8. SUE MORONEY (Labour) Link to this
to the Minister of Education
Why did he tell 3 News on 31 January 2011 that prices to attend early childhood education centres would not go up?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) Link to this
I understand this is referring to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister was referring to the fact that early childhood centres have received a 2.4 percent cost adjustment, have high staff turnover, and have had 8 months to adjust their businesses for the funding changes. So there is no reason for early childhood centres to put their prices up. The Prime Minister also went on to say that “a lot of the sector is totally unaffected”. This Government is spending more on early childhood education than any other Government, and we have reprioritised funding to target those children who need it most, rather than just doing what the unions want.
Mr SPEAKERBefore I call Sue Moroney for a supplementary question, I warn her colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard that a further interjection like the one he made, which I heard so clearly, will have him leave the Chamber. He will not make that kind of interjection.
The member knows that the question has been transferred to the Minister of Education, and that is perfectly proper where there is no particular reason for the question to be answered by any particular Minister. So it has been transferred to the Minister of Education, and the member should word her question—her supplementary question, at least—recognising that fact so that it does make some sense; otherwise the question risks making no sense. If the Minister simply says that the question makes no sense, I have no choice but to rule it out of order. I invite the member to word it in a way that makes sense.
Has the Minister informed the Prime Minister about the Victoria Childcare and Education Centre in her own electorate of Gisborne, where fees went up by $14 per child per week in October 2010; the Central Otago Kindergarten Association, which had to increase fees by $18 a week for 3-year-olds; the Newlands Childcare centre in Wellington, where fees have increased by $25 per week; or any of the many other centres where fees have had to increase because of her funding cuts?
I have repeatedly said in this House and outside that this Government is spending more money on early childhood education than ever before—$1.4 billion. We are spending that this year on early childhood. I have also stated that these are individual businesses, and like many of the businesses throughout New Zealand they make their own decisions. But the Prime Minister and I are disappointed if centres have taken the option to raise fees for parents.
He did not say that. He said they did not have to go up, because we had given centres 8 months’ notice and a 2.4 percent cost adjustment, and there was already high staff turnover. So there was no reason for those centres to put their prices up.
Why did her Government choose to spend $5.9 billion on tax cuts for the 10 percent of wealthiest people in New Zealand in Budget 2010 instead of keeping $400 million of funding in place for early childhood education to stop these fee increases from happening?
It is very easy for that member to forget what her Government did with early childhood education, which was to increase spending three times without any commensurate increase in the number of children starting school who had received early childhood education. That is not acceptable to this Government when in some areas one child in five is unable to attend early childhood education services. So we have reprioritised funds to make sure we address those issues whereby children are unable to attend early childhood education.
Allan PeacheyI will read out an email, and I want to make sure the House understands that this is not my language; this is the language in an email. I have seen an email to the member who asked the questions previously, Sue Moroney, from an early childhood education manager. It says “Dear Sue, I am afraid you write a lot of c-r-a-p. It does you and your party no credit. Labour brought in the so-called 20 free hours, but ignored industry advice as to how much money was needed, and gave too little to cover costs. In the meantime misleading public scaremongering, such as you are doing, is driving families away from childcare.” That member who asked the previous questions needs to think about those children who are missing out on early childhood education, rather than about how much money is going into the pockets of their New Zealand Educational Institute mates.
Has the Minister seen any reports from early childhood education centres to parents regarding funding?
Yes; I have seen a recent note to parents from Crackerjacks Preschool in the Waikato. It says: “There has been a lot of negative reporting about the funding changes for ECE centres. As stated last year our fees will not be increasing in the foreseeable future, and we will not be cutting our services or reducing the quality of our care. Our two centres have actually benefited from the funding changes. Over the whole of New Zealand this has been a good move, and one that will lead to increased quality and funding for a larger number of centres. The loudest complaints are coming from centres that have accessed huge amounts of money for several years, and have become accustomed to spending that amount.”
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask for your guidance about whether correspondence to a Minister forms part of the official papers that the Minister is now quoting in the House; if so, we would request that she table those two documents, because on the first one she did not identify the source it had come from. She just asserted that these things had been said. Presumably, as they have been received, they are part of her official documents, and we would like those to be tabled.
That is an interesting point of order. The issue raised is whether correspondence received by a Minister is an official document.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I would like you to deal with Standing Order 367: “Documents quoted by Minister”, which states: “Whenever a Minister quotes from a document relating to public affairs a member may, on a point of order, require the Minister to table the document.” I would argue that this is an email relating to public affairs in respect of her portfolio. She directly quoted from it; therefore she should table it.
Hon Simon PowerIn my short time in this House, my experience of the use of this Standing Order relates to official advice that has been provided by officials, or, indeed, to a document that could be sourced to an official source, but not to correspondence to a Minister.
I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard. I must confess that I am uncertain, because the Standing Order being quoted, of course, does not make the particular point that the Hon Simon Power referred to, yet I am familiar with the accepted practice.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I must say I am uncertain as well, because I think this is the first time I can remember that the Standing Order has been tested in this way. I would like to draw your attention to the Official Information Act in trying to decide what is official. There is no doubt in my mind that that document is one that could be sought and obtained under the Official Information Act. The Minister has released on many occasions—and no doubt you did too, when you were a Minister—correspondence under that Act. If we are trying to work out what is official, that detail could be a factor. I will say—and I do not know whether my colleagues will thank me very much—I am not absolutely certain that the Standing Order was meant to be used to capture this sort of document. Then again, I think if the Minister has done the proper thing and checked with the sender of the email that it could be used in the House—which, of course, we all would do—at that point, in my view, it then becomes official, if she has checked that information properly; therefore it should be tabled.
The point the Hon Trevor Mallard makes is an interesting one. The difficulty with taking that point to its logical extreme is that any note that a Minister has that they may be reading from in question time—which, as the former Minister knows, can be requested under the Official Information Act—would fall into that category. That would mean that question time could easily descend into a farce, if all notes that were available to Ministers fell into that category.
I think I have enough information now to rule on the matter. It was an interesting point of order raised, and I appreciate the members’ contribution to it. Perhaps I should have been a little more familiar with some of the previous Speakers’ rulings on the matter. What was said about the traditional practice is, I think, supported by other Speakers’ rulings. If members look at Speakers’ rulings 136/2 and 136/3, they cover what has been considered in this House to be an official document, which does not include letters to Ministers. Specifically, Speaker’s ruling 137/1 begins: “A letter written to a member by someone outside the House …” and states that that letter is not an official document. But I also come back to ruling 136/2, which states that: “An official document is a document connected with the government of the country or a document which has passed between officers of the Government and Ministers or between one officer and another.” Clearly, such an email as the one in question does not meet that standard. I think it is an interesting issue that has been raised, but I would not depart from those Speakers’ rulings without some consultation with members with regard to the wisdom of widening the current practice. I think I therefore should rule that the Minister is not obliged to table those emails under the current Speakers’ rulings. But I fully accept that it was an interesting point of order raised.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to say thank you. I think your ruling is right; it would be a bit dangerous.