12. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
to the Minister of Education
Does she stand by all undertakings she has made as Minister of Education?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) Link to this
I have made a number of undertakings since I became the Minister of Education. I always make these in good faith and follow them through.
Sue MoroneyWhy, then, did she state yesterday that participation in early childhood education had increased by less than 1 percent in the last 5 years, when Ministry of Education figures show that 16,389 more children were participating in 2009 than the 164,521 children participating in 2005, which is a 10 percent increase; did she get the decimal point in the wrong place?
I do not know where the member got those figures from. I am looking at some figures in front of me that show that in 2005, 54,224 children attended early childhood education, and the cost of that was $462 million. In 2009, 52,296 children attended—a drop of 1,928—and that cost $1.13 million. That is three times the amount, and we lost 2,000-odd children. That is a difference of considerable concern to this Government.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a serious attempt to be helpful. I think a million and a billion were mixed up in there somewhere.
Mr SPEAKERI seek leave to table a document from the Ministry of Education, the annual education report of July 2009, showing a 10 percent increase in participation between 2005 and 2009.
Colin KingWhat undertakings has she made to the compulsory school sector about increasing funding for the front line?
I undertook to do my best to get more resources to the front lines of the compulsory school sector. I am happy to say that despite a very tight fiscal environment, this Government has delivered on that with a 4 percent increase in the operations grant.
Does she stand by her statement yesterday to the House that estimates by early childhood education providers that the costs to parents of her funding cuts could be as high as $60 per week were “pretty poor maths”?
Can she confirm that the subsidy for a 2-year-old at a centre with 100 percent qualified staff will drop by $1.51 per hour, and can she calculate the approximate cost of this funding cut for one child who accesses 40 hours of that early childhood education service; how are the Minister’s numeracy standards today?
As I explained yesterday, this Government is in the position of having to fund three times the amount for early childhood education for very little increase in participation. We have set a target of 80 percent qualified teachers, and we have removed the extra incentives to pay for more than 80 percent qualified teachers. That is a change to the subsidy to early childhood services.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, that was a pretty direct question. I think that, although there was a little bit around it, it asked the Minister to multiply $1.51 by 40.
I accept the member’s point that the question started out as a very blunt question, but at the end of it a gratuitous comment was added about how the Minister’s maths is today. If members want the Speaker to help them get an answer to a question, they must cut out gratuitous remarks.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Does the Minister stand by her commitment not to introduce bulk funding?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Is the ability to reduce the number of staff in schools below that of the staffing schedule, as outlined in her Budget papers, a feature of bulk funding?
No. I presume that the member is referring to the flexibility that we are trying to build into school funding, and the ability for schools to get all the resources that they are entitled to, by allowing them at the end of the year to convert into cash any staffing entitlement that they have not used up during the year. Schools have reacted with great delight to the ability to do that.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Is the ability for schools to take cash instead of replacing buildings, as she announced in her Budget papers, a feature of bulk funding?
Not in my book, no. Again, it is to try to give schools the flexibility to use their funds in the way that they see fit. This Government trusts schools and boards of trustees to make good decisions for their children.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
What features of bulk funding are now not part of the school funding system?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was what features of bulk funding are now not part of the school funding system. The fact—
I will hear the Minister. [ Interruption] I apologise to the Minister. A point of order is being heard.
The member started on this track of questioning by asking me to confirm that I had ruled out bulk funding. Therefore, it is not part of my policy or this Government’s policy, so it must be part of Labour’s policy if its members continue to ask questions on it.
No, we will not get into that. [ Interruption] There will be silence. I think the Minister’s explanation is not unreasonable. Since she did tell the House that bulk funding was not part of her Government’s policy, she cannot really tell the House what features of her current policy are not part of bulk funding. She has no view of a bulk-funding policy. Although I accept the answer was a little unusual, I do not think it was totally outside the bounds of the Standing Orders.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Does she understand the features of bulk funding; if so, what features of bulk funding are now not part of the school funding system?
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point of question time is to question Ministers about Government policy, so asking a Minister to speculate about a policy the Government does not have is completely unreasonable.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I think all I was doing was asking the Minister to differentiate between the Government’s policy and bulk funding, and, going back a step, it was a question of whether she understood the features that were the differences. If she does, then it is not a hard question to answer.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
The Minister answers to the House for her policy, not for policies that have been rejected by New Zealanders. The Minister has made it very clear that it is not one of her policies, so what on earth would she be comparing it with if not the Labour Party policy?
No, no; we have gone far enough. It is an interesting issue that has been raised, actually. That is why I let the points of order go on. As the Leader of the House pointed out, question time is about holding the Government to account over the Government’s policies. If the Minister had introduced bulk funding in one of her answers, the member would have been absolutely at liberty to question her about that, what she understands by it, etc. But if I recollect correctly the flow of questions—I stand to be corrected here—I believe that it was one of the questioners who introduced the issue of bulk funding. The Minister has denied that the Government has any involvement with that policy. Therefore, asking her whether she understands that policy is not actually strictly relevant to holding the executive to account. I have to agree with the honourable Leader of the House on this occasion that it is not reasonable for me to ask the Minister to answer that question any further. If the Minister had introduced the notion of bulk funding in her answer, there would be no problem, but given the way that it was introduced, I believe that I cannot ask the Minister to answer that any further. [ Interruption] I ask the visitor in the gallery to desist immediately, or he will be removed. I apologise to the House for this intrusion on the business of the House.