8. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
to the Minister of Education
Which parts, if any, of the State education system has she excluded from privatisation, following the Secretary to the Treasury’s speech, which was widely reported as a call for privatisation?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I suggest that that member does not blithely believe everything that is reported and actually reads the secretary’s speech, which does not even mention privatisation.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Does the Minister regard the contracting out of core education services or other social services, as recommended by the secretary, as privatisation?
I point out to that member that there is currently significant private involvement in education. The Government does not own the buildings of about 2,500 early childhood centres. The Government does not own the buildings of about 300 State integrated schools. The Government does not own the buildings of about 100 independent schools. And guess what! The sky has not fallen.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Will the Minister rule out the transfer of any State school land and buildings to public-private partnerships?
No. As the member himself said in 2006, “this is a more important issue than whether new construction is privately or publicly funded. The Government is open-minded about use of public private partnerships (PPPs). We recognise that there can be advantages in bundling finance with construction and service provision of infrastructure into one package.”
Catherine Delahunty Link to this
Tenā koe, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki te reo rangatira o Aotearoa me Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. I acknowledge the first language of Aotearoa and Māori Language Week. Does the Minister support the views expressed by her colleague Heather Roy at Bunnythorpe on 18 July: “I see no impediment to the Government contracting private organisations to provide education”; if so, which educational services that are currently publicly provided does she think are suitable for privatisation?
I remind that member of my previous answer: 2,500 early childhood centres are not owned by the Government, yet we pay for the services they provide. The Government does not own about 300 State integrated schools, yet we pay for the services they provide. One hundred independent schools get some funding, as well.
Metiria TureiI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice as to whether that question was answered by the Minister. The question directly asked what services that are currently publicly provided she believes could be privatised. She did not address that question.
Mr SPEAKERIt is a fairly big ask for me to ask the Minister to answer the question more precisely than she did. The question is obviously fairly controversial. It has already been ruled that the Secretary to the Treasury was part of the primary question and that that question did not actually talk about privatisation at all. There are a range of difficult issues around the question. I believe that the Minister has given a reasonable answer.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was the Minister who referred to privatisation in her answer to the primary question. She has happily referred to and responded to other questions on this issue. The question my colleague asked was very specific. Instead, the Minister refused to answer it and simply repeated an answer to a different question. I do not quite see how she can be excused now for not addressing this particular question when she herself raised the issue of privatisation.
The question was about which services that are currently provided in the public sector could, in her view, be privatised.
That was not the question that was asked. Two questions were asked. The first part of the question related to a comment made by the Associate Minister of Education Heather Roy. That is the question I addressed.
Well, then, I seek your advice, Mr Speaker. The Minister did not address that question either. She could address either of the two questions that my colleague put to her, but she ought to address at least one of them.
When a member starts a question: “Does the Minister support the views” of another member, there is no way I as Speaker can force particular answers to that question. That was what was troubling me. I want to give members a fair chance to make their case to me, but when a member asks a question about whether a Minister agrees with another member, the member asking the question cannot expect a precise answer. I have made that very clear in the past. I do not think I am departing from previous practice.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Which services currently provided by the State does the Minister believe could be privatised?
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I have your ruling on how that supplementary question relates to the primary question if, in fact, the mention of “privatisation” was not contained in the speech by the Secretary to the Treasury.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
The word “privatisation” was allowed by you, Mr Speaker, in the substantive question when we asked the Minister what she could exclude from privatisation. It is her responsibility.
I accept that. The primary question asks which parts, if any, of the education system the Minister has excluded from privatisation, so I believe that follow-up supplementary question is in order. I am sure the Minister can answer it.
I agree with the member, when he said that we want to see more action and that there is “a more important issue than whether new construction is privately or publicly funded. The Government is open-minded about use of public private partnerships”. I agree exactly with the member.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to rule whether that answer, in your opinion, address the question I asked.
I believe that she answered it. It was my impression that the Minister made it clear that public-private partnerships might not be excluded from future provision possibilities. She referred to the honourable member’s own past reference to that being something he would support. I believe that that has answered the question.
John BoscawenDoes the Minister, in Māori Language Week, support the kōhanga reo movement, which is all about contracting out education services to the great benefit of Māori and the country? Is it not better to focus on results rather than on the ideological concerns about who provides the service?