Parents could be prosecuted for truancy, but principals say it won't work
"The previous government ceased to pursue prosecutions, I think that was a mistake," David Seymour says.
Photo:
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
Parents who repeatedly refuse to send their children to school are more likely to be prosecuted as the government cracks down on truancy, but principals say prosecution is not the solution.
A primary school principal in Whangārei had earlier called for exactly this - in 2019 Hora Hora primary's Pat Newman called for more prosecutions for parents who deliberately fail to send their kids to school.
But six years on, he had changed his mind.
Newman told
Morning Report
prosecuting parents wouldn't work.
"This move, in my view, is about looking tough rather than actually doing something effective about it. Attendance is just a symptom, it's not a cause.
"I listened to the Minister this morning and he said it's not about punishing children, but if you are talking about fines of up to $3000 a day, then I can't see how that's not actually punishing children."
Hora Hora primary's Pat Newman.
Photo:
RNZ / Sam Olley
When asked why the change of heart, Newman said he called for prosecution in 2019 out of frustration, but had since embarked on a "really successful campaign".
"It's about communities and families and looking at how we can get these kids to school. It's about kids not at school because they are shifting because of the house rentals, or shifting because of jobs.
"Threatening to fine people, what are we going to do when we go from $300 a day to $3000, do we put them in jail then?"
Newman said the government should give schools the truancy budget money and let the them do "something effective".
"We are already running two buses at our own cost to get kids to school... to help kids who can't get to school, get to school."
If given extra money Newman said he would put on more buses, which was helping attendance at his school.
Principal of Kaitaia College Louise Anaru told
Morning Report
the schools and communities were best placed to make decisions about truancy.
"I think it's not a one size fits all.
"For our school for instance, what works for our communities and where we get the best engagement is when we all sit around the table together with our parents, whānau, student and we come up a really robust attendance plan together."
In the 16 years Anaru had been a principal, she said had not come across a situation where a prosecution was necessary.
She said she had also not come across people calling for the prosecution of parents.
Associate Education Minister David Seymour says the Ministry of Education is proactively contacting schools and truancy officers.
Photo:
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
Associate Education Minister David Seymour said the Ministry of Education was proactively contacting schools and truancy officers to ensure parents condoning truancy were referred to the Ministry to be considered for prosecution.
The rules were not changing, but the government was ramping up enforcement because schools and truancy officers said it was needed, Seymour said.
"There are some parents who just refuse to cooperate, don't care about their kids' futures, and the people working at the coalface have told me it would be helpful if they had another sanction that they could bring into play."
They wanted a "coercive power" that would ensure parents took school attendance seriously, Seymour said.
No parent had been prosecuted for refusing to ensure their kids attended school for more than five years, he said.
"The previous government ceased to pursue prosecutions, I think that was a mistake," he said.
"We're making it clear that the Ministry of Education is back in business and will respond to requests from schools to take prosecutions."
When a parent is referred to the ministry for condoning truancy, staff would decide whether to prosecute, and it would then be a matter for the courts, he said.
Parents
faced fines
of up to $300 for a first offence and $3000 for a second or subsequent offence.
Seymour said 90,000 students were chronically absent.
"We are not going to prosecute the parents of 90,000 students. This is an option for people working at the frontline ... if they have someone who is more of a 'won't' than a 'can't'."
The ministry would not prosecute parents of students who were "genuinely engaging" with the school, or those who were absent because of chronic illness or health conditions associated with a disability.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
6 hours ago
- RNZ News
Quinton Rihari loses Dunedin flat after threatening neighbours
By Catherine Hutton, Open Justice reporter of Photo: 123rf A man who threw plastic chairs at his frightened neighbours before letting off a gas bottle in the shared hallway and shouting "Boom, boom, you can all die", has lost his Salvation Army flat. Quinton Rihari couldn't be reached for the Tenancy Tribunal's hearing, where the Salvation Army sought to terminate the tenancy on his central Dunedin flat, saying he'd threatened to assault other tenants in the complex. According to the tribunal's recently released decision, Rihari received written warnings about his behaviour at his Thomas Burns Street flat on three occasions. The first was on 27 December last year, when he broke a painting in the corridor during a fight outside his room. It began at 3.30am and lasted for an hour and a half. Then, in February, he verbally abused tenants when they asked him to turn his music down. Two months later, on 14 April, the Salvation Army says Rihari became angry and threw plastic chairs off a shared balcony, frightening other tenants. After returning to his room, Rihari let off a 9kg LPG bottle in the hallway, yelling, "Boom, boom, you can all die". Police were called and took Rihari away, only for him to return and begin yelling at the other tenants, calling them "narks". Later that day, he told another tenant he was going to "punch her head in". Again, police were called and Rihari was taken away. Under the Residential Tenancies Act, the tribunal can terminate a tenancy if it's satisfied a tenant has engaged in antisocial behaviour on three separate occasions during a 90-day period and received written notice on each occasion. Antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes significant alarm, distress or nuisance. The decision found that while Rihari received separate notices for each incident, the three incidents spanned 108 days, outside the 90-day period. Despite this, the tribunal found Rihari had threatened to harm his neighbours over the gas cylinder incident and threatened to assault another neighbour. As a result, it agreed to terminate Rihari's tenancy. When the Salvation Army was approached for comment late Tuesday afternoon, its media officer Kai Sanders said no one was available for comment, adding this wasn't something the organisation would usually comment on because of its strict rules around privacy. * This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald .
RNZ News
8 hours ago
- RNZ News
Lawyer struck off after taking $200k of client funds to escape abusive relationship
By Jeremy Wilkinson, Open Justice reporter of The woman said she lived in constant fear of her husband. Photo: 123RF A lawyer who says she feared for her life at the hands of an abusive husband took at least $200,000 from her clients, partly to escape the relationship. "I understand how on the face this looks like a simple story of a lawyer who misused client funds," she told a disciplinary tribunal today, "but, this is a story of a long shadow of domestic violence". The woman, who has name suppression, said she and her children were in a state of survival for seven years. She said they lived in constant fear of her husband and often had to barricade themselves in a bedroom so he wouldn't hurt them. "The term survival mode does not do justice to the psychological toll," she said. "I genuinely believe we would have ended up as a news headline for a murder suicide." Despite the abuse, the woman continued to operate a successful legal practice, but began dipping into her firm's trust account so she could move cities to escape her husband. Today, the woman told the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal that taking money from the account, which is used to hold client funds, began as an error. But, she then started taking more in the belief she could repay it. The woman told the tribunal that she accepted she would be struck off for taking the money, some of which she has already repaid, and realises now that she should have shut her firm down when she couldn't cope. "But I loved being a lawyer. "In all the darkness, it was the one thing I was holding onto that made me feel like me." She knew it was wrong Milan Djurich, counsel for the Standards Committee laying charges against the woman on behalf of the New Zealand Law Society, told the tribunal that the woman knew what she was doing was wrong. "It was a high level of theft and a breach of professional standards," he said. According to the charges against the woman, it was one of her clients who contacted the Law Society in 2023, concerned about the lack of contact from the woman after they'd paid a significant deposit. Investigators estimated that there was a shortfall of at least $200,000 in the trust account before taking control of it in December 2023. It was found the woman transferred money out of the trust account and spent it on things like insurance, gym fees, relocation costs, school fees and books and payments on a deposit for a property she'd purchased. There were also several large transfers into her personal accounts, but it's unclear exactly what that money was spent on. The woman's lawyer, Stewart Sluis, said his client didn't have access to the trust account any longer as the Law Society took it over, and she now couldn't determine exactly how much she took, but the Standards Committee accepted that the shortfall was at least $203,000. The woman, who handed in her practising certificate voluntarily, accepted she would be struck from the roll of barristers and solicitors. The woman has recently won a relationship property settlement in the Family Court against her ex-husband. She now plans to use the proceeds to pay the rest of the money she took from her clients. While the woman was granted name suppression, she asked the tribunal to include the context of why she took the money in its written decision. Because the Family Court is strictly suppressed, if she had lost name suppression, the wider context about her husband could not have been referenced by the tribunal, nor reported by NZME. "This is my attempt to tell my side of the story, one shaped by domestic violence and a mental state shattered by fear," she said. "I hope that sharing this story may help other women in the future." The tribunal ordered that the woman be struck off and that she pay legal costs as well as repay the money that was taken from her clients. * This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald . If it is an emergency and you feel like you or someone else is at risk, call 111.
RNZ News
10 hours ago
- RNZ News
Support for National and Labour fall in latest 1News-Verian poll
Chris Hipkins and Christopher Luxon. Photo: RNZ The coalition could hold on to power, while National, Labour and ACT all lose support in the latest 1News-Verian poll shows. With small increases for New Zealand First, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, the results would give the coalition a 63-seat majority, to the opposition's 58. Support for Prime Minister Christopher Luxon also remains steady, while Labour's Chris Hipkins falls slightly. Four parties outside Parliament all registered 1 point of support: TOP (The Opportunities Party, down 1), New Zeal (up 1), the NZ Outdoor and Freedoms Party (steady), and Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party (up 1). People saying they did not know who they would vote for, or refused to answer, accounted for 11 percent of responses. There were only minor changes on the preferred prime minister stakes, with Luxon holding his lead over Hipkins. Preferred prime minister: The poll surveyed 1002 eligible voters and was weighted for demographics, with a margin of error of 3.1 percent at the 95 percent confidence interval. It was conducted between 24 and 28 May. The sample for mobile phones is selected by random dialling using probability sampling, and the online sample is collected using an online panel. Undecided voters, non-voters and those who refused to answer are excluded from the data on party support. Polls compare to the most recent poll by the same polling company, as different polls can use different methologies. They are intended to track trends in voting preferences, showing a snapshot in time, rather than be a completely accurate predictor of the final election result.
