8. ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) Link to this
to the Minister of Education
Does he stand by his statement on 13 March 2008 that “in 2002 the Special Education Service was merged with the Ministry of Education. Statistically this increased the Ministry of Education’s staff but actually created no new positions”; if so, why?
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) Link to this
Yes; although that member and her party have been trying to beat up the notion of a huge surge in staff numbers at the Ministry of Education, actually 1,458 existing staff from special education and early childhood merged with the ministry. Another 112 staff were taken on at that time, but they were to fill existing vacancies, as well as to deal with growing areas like international education, work on the National Certificate of Educational Achievement, and initiatives like AIMHI. I guess that to that member, 112 new staff positions out of a total ministry employee roll of 2,890 would be a blowout, but not to the parents and schools that those 112 staff positions were designed to help.
Can the Minister confirm that on 13 June this year he received a report stating that when the merger of the Special Education Service with the Ministry of Education is taken away, the size of the ministry has ballooned by 111 percent, from 578 fulltime-equivalents to 1,223 fulltime-equivalents?
That member always confirms that she never listens to an answer. I just said in my primary answer that 112 new positions were created to deal with issues like international education and to fill existing vacancies in special education. If she thinks that 112 out of over 2,800 staff is a ballooning, then her numeracy is as poor as her literacy.
Hon Mark BurtonI have seen numerous reports of Mrs Tolley and her leader, John Key, telling schools up and down the country that National—
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That question is actually very wide of the primary question, which related to the numbers of staff who work for the Ministry of Education.
Madam SPEAKERI have seen numerous reports of Mrs Tolley and her leader, John Key, telling teachers and schools up and down the country that the only way National will increase funding to schools is by sacking bureaucrats and staff at the Ministry of Education. As I have told this House already on a number of occasions, if we slash the total salary of every staff member not involved in front-line services, it comes to $54.6 million, which equates to $21,900 per school—not even enough to employ a single teacher. It is time that National came clean with regard to its educational policy. So far we have only heard of doubling the funding for private schools, discredited national testing, the semi-privatisation of public schools through public-private partnerships, and taking the word “free” out of the 20 free hours that all 3 and 4-year-olds are entitled to. I ask Mrs Tolley to tell us what her policy is.
Can the Minister confirm that under Labour the number of teachers has increased by only 13 percent, but according to his June report the size of the ministry, without the Special Education Service, has more than doubled, from 578 fulltime-equivalents to 1,223 fulltime-equivalents?
I remind the House again about that member’s poor grasp of both literacy and numeracy. She has already told the House that the staff has increased. She used the word “ballooning” by 112 positions. Actually, my maths tells me that that is by 7.4 percent, so I am sorry, I tell “Mrs Tulley”, but the numbers do not add up, again.
Does the report that the Minister received in June, which talks about 111 percent—percent, I tell the Minister, not numbers—not completely discredit his previous statements that the ministry increased only because of the special education merger, and prove that he has been completely wrong to blame ballooning staff numbers at the ministry on the special education merger—and I remind the Minister that the figures are 578 growing to 1,223; my maths seems to be a lot better than his?
I am looking forward to going through the Hansard account of this question, because we have heard from Mrs Tolley a number of different numbers. I remind her that she talked about 112 being that ballooning number of bureaucrats. I tell Mrs Tolley that no matter how much she wriggles and twists, and no matter how much she tries to repeat—
Hon Bill EnglishI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Whatever disrespect the Minister has for a senior female MP, he should at least show her the respect of using her name correctly, and he has not been doing so. I ask that he does. She is not “Mrs Tulley”.
I am sorry; I heard it as Tolley. But I have always understood that the member wished to be referred to as Anne Tolley. I think that is the acceptable mode of address. However, I thought the point of order was going to be—so I will make this point anyway—that the member will please be succinct and address the question.
If Mr English’s understanding of the English language is different from mine—and I guess he does come from Southland—I will repeat my answer.
I will repeat my reference to the member. Mrs Tolley has told us that there were 112 new staff at the Ministry of Education in 2002. The ministry’s total staff was 2,890, so where does she get the percentage from that she came up with? Clearly, her numeracy skills leave much to be desired.
Why has the Minister not come to the House and corrected the statement he made on 13 March 2008, when he knows full well from the report he received in June that even putting aside the special education merger, the Ministry of Education has ballooned by 111 percent, from 578 fulltime-equivalents to 1,223 fulltime-equivalents, putting aside any of the staff that are involved in special education; that, I tell the Minister, is very easy to do, so why has he not come to the House and corrected the statement he made back in March?
Just because the member keeps repeating something, that does not make it true. The truth of the matter, as has been explained in this House not just today but on previous occasions, is that Group Special Education and the early childhood service came into the ministry. If the member cannot grasp that, then I will send it over in big print and in simpler language.
I seek leave to table the report that went to the Minister in June, which shows quite clearly the figures—
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know this may not be an issue that you should deal with now, but I am concerned that in that particular exchange we saw an extreme example of a member making snide references to another member’s lack of intelligence. I think that it was part of the content of every answer that he gave. I know that this is a robust environment and that we could expect occasionally—as does happen, but only occasionally—that references are made to other members’ lack of intelligence. In this case it was persistent, and I would be interested in your view as to whether you think that is to become acceptable behaviour in the Chamber.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I sure what the member has said is true, but the member often uses the word “dumb” to describe members on this side of the House.
Members often, in their interjections, probably do not hear themselves in the excitement of the moment. The member is right, however, that members should address each other in a courteous way, and references to the mental prowess, or lack thereof, of a particular member are inappropriate in questions and in debate.