Education Amendment Bill

I move, That the Education Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The Education Amendment Bill amends the Education Act 1989. The changes in the bill will improve efficiency in the schooling system, reduce compliance costs for schools and early childhood education services, and improve the quality and effectiveness of education legislation.

The first significant amendment, relating to police vetting, will reduce compliance costs and streamline administration for schools. The changes will minimise the risk that some non-teaching staff and contractors may have unsupervised access to children in early childhood centres and schools before they are vetted by the police. Schools and early childhood education services will continue to be required to obtain a police vet for all non-teaching staff. The police vet must be requested within at least 2 weeks of the person concerned starting work, and it must be obtained before that person can have any unsupervised access to children and young people. Only contractors who have, or who are likely to have, unsupervised access to children must be vetted by the police.

The bill makes police vetting of household members mandatory when children enrolled in a home-based service are being cared for in a home other than their own. This provision applies to all household members who are 17 years of age or older. During the Committee stage, there were some fond reminiscences from members opposite of the previous education amendment bill, which was brought into the House by Labour. Those members conveniently forgot that that bill contained some Draconian vetting requirements that, according to the primary teachers union, “could seriously impact on community and family involvement in schools and centres”. It went on to state that it could include parents, grandparents, or any adult who helped with sports teams at lunchtime, who came in to listen to an individual child’s reading, or who helped out during a gardening or a clean-up project. No one talked about that in the Committee stage with any fond reminiscences. The bill also removes the New Zealand Teachers Council as the conduit for the police vetting of all non-teaching staff and contractors. Schools and early childhood education services will now apply directly to the New Zealand Police for that service. Again, in the Committee stage, it was interesting that an Opposition member, who clearly had not read the bill or had forgotten what the bill did, talked about the extra costs for early childhood centres, in particular, of the police vetting that is proposed in this bill. That service is, of course, currently provided by the police at no expense.

The second significant amendment to the Education Act 1989 allows for information matching between the New Zealand Teachers Council’s register of teachers and the Ministry of Education’s payroll database, to identify those who are teaching in schools without registration. That will provide a more reliable and efficient method of monitoring teacher registration and tracking the employment of teachers, to ensure that they are meeting current teaching and safety standards.

The bill makes a range of other amendments to the Education Act 1989. It clarifies that when a person is appointed as a limited statutory manager or commissioner for a school, he or she can be appointed as being from a named body corporate. My original proposal was changed at the Education and Science Committee in a bit of déjà vu from the Hon Trevor Mallard and Sir Roger Douglas. I have gone with the change, and I am prepared to try it. But I will just point out in this House that the hysteria from some members, both in the Education and Science Committee and in this House, about the possible privatisation of schools as a result of this measure comes from sheer ignorance—there is no other explanation for it—of the complex issues involved when the Minister of Education or the Secretary for Education has to put in place a statutory intervention. My desire was to enable the Minister of Education or the Secretary for Education to appoint a number of people with differing skills, because we need a wide range of skills—employment skills, education skills, and skills relating to communicating with communities—and sometimes it just not possible to get one individual who is capable of carrying out that task. So my desire was to have the ability to appoint a number of people who might have differing skills. However, I am willing to work with what we have, and to make sure that we can be of assistance to schools. Of course, any appointments of limited statutory managers or commissioners will continue to be made on a case-by-case basis to ensure that we get the best fit of skills and expertise, and we strive at all times to keep those interventions to as short a time as possible.

The bill allows for the retrospective validation of Crown payments following changes of proprietors in integrated schools when those changes did not follow current processes. The Minister of Education can change the timing of elections for school boards of trustees so that the elections can be held later in the school year. That will reduce the pressures that schools face at the beginning of the year, and will make the election process more efficient and manageable. For schools that are about to close, school boards will be exempt from triennial board elections, which would be a waste of money, time, and resources.

The Minister of Education can establish a combined board to set up two or more new schools, and will be able to stagger the opening of the new schools. We have wished we had the ability to do that with the two schools in Papamoa that are currently under construction. We had to establish two separate boards to manage the establishment of those schools. Special schools can apply to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority for accreditation in their own right to assess against the standards on the national qualifications framework. The bill provides the Education Review Office with discretion over the frequency of its review of private schools, to give it the same flexibility to review less frequently private schools that are doing well, as they are doing with the State system.

The bill streamlines functions relating to the independent disciplinary bodies overseen by the New Zealand Teachers Council, enhances the efficient administration of student loans and allowances, and introduces a small number of minor remedial amendments to clarify certain definitions and to correct some drafting errors in the Education Act 1989. We have not forced schools to keep students in school by repealing the ability of the Secretary for Education to provide the enrolment exemptions that the previous Labour bill required.

I must conclude by saying how disappointed I am that during the Committee stage, the Opposition spokesperson on education, the Hon Trevor Mallard, admitted to the House that Labour had conducted a filibuster to try to force the hand of the Minister of Education to make a change for a particular school that two previous Ministers of Education in his own previous Government had refused to make. The filibuster held up the passage of legislation through the House, a major purpose of which was to ensure the protection and safety of young children in education. At long last, this bill is now proceeding, and I commend it to the House.

There are a few points I want to make. It is a pity that the Minister of Education did not acknowledge in her speech the ceremony she went to this morning. Today within the precincts of the House we have seen New Zealand’s top scholars of 2009. They are a truly wonderful group of young people, who are evidence of an education system that is working well for the very best kids. I say that I am especially proud of Wellington’s disproportionate number of top scholars. They have done well. I am particularly proud of the way the State schools have gone. Some State schools, though slightly less prestigious than others, have had some very good results, and even Invercargill was represented amongst the top scholars—it was a pity that Dunedin was represented, but Invercargill did proportionately very well! I acknowledge the Governor-General and the fact that he made a very generous speech on that occasion. The only other thing I would say is that the Minister’s speech on that occasion matched her speech on this one.

There are number of points I will make about the Education Amendment Bill. The first point is that I sit somewhere between the bill that Labour introduced when it was in Government and the bill that the Minister introduced. I think Mr Peachey chaired the Education and Science Committee well to a midpoint. We took on board some of the criticisms, and we managed to distinctly improve the legislation as it went through the committee. There was an unusual combination of ACT, Labour, and Green members on the committee ensuring that the accountability mechanisms as part of the commissioner and statutory manager arrangements were brought properly into law. I acknowledge the role of Sir Roger Douglas and the work that he did on that issue in the committee. I think we now have legislation that makes a positive improvement to the Education Act.

One of the things that I thought we might have heard about from the Minister was how progress is going on the rewrite of the Act. I would have thought that it would be ready for introduction now. It is a major piece of work. It is fair to say that the education legislation is a dog’s breakfast. During my time as the Minister of Education in the first part of the last decade, a lot of work was done towards rewriting the Act, and I would have thought that it be just about ready now. When that legislation hits the House, it will be a major job for the select committee to make sure that the various pieces of legislation knit together properly in the new Education Act. I hope the title of that Education Act will have a date at the end of it that starts with the digits“20”, rather than it being any later than that.

The bill validates some payments in respect of the change of proprietors of integrated schools. I think that is a very good example of how a validation that does not cost the Crown any money works. As the Minister of Education has pointed out, there was another proposal. That proposal was to relieve King’s High School in Dunedin of some obligations that it currently has to Westpac bank. Again, it would be at no disadvantage to Westpac bank and at no disadvantage to the Crown to use money that is otherwise available to King’s High School in order to pay off some debt. I think it is fair to say that a previous principal and a previous board had entered into an arrangement by way of a misunderstanding of the way forward. The Minister has indicated that she will not support that. I have indicated that that is something that the Labour Party, and, I am assured, the Greens, will pursue going forward.

There are a number of finance bills—and I know that Mr Tremain knows there are a number of finance bills—that generally go through the House without debate and without amendment during the Committee stage. There will be numerous opportunities to introduce validating clauses that will be within the scope of those bills. All I invite the Minister to do is to look at the three or four schools that are involved and make the policy change. Then I am sure debate in the House will go more smoothly. I am not inviting her to spend any money at all; I am asking her to look at the schools.

I went to the Minister’s office and she told me she would fix that up—I went to the Minister’s office and she told me she would fix it up. If she does fix it up, the problem will go away, but until she fixes it up the House will debate amendments on what otherwise could have been uncontroversial validating legislation. This is one of the things that members of Parliament in the Opposition can do, and it is one of the things that Ministers can do: when there is something wrong, it is the putting right that counts.

I know that two of my colleagues made a mistake. The original mistake happened in my time. It was not advice from the Ministry of Education, and it was not advice from me, but the principal and the board got it wrong. We accept that. A couple of my colleagues considered the issue, and I do not think they considered it well. I have accepted that. That is something that I will take on—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Most loyal of characters.

No, my arguments were clearly not persuasive enough.

But I know that eventually we will get there. It is like water on a stone: eventually we will get there, and the right thing will be done for King’s High School. I do not know about the other three schools. I will visit them, I will talk to them, and I will find out their circumstances. The Minister has been kind enough to give me a list of those schools. We will work to see whether they do fit in to the same category or whether there is a try-on. If it is a try-on, we will not support them, but if they do—

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: If you want to be the Minister, get elected.

That is the classic comment of that Minister, who says it all over the place. She said it three times at public meetings around the country. When she runs out of logic, and when she does not have an argument, she says: I’m not doing it for any reason, at all; I’m doing it because I’m the Minister.” She said that on three separate occasions, and she just said it again—“If you want a change, then become the Minister.” She is saying that she is allowed to do stupid things because she is the Minister. I tell her that she is not allowed. She will be held to account.

She will have to discuss with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the whips, and the Leader of the House why she will not let King’s High School spend money, which is allocated to it in the Crown accounts and will cost the Crown nothing, on paying off an old debt rather than having $5,000 a month in interest going to Westpac bank. It should be there for teaching staff. It should be there for computers. It should be there for the special education of the students. But she would rather that money was paid as interest to Westpac bank. Of course it was a mistake, it was wrong, and we have it in our power to fix it.

One of the things that that member will do when she has been around here for a bit longer will be to say that sometimes people make mistakes and that they should admit to them. I admit that I made a mistake in that area. I should have convinced my colleagues to fix it; I was reminded of it by the new principal. I have taken up that advice, and I will continue to do it.

Having said all of that, the Education Amendment Bill is pretty good. It is not perfect, and there are a few things that could have been improved, but it is pretty good. The Labour Party will support it notwithstanding the bad grace of the Minister throughout the passage of the bill.

I also would like to take a few minutes to echo the words of the Opposition spokesperson on education, Trevor Mallard, and offer my congratulations and those of the National Government to the top scholars who were honoured today. I had the privilege over a number of years of attending that function.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: There was one there from Rangitoto College, wasn’t there?

I believe there was, I say to Mr Mallard; I would be surprised if there was not. On occasions I had the privilege of leading the school that had the most top scholars in New Zealand. I pay my respect to those students.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Grace Abbott, for German.

I thank the member.

I also pay my respects to their teachers. I used to say to the youngsters who were competing for scholarships—and it is a competition; there is no sense in beating round the bush—that the edge they would have, nine times out of 10, would be in the quality of their teachers. Great teaching is what gives a youngster that little bit of edge that enables them to compete against other youngsters of equal ability who benefit from that quality of teaching.

I have a couple of comments on the Education Amendment Bill. I recall the Education and Science Committee hearings well. We operated under quite a bit of time pressure. We operated under quite a bit of time pressure, and we got through and had the bill reported back. I appreciated the assistance and the cooperation of all the members of the committee and the officials.

I will make reference to one part of the bill that I think is particularly important, and that is the provision on the governance of schools. For far too long, schools have been allowed to fail. Plenty of reasons, excuses, and explanations have been given. One of the greatest ones, which was brought back to me by thinking about the top scholars today, was that New Zealand has a world-class schooling system. In many ways it does, but that cannot be an excuse for the long tail of failure that is occurring. One of the things that we have learnt over recent times is that good governance and good principals can turn round a failing school very, very quickly. I need look no further than my own electorate of Tāmaki, where two examples in particular stand out: Point England Primary School and Tamaki College. With changes of leadership and enlightened governance, things suddenly began to move. I have also had the frustration of trying to get action where a school has been failing and it has taken too long. The only people who suffer from that are the students. I am delighted that this bill is providing the mechanism to give far quicker and far more effective intervention when it needs to be occurring, before the problem gets so bad that the community votes in large numbers with its feet.

We must also remember—and this will be my final point—that the easiest way to fix a failing school is to replace the principal. Great principals will run great schools regardless of the calibre of the board, but with a great board and a weak principal the school will not flourish. That is the easiest and most straightforward way to fix failing schools. This House cannot do that, and legislation cannot do it; it has to be a decision of whoever is governing the school at the time. Now, as a result of this legislation, the Government will have much greater flexibility in dealing with those failures and dealing with them in a timely and effective manner. I certainly welcome that part of the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

There is a long-held saying that timing is everything. I think the Education Amendment Bill is a case in point that timing really is everything. I mention that because when the Education and Science Committee considered this bill, it did not know what we know today about what will be happening to the early childhood sector and its funding. I do not know whether many speakers have alluded to this yet, but much of the bill—not all of it, but much of it—applies to early childhood education as well as compulsory education.

I say at the outset that Labour supports the bill at the third reading, because the police-vetting procedures in the bill are the right thing to do, particularly in respect of early childhood education. Parents entrust their very young children to that system. It is important that Parliament makes sure that the system has all the safety checks that need to be in place. So Labour supports the bill from that perspective.

But, now that we know that the Government plans budget cuts for early childhood education, it is hard to know how the sector will afford to resource the extra requirements that this bill puts on it. The extra—

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: They’re free. That is how.

The Minister seems to think that those requirements are free. She does not understand that administrative requirements take time and cost the sector.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: Well, they pay for them now. They don’t have to.

OK, the Minister of Education says she will pay for them now, but she has already allowed her colleagues to take $57 million from the sector. Earlier this week we learnt that the childcare allowance has been changed so that $57 million can come out of that sector. Government funding will be cut to the tune of $57 million over 4 years. That will affect 11,000 families. The Minister for Social Development and Employment had official advice given to her in a Cabinet paper that that measure would reduce the amount of funding that providers in the sector would receive. So, before we even get to the cuts that Anne Tolley has signalled for early childhood education, we see cuts to the tune of $57 million, which is money that providers will not be able to use to implement the types of procedures in this bill.

So we already know that funding for that sector is in trouble. But it is about to get worse. I would feel much more comfortable supporting this bill in the third reading if the Government would come clean on what its plans are for budget cuts to early childhood education.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: Be patient.

The Minister is saying “Be patient.” That is a terrible message for the families of this country. They know that they now face some cost increases in early childhood education, but they do not know what they are. I am not sure whether the Minister understands the pressure that families are under. Families have been speaking to me about their concerns about cuts to the 20 hours of free early childhood education, or whatever the changes might be, and they have told me that they budget carefully every week.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: 3 weeks.

I tell the Minister that they budget going forward, as well, and I think the Minister needs to understand. I know of families that tell me they have a 2-year-old turning 3 during the course of this year, and they have already budgeted for what they will do when the 2-year-old turns 3, because that child’s childcare arrangements and early childhood education reduce when he or she turns 3.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: They’ll just have to wait and see.

I say to the Minister that that is not good enough. It really is not good enough, because families are budgeting on a week-by-week basis for what they will spend on food, mortgage repayments or rent, clothing, and childcare and early childhood education. However, all the Minister can say is that “They’ll just have to wait.” Well, I say to the Minister that that is not good enough. And what are they waiting for? They are waiting to be told how this Government will increase the costs to those families. That is what they are waiting for. I say to the Minister that I am sure that they are holding their breath with glee!

When Anne Tolley was National’s spokesperson on education and was on the campaign trail, she promised that there would be no increase in fees, that the fee controls would stay the same.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: That’s right—for 20 hours.

She also said that there would be no change to the subsidies for early childhood education.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: Absolutely. For 20 hours.

So she is now giving a guarantee again in this House that there will be no cut to the subsidies for that sector, and that there will be no change to the fee controls. We look forward to that being honoured in the Budget.

The promise has already been broken by her colleague Paula Bennett, the Minister for Social Development and Employment. The subsidy levels for the childcare allowance have already been changed. That will increase the costs of families receiving that allowance. The Minister of Education can use all the weasel words she wants, but she gave the impression to the constituency, and to those parents and families, that a National Government would not tamper with early childhood education. That is the impression they were given. Many of those parents voted for National because they believed it. They trusted National and took it at its word, and those parents will feel betrayed if their costs increase as a result. They will feel betrayed—and justifiably feel betrayed—if their early childhood education costs increase, because that certainly was not the impression that she gave prior to the election. It was certainly not the impression that the current Prime Minister, John Key, gave prior to the election. We look forward to those members honouring that commitment when the Budget comes on 20 May.

It is very difficult to support this bill at its third reading, because Labour members know that it adds costs on to the early childhood education sector, but we do not know what cuts will be made to its funding. It is hard for Labour to be clear that this legislation is doable, practical, and something that the sector can afford.

I was at a conference for early childhood educators earlier today in Christchurch, and already the sector is concerned about its ability to deal with children with special needs and disabilities, because of the lack of resources that already hampers that issue. Representatives of the sector are already saying that, even as things stand now, without any of the National Government’s cuts having been made, they are struggling to resource and to look after children with disabilities and special needs. I heard many troubling stories that, in order to make the resources fit, centres were quite illegally and unlawfully turning away children with special needs and disabilities. That is the situation that the sector already faces. If the Government reduces the sector’s income even further by cutting its funding, not only children with special needs and disabilities will be turned away but also many other children. We are inflicting costs on that sector through the very bill that is before us.

Finally, I want to move briefly from the early childhood education sector to the compulsory education sector. This bill does many things that improve the Government’s ability to make choices to help failing schools. I visited Fraser High School in Hamilton last week. It has been subject to statutory management for just under a year. I was really pleased to hear the school report that it is now about to plan its board of trustees election process so that it can move out of statutory management and back into a situation where the community has control of the school. I congratulate Fraser High School. I know that it will have a tough year, but as a local member of Parliament I am right behind the school to support it in the very tough year that it faces. I wish Fraser High School all the best. I hope that Fairfield College and St Andrews Middle School—it was announced just this week that it is moving to statutory management—which are also in Hamilton, can follow in the footsteps of Fraser High School and work their way towards getting back boards of trustees. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. Tēnā koutou. The issues in the Education Amendment Bill have been thoroughly covered in the debate on its previous stages, so I will speak on the context and why the Greens are voting against the bill.

The changes to vetting procedures for people involved in home care, and for tradespeople and others working in schools, are an effort to make the process less onerous. Underneath that is a need to be fair to adults while protecting children. We have only to look at the track record of some institutions, from the churches to some schools, to see that children under so-called care and protection are vulnerable, and that people have taken the opportunity to exploit them. Thus, the Green Party welcomes the measured approach in this bill, but also would like to address this deeper question: why are the vulnerable so often attacked by people with greater power? This phenomenon is greater than a few individuals with sick behaviour. In the 1950s these issues had no names, but we all knew they happened. These days the issues are named, and that is healthy. However, some social attitudes towards children and sexuality and power remain incredibly toxic, as Internet child pornography has comprehensively demonstrated. This bill is fair enough on these issues, and a review of procedures to provide fairness for all is important. We support it.

In terms of data matching, the bill appears to be playing a role of coherent modernisation, and we support that, as well. However, on the matters of corporatisation around statutory managers for failing schools, the term “body corporate”, and the issue of combined boards, the bill is unsatisfactory. Again, the context has to be analysed. The Minister of Education took pains in the Committee stage to explain that the word “corporate” had no sinister intent, and I appreciate that. However, one person’s progressive is somebody else’s Trojan Horse. The Green Party is opposed to the language in clause 22 of Part 1, which confirms the legitimacy of the body corporate governance role. Everything that has happened in this House since the second reading has made us even stronger on this issue, given the direction this Government is taking towards privatisation across the board. This is the major theme I will talk about. It is related to Part 1, and links the Government’s overall educational platform, particularly with reference to its agreement with the ACT Party.

We do not support board combining, because it erodes local community power. We do not support the term “body corporate”, because it is a red light; it is a warning that a Government has an interest in facilitating public-private partnerships—or, as we call them, publicly palatable privatisation—in education as well as in prisons, and who knows in what else. Public-private partnerships are useful to a Government that made a public promise not to privatise State assets but wants to advance by stealth a privatisation agenda. The terms used in clause 22 of this bill have alerted us to the underlying issue, and, given what has happened to prisons, not to mention the axing of public bodies such as Environment Canterbury and the latest Local Government Act amendment bill, it cannot be said that we are being alarmist or extreme in wanting to defend, at every point, public assets in education.

The issue for us is a quality public education system and the gradual encroachment of the private sector. The proposal to allow a private contractor to build a school and thus have a lease is not a new idea. In other countries public-private partnerships have been trialled and have resulted in very mixed outcomes for schools and communities. I met with United Kingdom researcher Dexter Whitfield recently when he was touring with his book Global Auction of Public Assets, in which he talks specifically about the education sector and the effects of public-private partnerships on infrastructure, which relates to the wording in this bill in terms of bodies corporate. Meeting him reminded me of the extent to which this bill is not so much softening up the electorate as much as it is confirming a trend towards a corporate model of education, starting with the confused nightmare of school bus contracting and the experts surrounding teachers who are contractors, instead of teachers themselves, in terms of professional development and educational support. The assumption is that the corporate contractors are more efficient, but as Dexter Whitfield documented, this is not remotely or necessarily true. A corporate organisation has a primary duty to its shareholders. A school in Northern Ireland that sat empty for more than a year because of a dispute with a contractor is a good example of this. Who benefited? It was not the children.

So although the Greens support the improvements made by Labour MPs Trevor Mallard and Grant Robertson, we do not support this bill. We are disappointed that no other party in this House can join the dots and see the links between public-private models, which are being shoehorned into schools, and this bill, as well as what is being force-fed into water management and into prisons. There is a coherent agenda here, and we do not support it. We do not want to be buying back our schools, their buildings, and their governance in the future, like the rail-tracks we have had to buy back as a country. It is a failed model that costs citizens across the board over time. It has been done once; let us not do it again.

We stand by our record of opposing this and we know that somebody will read Hansard in the future and see that the Green Party was signalling the direction that education was going in at every stage, with every bill. We alone have stood up and challenged the erosion of public schools, which is being facilitated by this bill. We reject it. We support the public school system, including kōhanga and kura, for the benefit of all children, to be governed and owned by the public of this country so that Tomorrow’s Schools does not become about corporate schools and a corporate tomorrow, but about the governance of parents, teachers, and kids for the benefit of all students.

Inequity and privatisation are not private matters. They require our critique, as does this bill, and hence our opposition to it. It pains me to vote against the bill, because we thought that many parts of it were sensible. We thought that the select committee process was useful and that the negotiation was useful. We wanted to make amendments that would be practical and we supported the amendments Labour put up, but we have come to the point now where, having seen what happened in the House with water management this week, and having seen what happened to Environment Canterbury under urgency, we refuse to close our eyes and pretend there is not an agenda here that affects education.

Anyone who read the subtext in the Education Forum this week will have seen that public-private partnerships are the agenda.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I never dirtied my mind with that.

I read it because it referred to public-private partnerships and I wanted to see what it said. Then I saw what Bill English said. It is clear what Bill English is thinking. He has made it really clear that he wants to try an experiment; he wants to privatise and see what can be done through that model. It is privatisation by stealth. It means that the Government can keep an election promise and can hoodwink the people of this country that, with bills such as this, nothing is really changing. Actually, things are changing really, really fast, and every little bit of softening up is of concern to us. We stand on the principle that public means public and private means private, and that the middle ground is being co-opted for the benefit of the few and the powerful. In education there is nothing more damaging than the few and the powerful having more rights and resources than children across this country, who deserve the best at all levels.

As it was said in the movie Boy: “Every child”—and that child came from one of the poorest homes—“has potential.” In order to keep that potential we absolutely need our schools not to be governed by corporates, not to be fixed by corporate agendas, but to be governed and fixed by our own initiative as communities and our own educational ethos in the public school system. So the Green Party is proud to be standing up and putting on the record our opposition to this bill. Kia ora koutou.

I want to make just one or two points on the Education Amendment Bill, and I will certainly not speak for more than 2 or 3 minutes.

I want to make it clear that the ACT Party will be voting for this bill at its third reading. But I want to make it clear, as a member of the Education and Science Committee, where I stand on the issue that Trevor Mallard raised in reference to the validation of some expenditure that King’s High School, in Dunedin, had incurred, and its desire to pay that debt off out of its future capital grants. I believe, irrespective of what the situation is or what the rules are, that the school should be allowed to do this. I think that for three basic reasons: firstly, it will not cost the Government one extra dollar in terms of expenditure; secondly, the Government does not need to spend one dollar earlier than it would otherwise spend it; thirdly, I believe that the board of governors is better equipped, because it is closer to the action, to determine how that money should be spent than some bureaucrat in Wellington. I for one simply cannot understand the attitude that the Ministry of Education takes and why the Minister does not simply tell the ministry to pull its head in.

Debate interrupted.