10. ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) Link to this
to the Minister of Education
Does he stand by his statement in the House that “One student not enrolled in school is one too many.”; if so, why?
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) Link to this
Yes; because I believe all young New Zealanders should be educated.
Why does a newsletter from NETServe, the business contracted by the Minister of Education to trace the lost tribe of 6,000 non-enrolled kids, show that the Government has changed its policy and that the contractor paid to get students back in school will now not be targeting those aged 14 years and 9 months and over?
I would be very happy to meet with the member later to go through the contract that NETServe has. We have been over this issue once in the House already. The object of NETServe’s contract is to locate missing students, and that is what it is required to do.
Sue MoroneyWhat specific measures is the Labour-led Government taking to re-engage truant children in education?
The Labour-led Government has been very active in addressing truancy issues. The measures taken have included a complete review of truancy services, which led to enhanced funding; school-to-work programmes like Gateway and Youth Apprenticeships, and there is much more to come with Schools Plus; the new $6.4 million ENROL system, which will, for the first time ever, give us accurate and constantly updated enrolment information once all schools have been operating it for a year; and the school engagement initiative, which is now in place in more than 90 schools nationwide.
Why will the Minister not answer the question: why has the Government changed its policy, so that the contractor paid to find students and get them back into school will now ignore cases where the students are aged 14 years and 9 months and over?
I am not aware of that detail of the contract. I would be happy to discuss it—[ Interruption] I would be very happy to discuss it with the member afterwards, and I would welcome her giving me some information about it.
How can this Government tell us that it will keep kids at school until they are 18 when, at the same time, it is changing its policy and signing contracts that will mean non-enrolled students aged 14 years and 9 months and over will be put into the too-hard basket, and that the lost tribe of 6,000 will only increase?
About 3 weeks ago the member made allegations about the Non-enrolment Truancy Service that proved to be incorrect. I would welcome her giving me the information about that contract. I hope that she has her facts right this time.
Does the Minister think that the public will agree with the writer of the newsletter, who stated: “The change is something that some of you may find difficult.”; and is it not actually more difficult to believe this Government’s rhetoric about keeping students in school—
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. A question that begins “Does the Minister believe that the public will agree with the writer …” is just about lost right then and there, on the basis of being inappropriate for this Parliament. It is purely an opinion, and it is a secondary opinion, about what the Minister thinks the public opinion is.
Madam SPEAKERI agree with the member, but the Standing Orders do allow opinions to be given. So if an opinion is sought, an opinion, undoubtedly, will be given, and the answer will be judged on the value of both opinions.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hate to disagree with you, but the member is asking the Minister whether he agrees with the public opinion. Which part of that is the Minister’s responsibility? The public opinion is no one’s responsibility in that context, and that is the point I am making.
One can ask for an opinion about anyone on anyone else’s opinion. I would value a little more specificity. I know that it might take some of the fun out of it for some members, but opinions can be sought and will be given. If members could also please make their questions and answers succinct, that would be of assistance to everyone.
Does the Minister think that the public will agree with the writer of the NETServe newsletter, who stated: “The change is something that some of you may find difficult.”; and is it not actually difficult to believe this Government’s rhetoric about keeping students in school until they are aged 18, when it is changing its policy to ignore those aged 14 years and 9 months and over, those who are involved with Child, Youth and Family, those who are involved with the police, and those who have been excluded from school?
I would not agree with the writer if, in fact, the member is quoting the newsletter correctly. I would remind the House that the member misquoted the Non-enrolment Truancy Service last time she quoted it. She has just misquoted it again now, when she said that we are not interested in children who are under the care of the police or Child, Youth and Family. That is totally incorrect, and it is the same false allegation as she made last time. If the member is correct—and that is a very big “if”—I assure her in the House that this Government is determined to see that every New Zealand child who should be in school is there. If the provision she refers to is written in the contract, then it will be changed.
Hon Tariana Turia Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. What action will the Minister be taking to address the obvious disconnection and alienation that one in five students are experiencing at school—or does he believe the fault lies with New Zealand children and New Zealand families?
The Government is absolutely committed to seeing that every young New Zealander gets the chance to be educated to his or her full potential. That is why we have launched this year Schools Plus, which is a programme about catching the very students that the member has described who are currently not succeeding in our system. By revolutionising secondary education, we hope to lift the skills of all young New Zealanders, so that they become an asset not just to our country but to themselves as well.
Can the Minister confirm that the actual situation after more than 8 years of a Labour Government is that there is a lost tribe of 6,000 non-enrolled students; the Ministry of Education has already complained that it is under-resourced to deal with the most complex cases involving the police, Child, Youth and Family, and excluded students; and now the Government has signed a contract that means the ministry will also have to deal with all students over the age of 14 years and 9 months?
Once again the member is not giving the facts to the House. In respect of the so-called lost tribe of 6,334 students, which she and her leader John Key quoted, subsequent examination—as I have already explained to this House last month—proved that 50 percent of them were already enrolled in another school and another 25 percent were the children of people who had migrated out of New Zealand. So the number actually decreased to about 750 students, and we are actively searching for them.