.

The transitional provision in relation to police vetting is an essential part of Part 2. My colleagues may well speak to other parts of Part 2, but it seems to me that it is appropriate to draw the attention of the Committee to the importance of even a simple transitional provision. It is something that every principal of every school and every chair of every board of trustees needs to know about so that they can ensure compliance within the shortened time frame. As I say, Labour supports having a shortened time frame for this compliance period, and supports this transitional provision, not only for its mechanics but, obviously, for its greater import and purpose in protecting the safety of children in our schools.

I support these provisions, together with the provisions of Part 1, which deal not only with the appropriateness of teaching staff but the police vetting of non-teaching and unregistered employees, and the police vetting of contractors and their employees. Thank you.

As a member of the Education and Science Committee, which considered the Education Amendment Bill, I will rise and speak to Part 2. Because it is now some time since the select committee considered the wording in this legislation, a lot has happened since then, and I wonder whether committee members may have had some different views if we had known then what we know now.

Part 2 requires early childhood education centres to have some additional costs put on them for going through some vetting procedures, and to do those procedures, as my colleague Maryan Street just said, in a truncated period of time compared with what the original legislation said. Of course, at the foremost of the minds of select committee members at the time, when we wanted that time period truncated, was the safety of children, which is as it should have been. We wanted to make sure that there were as few loopholes as possible. But that was before we learnt that there were to be Budget cuts for the early childhood education sector. I think that now, on reflection, as I look at this entire bill, and in particular at Part 2, the costs that are contained in there for the sector were not a major concern for committee members at the time, because we believed then that the Government would not tamper with early childhood education funding. We believed that the funding was in place because the Government had promised that. National had promised it before the election and we had no reason to doubt that, but this week we suddenly learnt that the early childhood education sector is costing too much. Suddenly the Government has decided, just this week, that the early childhood education sector is costing too much and that funding must be cut from the sector.

In Part 2, the sector is required to undertake police vetting procedures that it has not been required to undertake up until this point. The timing of that will be incredibly important because Part 2 concerns the transitional provisions, and because we do not know when this legislation will come into effect—it commences on the day after it receives the Royal assent, so there is no named date in the bill—we do not know whether its enactment will occur before the Budget. It is unlikely to be enacted before that. It could be, but the transitional provisions are likely to be set in place and be requirements for the early childhood education sector following the Budget. We do not know, because the Government will not say, what cuts-to-funding situation the sector will be placed in by then. As a member of the select committee, I find myself in a very difficult position: I am supporting this legislation because that is the right thing to do for the safety of our children, but I am now very, very worried about the sector’s capability to put these measures into place—to go through these police vetting processes, and to make sure that that is done thoroughly and property—because I do not know, and neither does the sector, the level of the funding cuts that it is facing in the Budget coming up on 20 May.

Here we are today, in the Committee stage, debating with a new piece of information. When we were debating in the Committee stage last week I felt less worried about the funding position of the sector than I do this week. I do not know when we will be debating this bill’s third reading, but I wonder what on earth we will be facing then. What situation will the sector be in? Where will its capability be to deliver what we supported in good faith in the select committee and what the submitters told us about in good faith? The submitters wanted these changes to be put in place, as well, but they did not know—and neither did we on the select committee—about the plans that the Government had for cutting funding to the sector. The reason we did not know about those plans is that National had promised that it would not tamper with early childhood education. It said that it would keep the same level of subsidies and it would keep the same fee controls in place. It promised that before the election, but now those promises look shallow. They are ringing completely hollow. Now, all the Government can do is talk about how much it will cost it to support children through early childhood education. Well, for goodness’ sake. When the Government keeps saying that it wants to improve participation and have more children in early childhood education, of course the cost will be larger.

I will follow on from what my colleague Sue Moroney has been saying about police vetting, and about the need for support for principals and boards of trustees within schools to go through that process. It is quite a simple process, really, when we think about it, but unfortunately in schools many school leaders have been trained purely as teachers. They used to get very little training in the art and skills of being a principal, let alone training in the sort of legal stuff that principals now have to do. So there is a real gap in the knowledge of many principals between the art of leading the school in terms of the curriculum, and administrative work, much of which is based around legal needs.

The process of a police vet is quite simple; it is a matter of filling in a form and posting it off. But that and all the other requirements that principals have when they employ staff build up for principals, and often they do not do administrative tasks in the timely manner that they should. I support the fact that the time frame to apply for a police vet has been shortened from 8 weeks to 4 weeks. I think it could be done even faster. However, one of the problems of having a limit of 4 weeks in which the police vet is to be applied for is that there is a time period when a person is allowed to work in a school but when we are unsure whether the person has a criminal background. The application has to be filled out within 4 weeks, yet there is another 4 or 5-week lag in receiving the police vet back. It could mean that a teacher has been working in the school for close to a term, or for a quarter of a school year, without the school knowing the status of the teacher’s criminal history—hopefully the teacher would not have a criminal history—so there is that danger.

Going along the same lines of principals not having the legal background and training to allow them to follow the processes, I will flick back to the first part of the bill that talks about what happens when a police vet is returned. I am talking about section 319FA, inserted by clause 70, which states that principals “(b) must not take any adverse action in relation to a person who is the subject of a Police vet until—(i) the person has validated the information contained in the vet;”. This is really important, but quite often, because of our lack of legal knowledge as principals—

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is very interesting, but we are on Part 2. I thought that was what the member was talking about, but he is still on Part 1.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: There are, of course, the transition provisions that relate to this and they are in clause 76, which is in Part 2.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I think the Minister has a point. The member should draw into Part 2, and make his speech relevant.

Clause 76, in Part 2, talks about police vetting and I was referring to the process that principals follow, and the need for support for principals in this whole process of police vetting. Quite often they can react hastily to the results of a police vet, without a person having an opportunity to validate the vet. It needs to be drawn to the Committee’s attention that principals need a lot of support with the police vet process. As I said earlier, it is a legal process and we risk personal grievances being taken because principals inadvertently react too soon or too hastily to the results of a police vet.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 99 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to insert new clause 78A be agreed to.