Estimates Debate — Vote Education

As the chair of the Education and Science Committee, which reviewed this vote, I have to say we were somewhat diverted by a bit of a sideshow during the review. There was an unseemly spat between the National spokesperson for education and the Minister of Education. I have concluded that these two gentlemen—if we can call them gentlemen—do not get on very well at all. There is not a great deal of mutual respect. In fact, if they were paddling together in Lake Rotoiti, they would spend more time trying to tip each other out of the boat and into the water than getting on with the paddling.

The issue that the Hon Dr Nick Smith raised was whether the real funding, the operational funding for schools, has increased or decreased since the time that Labour took office in 1999. It is a difficult one to answer because we well know that in the first Budget of 2000 all the additional funding from the bulk funding of teacher salaries was distributed through the operational grants. A large amount of it was distributed through the Targeted Funding for Educational Achievement scheme.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Half of it!

Yes, half of it. The question that really needs to be asked—and I think that who has the biggest type of question is a silly line to pursue—is whether all schools are being funded at an adequate level to achieve the fundamental expectations that are laid upon them. Any locally raised funds should not be included in that particular formula. The basic formula should provide adequate funding. That is a question that the Government has to answer. There are some questions about the higher-decile schools at this particular time.

I am taking only a 5-minute call and want to make one other observation. Obviously, we had the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) at the committee; tertiary education was also being reviewed. We all remember that back in 1999, and prior to that, there were all those terrible statements about the burden of student debt and how it was suffocating young people. Labour said that when the Labour Government came in it would slash the burden of student debt. I refer to one of the statements in the report: “The Minister told us that the level of student debt in New Zealand will continue to grow,”. How is that for slashing student debt? In fact, since this Government took office it has increased at a faster rate than previously.

But that is not the area I really want to talk about. In the little time I have left, I want to talk about the issue of truancy, which we spoke to the Minister of Education about. New Zealand has a very good education system. It had a good education system prior to this Government coming to office, and it still has a good education system. But the challenge—and it is a challenge for whatever administration is in office—is the tail. The tail is the challenge we have to overcome if we are to have an outstanding education system. One of the things that came through in the reading review was that a large proportion of the tail could be attributed purely and simply to non-attendance at school—through truancy, irregular attendance, condoned absences, or transience. That was put very, very strongly in one of the submissions the select committee received.

It appears to us that for quite some years now we have been asking questions about what the Government will do about truancy. The Minister has quite rightly answered that he has put all his eggs in the truancy database. In this particular review, however, he has told us—and I quote—“there is no pilot project for a national student database yet as the concept has proved to be more complicated and expensive than was initially thought.” I believe that the Minister’s officials are not taking this issue seriously enough. I also believe that the Government is not taking this issue seriously enough. It still has 1990s thinking. Back then the ministry was a hands-off policy maker, and the schools themselves, through the boards of trustees, were to do things to prevent truancy. The incentives were all wrong. We got it all wrong during the 1990s.

Since that time some moves have been made to put some systems in place, but I say to the Minister that I went out as an honorary truancy officer for 1 day last year, to see how things were operating, and I saw that although we do have some sort of system in place now, it is funded for only 40 weeks of the year, so how will we get good-quality, permanent staff performing this particular role? We still have really large problems with transience, with children moving between schools and not being picked up. They fall between the cracks when they move from one particular area to another. The biggest problem is not bunking. Bunking is when a person just does not go to school; it is condoned absences.

In the Budget and this appropriation we see a Government programme that does nothing to address the fundamental issue of standards in education. I want to point to three particular issues that the Government and the Minister are ignoring. In April we saw the release of the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study on literacy standards around the world. That study showed that New Zealand had the second-bottom ranking of any English-speaking country, whereas in 1972 New Zealand was the very best in the world. We heard the disgraceful comment made by the Minister that being 13th, second bottom, was a “very pleasing result”. I say to the Minister, “Shame.” What sort of dumbing-down standards is he setting for New Zealand that we are second-bottom in the world? I guess as Minister for Sport and Recreation he will say, when we come second-bottom in the rugby world cup, that the result is “very pleasing”. Well, National says it is not good enough. We should be aiming to be the very best in terms of those literacy standards.

The second issue I want to raise in terms of standards is the disgrace of students being able to receive National Certificate of Educational Achievement credits for picking up litter. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority, the agency that is meant to set the benchmark for standards in education, is saying that it is going to provide credits for picking up rubbish.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, it didn’t.

I have the quote. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority has backed up Cambridge College in allocating credits for picking up litter. I want the Minister to explain how that in any way provides this country with a robust qualifications system, because it does not.

The third issue I wish to raise, which was also raised by the Minister in the chair, Trevor Mallard, is truancy. Why has the Minister in the chair not made any provision at all for increased funding for truancy services, even just to keep up with the 10 percent inflation since he has been the Minister? That money has been frozen, and it means that it is going backwards in real terms. New Zealand has a truancy crisis, yet we have a Minister and a ministry doing absolutely zip. Do members know how many prosecutions there were last year of parents failing to get their children to school? Absolutely zero. A raid in Auckland identified 900 truants, but there has been no response, and the report from the select committee shows serious concern about that issue.

With those serious education issues, what do we see in the Government’s estimates for new education expenditure? A package for treaty education. That is what the Minister in the chair has put up as the great way in which standards will be raised. What sort of sickly political correctness is that?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. I think the member is aware, and you are aware, that the treaty information campaign is part of Vote State Services, not this vote.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is correct.

It is in his name. He is the Minister of State Services and the Minister of Education, and I want to know—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Would the member please be seated. The point of order was correct. We are not debating State services in this vote.

I find it extraordinary that this Government has all the serious education issues of literacy, standards in secondary schools, and truancy, and the Minister’s big promotion this year is $6.5 million for treaty education. I just say—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair.

He is embarrassed.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. The member knows that he is not to speak during points of order.

I wish you would apply that to the other side.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will withdraw and apologise.

For?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): A ruling was given on a point of order. I am asking the member—

I withdraw and apologise. How many times are you going to interrupt my speech?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will withdraw and apologise correctly.

I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: My point of order is relatively simple. You ruled about 30 seconds ago on the question of whether we are debating Vote State Services or Vote Education. The member deliberately defied your ruling and continued to debate a vote that is not before the Committee. I am quite happy to get to that vote soon, but my gut feeling is that that lot would not even have the spine to debate it.

Are you going to allow that?

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. I have to say that I am somewhat surprised you did not reprimand the Minister in the chair and call on him to withdraw and apologise. To accuse another member or group of members in this House of being spineless or lacking courage in any way is a definite breach of the Standing Orders. I would ask that you call upon the Minister in the chair to withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I ask the Minister to refrain from—

What? You asked me to withdraw and apologise for a simple innocuous interjection, saying that something is different, and now you are going to allow the Minister in the chair to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated.

Madam Chair, I am saying that you are being deliberately—

💬 Hon Chris Carter: What’s your point?

My point is that the Chairperson is setting different rules for different sides of the House. I have been required to withdraw and apologise for making extremely innocuous statements, but the Minister is allowed to make statements like “spineless” and the Chairperson does not make him withdraw and apologise. That is inconsistent.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): As I said, I counselled all members on moderation. The time has come for me to report progress.

Progress reported.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.