Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill

Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The question is that clause 1 stand part. All those in favour, say—oh, my apologies. Parmjeet Parmar.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to take this call. First, I would like to talk about the title of this bill. The title as it stands is “Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill 2019”. When this bill was introduced, it was implied that this bill was actually going to get rid of school donations. So I am going to offer some suggestions to the Minister, and it’s not going to be just one suggestion; I’m going to be really kind and offer two suggestions to the Minister. I believe the title of this bill should be “Education (Continuing School Donations) Amendment Bill”. Why I suggest that it should be “Education (Continuing School Donations) Amendment Bill” is that this bill applies to only schools that are deciles 1 to 7. It doesn’t apply to schools that are from deciles 8 to 10. So, for deciles 8 to 10 schools, that trend of seeking school donations will continue.

This doesn’t mean that all schools, which are from deciles 1 to 7, will be opting in for this grant that the Minister wants to offer through this legislation. So that’s why I strongly feel, because we don’t know how many schools are going to opt in, and, clearly, schools that are deciles 8 to 10 are not going to be part of this legislation, that the title of this bill should be the “Education (Continuing School Donations) Amendment Bill”. So this is option number one.

Option number two is it should be called the “Education (Confirming School Donations) Amendment Bill”, because, what has happened in Part 1 is we saw that the Minister tabled a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). In that SOP, clearly, the Minister is saying that there will be exemptions, that this will be for the activities for which schools can go out and seek donations. So in a way, the Minister is confirming that it’s OK to go out and seek donations from parents, or caregivers, of students in their school. So the Minister has made this activity, which is currently a voluntary activity—because when schools go out to solicit donations, we know that it’s a voluntary thing. If parents or caregivers can afford it, they pay that, otherwise they don’t have to. But by tabling that SOP, the Minister actually confirmed that it is a legitimate activity for schools to go out and seek donations. So that’s why I offer this option—that it should be called the “Education (Confirming School Donations) Amendment Bill”, and I would say to the Minister that the Minister should not feel embarrassed taking up these options, because the title of the legislation should reflect the intention of the legislation.

The commencement: the select committee process was shortened, and I can clearly see the Minister wants to commence this Act ASAP. This is after the date of Royal assent. I have heard from schools that schools were given a date previously, which they could not meet, and now they have been given a date in the month of November to let the ministry know if they are opting in. We know that school boards meet two or three times, at the most, in a term. So some school boards might be meeting this week, or next week, so there is a lot of pressure on schools to tell the ministry if they are opting in for this option. I believe that’s why the Minister is rushing to see that this is commenced ASAP.

But that doesn’t solve the problem. The issue here is that these schools have been given the option of opting in, and they will opt in only if they see this as going to cover for all of the money that they get through collecting donations, because I have heard from schools that even if 50 to 60 percent of parents or caregivers pay their donation, they will be better off than opting in for this legislation. So the Minister wants this to come into effect, while we know that the next term is going to start in January and February. So parents of those who wanted to pay their voluntary donation would have already paid, so it’s not going to make any difference for this academic year. So this legislation, actually, for parents, is going to help from the next year, but the Minister wants to see how many schools will opt in, and that’s why the Minister wants to see that it commences ASAP.

I believe that this is because the Minister has been already labelled for a failed education policy; that is, the fees-free tertiary education policy. The Minister is really worried that, because we are hearing from schools that are in deciles 1 to 7, they may not take up this option. So the Minister wants to be really sure, and that’s why there is a lot of pressure on schools to tell the ministry if they’re opting in or not. So that’s why the select committee process was shortened, and the Minister wants to commence it ASAP.

Of course, if it has been debated in the House, it should commence ASAP, but I believe that schools should get more time, reasonable time, to consider this option if the Minister seriously wants to offer this option to schools instead of putting a deadline, now the legislation goes through in the month of—hoping that the third reading will be finished in September sometime, and then the schools have to get back by November. But as I said before, we don’t know when their board of trustees are meeting. If they’re already meeting this week or next week, they won’t have enough information to provide their real choice.

The question is that clause 1 stand part. All of those in favour say “Aye”, to the contrary “No”. The Ayes have it. [Interruption] Normally, we would take clauses 1, 2, and 3 together. Are you happy to do that, in the spirit of cooperation, the Hon Tim Macindoe?

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: I’m happy to do that in the spirit of cooperation with you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you very much. Because there was a party vote called, and the member agreed we’d have it, if he’d like to call a party vote on clauses 1 to 3? A party vote has been called for; I will ask the Clerk to please conduct a party vote.