12. ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) Link to this
to the Minister of Education
Does he stand by his statement in the House last week that “All students who are legally obliged to be in school are being targeted.”; if so, why?
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) Link to this
Yes. the Ministry of Education has the responsibility of ensuring that all New Zealand children receive their right to an education. Children who are absent from school for 20 consecutive days will now be automatically identified by the new $6.4 million ENROL system.
If he does believe that all students who are legally obliged to be in school are being targeted, then why does the Ministry of Education memorandum I tabled last week show that non-enrolled students who are in contact with Child, Youth and Family and the police will no longer be targeted by the private provider who is paid to get students back into school?
The contracted provider that the member refers to deals with cases where locating the student is the most pressing issue. For students under Child, Youth and Family care, under police investigation or, indeed, under the Ministry of Health, locating them is not an issue. Those students require complex case management, and it is more appropriate that they are managed directly by the ministry than by the private provider.
Moana MackeyA great many. A full review of truancy services was undertaken in 2006, and additional funding of $2 million has been allocated to support local schools. That has enabled cases to be dealt with more quickly and the underlying causes of non-attendance to be better addressed. The new $6.4 million ENROL system now available to all schools gives us the ability, for the first time ever, to track every pupil nationwide.
Why does the Ministry of Education memorandum I tabled last week show that non-enrolled students—that is, not just truants but non-enrolled students—who have been excluded from school will also no longer be targeted by the private provider who is paid to get students back into school?
I stress again that the member seems to be unable to grasp that the purpose of the Non-enrolment Truancy Service—“NETS”, as it is known—is to track and trace pupils. The ministry then deals with them. The students whom the member is referring to are being dealt with by the ministry.
How can the Minister suggest that Child, Youth and Family social workers will be the ones required to ensure students are enrolled in school, when Child, Youth and Family itself does not even know how many kids under its care are missing from school, because it says that it is the foster parents’ responsibility to keep those children in school?
The member, again, failed to grasp the points I made in my earlier answers. It is the responsibility of the Ministry of Education to place those children who are under Child, Youth and Family or the police in school, and it is actively doing that. It is pointless to have a system in place to locate pupils, when we already know the location of the pupils she is referring to.
If the Ministry of Education is going to have to deal with the most at-risk and complex cases of non-enrolment, then how is it going to do that, when its own memorandum states that the ministry does not think it is well-enough resourced to carry out the job?
We are clearly talking at cross-purposes here. I would be delighted to see the member at the end of question time, to explain just how the Non-enrolment Truancy Service works, because she seems to be unable to grasp it in question time.
Why, according to this ministry memo, are the most at-risk students—that is, those in contact with Child, Youth and Family, those in contract with the police, and those who have been excluded from school—the very ones ignored by the contract between the Government and the private provider, and why are those cases dumped on the ministry, which says itself that it does not have the resources to handle them?
The contract is for an agency to trace missing pupils. We know where those pupils are; they are under the care of other Government agencies. What is the point of getting an agency focused on missing pupils? Its task is to find missing students. Those students are not missing. Their cases are complex and difficult, as the member said, but we actually know where they are.
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a requirement that you have set out, Madam Speaker, that Ministers do address questions. Presumably the address should be an answer. The question arises here as to whether you are prepared to accept that saying that we have a contract to find missing pupils, then saying that we actually know where they are raises the question of why there is a contract in the first place.
Madam SPEAKER
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
You see, Madam Speaker, that reveals the problem the Opposition has. The students whose whereabouts we know are not the ones whom the contract is about, which is what Mr Carter has just been explaining frequently to the member opposite, who received a “fail” pass in her first outing.
If members wish to remain in the Chamber for the rest of the day, they will hear this point of order in silence.
I seek leave to table Consultation on ‘Staying at School’. It is a book I tabled last week, but I would like to table it again for the benefit of the member.