Estimates Debate — Education

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call in this Estimates debate for Vote Education, as chair of the Education and Workforce Committee. We did have the Minister come and have a hearing with us at the Education and Workforce Committee to cover the three Votes that this Estimates covers: Vote Education, Vote Education Review Office, and Vote Tertiary Education.

Now, this is a significant Estimate for the Government in terms of the amount of money that this Estimate seeks. I think the overall amount for the three Votes is $21.5 billion, which is a considerable amount of money. But as you will see, I’m sure through the next wee while, as we look at what’s covered in the Estimates, it’s of incredible importance to New Zealand.

So we looked at three major areas at the Education and Workforce Committee, and they were: early childhood, compulsory sector, and tertiary education. I thought it might be helpful to the committee, as part of this debate in my role of going through this report, to just outline some of the summaries of the appropriations that are sought under these Estimates for Vote Education.

So we had a total of $11,586 million for educational services, primarily for schools, including teacher salaries in early learning providers. And this is aside from teacher salaries, school operation grants, early learning subsidies, and other significant costs, including curriculum support and professional development in schools and early learning sectors, and school transport services. A total of nearly $3,578 million for services to the Ministry of Education, including the delivery of school accommodation, including depreciation and capital charge, and learning support services being the most significant costs. We had $2,004 million for capital expenditure to the Ministry of Education, mainly related to school sector properties. And $104 million for other educational services, mainly for funding to proprietors of integrated schools. We had $77 million for capital expenditure in schools and $59 million for allowances, scholarships, and awards for students, teachers, and trainees. So a significant investment sought in these Estimates by the Government.

I thought I would just also go over some of the key comments made during our Estimates hearing in Vote Education. So the first area we looked at was early childhood education. We did cover the significant—over $1 billion—expense into the 20-hours free of early childhood education for two-year-olds, which was announced in this year’s Budget, obviously expanding that 20 free hours to two-year-olds from the current three- to five-year-olds. So that was a significant matter that was discussed during the Estimates.

We also looked at school attendance, which is a matter which is raised within our committee regularly. And we heard from the Minister on the progress that has been made in that area and also that schools are working hard to increase the attendance of school students. We also heard from the ministry that regular attendance was a foundational aspect for student achievement and that there’s been significant progress in schools that had a concerted effort in this area, and one that we noted was in Northland.

We also looked, in the compulsory sector, at NCEA and the curriculum. We know that NCEA is being updated and we heard from the Minister on that. Obviously there’s expenditure associated with these two curriculum changes. We also heard about some schools opting out of NCEA level 1. I understand that this has always been optional, but none the less it was covered in our hearing.

We also looked, just quickly, at upgrading small and remote schools, alternative education, Pacific and Māori education, tertiary student enrolments, and funding. We talked about Te Pūkenga, we talked about other rogue entities, and also immigration settings in relation to education. So overall, we covered a wide variety of key issues within the Vote Education area, including the significant Estimates made by the Government. I look forward to hearing from the Minister in relation to her thoughts, and members’ questions on the Estimates as presented to the committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Early childhood education (ECE), the early childhood sector, and particularly the home-based providers—the Minister will be aware that over 50 home-based providers closed between January and May this year. I’d like to know what the Minister plans for this sector and whether she has made any provision for increases, given that home-based ECE is limited to a ratio of one to four but when the children turn over two years old, home-based get a reduction, a significant reduction, yet they can’t increase their ratios in the way that centre-based provision can. So what provision is she making for securing home-based providers and provision in the sector?

Madam Chair, thank you, and thank you for that question, although it’s a little bit premature in some respects, because we’re well aware of the issues and I think everybody’s well aware of the issues that home-based are facing at this point in time. I will say that my Associate Minister, the Hon Jo Luxton, has had some really good discussions with members from the early childhood education community over the short time that she has been Associate Minister and in that role.

We have sought advice from home-based around home-based and what we can be doing there. We’re currently working through that advice. We do not want to leave home-based so that they are feeling unsupported, but we also want to make certain that we get it right within the context of the total provision and the total network within the country.

We absolutely understand the importance of them within the network, which is one of the reasons why we are committed to this work and working through it with some urgency as well. I know that’s a little bit frustrating, but I will say to the member that when we do have that advice and when we have made those decisions and we are able to go public on them, she will be one of the first to know.

Thank you Madam Chair. Just the rate of closures of home-based provision—as I said, over 50 in the five months at the start of this year—the home-based sector is concerned by the end of the year there may be no home-based provision that isn’t cross-subsidised by centre provision. So is the Minister able to give some sort of indication of timing and amounts of funding? Because the word we are getting from the home-based providers is that by the end of this year there will be none left.

Which is why we’re working in some haste through the advice that we have been given. We do know that closures do happen for a variety of reasons. We have also made certain that we’re looking into those variety of reasons. It’s not just around the funding, although that is a main reason as well. But we are making certain that we are not causing unintended consequences in the decision making that we are taking at this time.

The pay parity funding for the centres, in particular the early childhood education centres—much has been said within the sector about how the paucity of pay parity funding from the Government is likely to increase fees, or is likely to increase or make the ratios worse in the sector. Can the Minister give some more certainty to the sector around pay parity funding so they can be sure it’s not going to impact negatively on either the centres or families with children in the centres.

So, thank you, pay parity is very important, that we acknowledge that a teacher is a teacher no matter what sector they are working within. It is something that this Government has been committed to right from its outset. We are absolutely committed to achieving pay parity between certificated teachers in education and care services, and the kindergarten teachers, as the member has said.

Of course this does reflect the action 3.4 in the Early Learning Action Plan. So one of the aspects that the Government set out to do first was to work through that Early Learning Action Plan so that we were making certain that we had targeted responses in the early learning sector to some of their biggest issues. But also to make certain that we’re putting the young person at the centre—to make certain that we’re well remunerating those well-qualified teachers within those centres, because we know that they make a huge difference to those young children.

So Budget 2023—and I’ll just get my figure here—provided $321.6 million over four years to education and care services through a third opt in funding rate, and that is the third of the opt in funding rates. It disperses this funding through new funding rates, full pay parity rates for education and care services that attests to paying teachers with relevant qualifications and experiences at least the kindergarten teachers’ collective agreement steps 1 to 11. At the time, those rates were $51,358 to $90,000, but of course, we do know that there has been a collective agreement in the kindergarten teachers’ agreement that has been settled since then. And paying in that too, back then it was paying managers a minimum salary of $94,175. These full pay parity rates matched the kindergarten funding rates and will be available from 1 November 2023.

So we can tell, and we have been in contact with—the Ministry have been in contact with the sector to ensure those people that are going to be in those parts of the sector that are going to be opting in to that level, that those rates will be available, and they have those rates with them now, as in they know what they are.

So the options that are being put to the centres by the Ministry, have they got figures in them to allow the centres to model the impact on them at this stage?

I’d like to go back to some of the answers given in question time today around the achievement of Māori students in NCEA level 2. The Minister claimed today, as an excuse for this, that many Māori students, or many students, are leaving for work, for further education, for apprenticeships, or they’re travelling overseas. My first question to the Minister is: what kind of employment does she expect that a child without NCEA level 2 will be able to go into? And what sort of future will they have in the job market without NCEA level 2?

I wouldn’t say it was an excuse, as the member Erica Stanford has just said that to be. That is the reason why young people are leaving at this point in time, and we do know that we have high employment rates at this point in time. Of course, we know that the pandemic has put this stress on families, and we know that different demographics haven’t had an even experience during the pandemic, as well. This isn’t just in this country; this is across the globe. This is something that my counterparts in other OECD countries have highlighted as one of their key issues that they are also facing as well.

We also know that an education is really important for a young person to be able to make choices. If the member had listened carefully to the question before that question in today’s question time, that was my last statement: I said, as I have always said, education gives choices, and choices are important for people to be able to have different pathways in life, as well. At no time am I ever saying that it is acceptable when young people leave school without NCEA or without qualifications.

We also know that there are other pathways, and I also pointed out to this House today that the NCEA in school is not the only way that those young people can get those qualifications. We know that Youth Guarantee funding has been increased to enable people to reengage and get those qualifications. That is one of the reasons why this Government has increased that Youth Guarantee funding: so that, when they are leaving school, those pathways haven’t been closed off for them; that they are able to enter in.

I know that the member also goes visiting, like I do, into some of those areas. I’ve seen some amazing opportunities recently for young people. In fact, I was at one on Friday where young people were very excited about the increase in opportunities for them to carry on with their education and to get those qualifications. I’m really proud of the fact that, yes, we know that there are people who might be leaving without it, but we’re putting those opportunities in place so that we’re not taking those choices away; that those young people will have those choices available to them throughout their education lifespan.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to turn your mind, Minister, to some of our students with the greatest challenges with alternative education. There have been some initiatives that we’ve reflected on like Te Tupu, and I’m just curious about how that’s impacting on decisions about how we better support our alternative education. Many of us, like you said, have had experiences with some amazing places. In my own area, Ngā Wānanga a Maui Potiki are doing amazing work, but they’re all doing it on a shoestring and I’m just curious about the resourcing and other supports that are going in as you try and support those students.

Thank you for that question. It’s something that was actually traversed when I attended the select committee as well, because alternative education is another pathway for our young people. It is something that I believe—people will have heard me say this before—that not always does a schooling environment suit all our young people, or our young people need further support to be able to access the schooling environment. Te Tupu is a really interesting one because, as this member knows, alternative education is something that’s traditionally started at an older age group, and yet we have been seeing increasingly a number of younger people—younger age group children; intermediate and primary school—who were disengaging or who were at risk of disengaging from their schooling environment, and that’s really difficult if you can’t get to them and turn that around.

So Te Tupu was set up by my predecessor the Hon Tracey Martin in Napier. I think she called it a prototype rather than a pilot, and, basically, what it did there was from year three up, schools came together and they identified young people who might be at risk of disengaging. They came into this programme for a set amount of time, but it was a wraparound, so it has a whole lot of NGOs and different organisations that are part of the management group. Those young people are having huge success when they’re going back into their schooling environment because they’re have this wraparound and they’ve had kind of the pre-teaching, in some respects, that they didn’t get before of how to experience the school environment. So Budget 2023 has put some more funding into extending that. It won’t look the same throughout the country because we expect that there will be regional differences, and, of course, the funding won’t be for a full roll-out, but it is starting to work that through in a co-design in different areas.

We’ve also increased the per-student funding rate into alternative education. Alternative education had had very little funding put into it over time. It was only in the last couple of years that we started to increase that funding, and it’s gone up to just over $16,000 now per student. Now, that’s probably only bringing it back to where it should have been years ago, so there is more work to do in this area and more discussions to be had with different peak body groups, particularly iwi—I’m going to say here—because the majority of children and young people in alternative education are Māori, and so we’ve got to make certain that we are getting something that works for them. A lot of work has been done, but I think the pandemic has taught us different ways that we might be able to reach these young people as well.

So I’m really excited about the opportunities that we have in this space. I think that we have to create a system that works around the young person, and not always expect that the young person has to work around the system, so that we can actually support that young person to understand how systems work through something that truly works for them. So the money has been increased, and the providers are really liking that, but we’ve got more work to do in that space.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister of Education about the science curriculum—the leaked draft science curriculum. I asked her in the Chamber a little while ago why it didn’t include chemistry, biology, and physics, and her answer was: “The member is wrong; the final curriculum will include chemistry, physics, biology, and other core science topics. That is not in question.” I just want to get the Minister to elaborate on that. Does that mean that those topics will be as they are at the moment? So you do physics, you do biology, and you do chemistry, and, within each of those disciplines, you learn many things—I’m sure; I never did them, so who knows? But the point is that I would like the Minister to just let us know whether or not the draft curriculum that we’ve seen is not going to be the final curriculum and that, actually, the final curriculum will include physics, chemistry, and biology as stand-alone subjects that young learners will get scaffolder learning through?

Firstly, it wasn’t the draft curriculum; it’s called a fast draft. It’s almost a draft of thinking. It’s a way that a lot of different places will put out thinking to start with to see whether it’s going to resonate with the sector or not. The draft curriculum is scheduled to be released later this year, but I also want to make sure that we’re getting that right as well—and clearly there was some feedback.

But can I just go back to what the member was saying. There was almost a thought there that nothing had to change, and that’s not what the evidence shows us. The New Zealand Council for Educational Research 2019 analysis for the Ministry of Education shows that, in the current curriculum, science concepts are unclear, and it is hard to see how learning would deepen. The OECD 2015 report: 15-year-olds have low awareness of science concepts associated with climate change and sustainability. The National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement data shows that achievement in science drops from years 4 to year 8, where only 20 percent of students achieve at or above curriculum expectations. Otago NCEA data 2023: science pathways through senior secondary show that the success rates for those who do sciences year 12 to 13 are low and are dropping. That tells me that there needs to be work done on the curriculum and that we can’t have it that we’re just keeping the curriculum in its form at the moment. In fact, every science teacher that I have spoken to and every scientist that I have spoken to—including the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser—have all told me that we can’t just expect to keep the same, because we are not going to have and produce the science expertise that we need in this country.

Indeed, the final science curriculum will include chemistry, physics, biology, and other core science topics. That is not in question. How that looks, I am not going to presuppose the work that the experts in the sector are working on at this moment, and are working through a new curriculum and are testing different options between themselves and looking at it to make certain that we’re getting that right. They are making certain that the feedback that has come back from that first thinking is incorporated into that next step, and I think that’s really important, and that’s why we want to take the time to get it right.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So in the draft that wasn’t a draft, could I ask the Minister of Education: what was the feedback that was received and how was it received? As she said that she’s aware of the feedback and how it’s been received. I’m just keen to know how it was received and what the feedback was when those core topics were stripped out and replaced with earth system, biodiversity, food, energy, water, and infectious diseases.

I think that the member will have seen some feedback that came through in the media, and that’s no different to what I’ve seen. People were concerned that those core science topics might be not covered if we went too far in one area of looking at context only and the context. But the context is important. So it’s a mixture of both. And what’s been received—I’m not really certain what the member’s getting at; are you meaning how the ministry received it? It came through in the normal way of how it was—

Erica Stanford: How was it received? Like, as in what was the feedback?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Just exactly what I’ve said—

Erica Stanford: Terrible.

Hon JAN TINETTI: —so exactly what I’ve said—no, I wouldn’t say that at all, to that member; I would say that there was a feeling that we were probably here and we’ve gone too far here and we’ve got to find a place in the middle. That’s exactly why we do the testing: to get this right. If we don’t do the testing and test it out with the sector, which I have seen happen so many times in education, that would be one of the worst things that we could do. We are not prepared for those kids to be guinea pigs like they have in the past in many other initiatives that I have been privy to—one of those being national standards. I’m not prepared as Minister to lead that sort of environment in our education system, and that’s why I will make no apologies for taking a document such as the science thinking out for testing.

For all of the science teachers, the heads of departments, and principals that have contacted me—many, many, many of them who are very concerned—I have one simple question for the Minister that they’re all asking: can she confirm that a student wanting to sit NCEA will be able to pick a topic called “chemistry”, a topic called “biology”, and a topic called “physics”?

The member is conflating NCEA and the curriculum. The NCEA subjects have been quite explicitly put out there to the sector, for the sector to know what they are. They know what’s going to be expected. They are there to see right now. So you cannot conflate the two. Yes, they are interrelated, and we have had that discussion in the Education Committee, but to say that is going to then determine what the NCEA subjects are is not quite correct.

What I will say is that we do have to make certain that our young people have the broad science knowledge that underpins good scientific experiment, hypothesis, and learning, and that is really important, which is why I understand that the ministry will use the feedback they receive from teachers to build on the draft curriculum, and I expect that the basics will be more explicitly covered in the next version of that draft.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to change the subject a little bit, we all know how important attendance is for achievement. We talk a lot about truancy and kids not attending. Yet we still have to wait until November for term 2’s attendance data. I wondered whether any work was being done to improve the receiving of that information. A month or two ago, we talked about technology not being available to some schools and that is a reason one of the over 200 schools that don’t present the data—that technology unavailability was a reason for not putting the data in. I wonder if that is still the case.

Interestingly enough, that’s a question that I’ve asked officials about; why it takes so long with that data—the term 2 data. The member knows this too: July is one of the critical and key points for data collection on attendance. Because of that, there is a lot more work to go through. This is the answer that I was given this week: because of that amount that has to be done from the July return, then it does take them a lot longer to do that work, because they’re also working through 2024 rolls. All of those things come from that data, which is why it takes that long to work through that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Kia orana, Minister. We know the impact on families around the motu to do with cost of living issues, because we know children that are hungry can be a major impediment to learning. Minister, can you outline please the importance or evidence of extending the Ka Ora, Ka Ako Healthy School Lunches programme, and how this ties into supporting families through the cost of living crisis?

The Healthy School Lunches programme is something that I am incredibly proud of, that this Government is making a difference to those young people. I do go around schools, in many cases—I know members in this Chamber all go around too—and see and hear exactly the same stories back of the difference it is making to young people.

One of the key areas that I hear is that food security in those schools is no longer an issue; that young people don’t get anxious about the fact that they don’t have lunch in their bags, that they don’t get anxious and cause issues around the lunch time, because everybody is getting that. They don’t feel ashamed. Someone that has been in schools—I know that we used to provide lunches, but, of course, we could only provide to those young people that didn’t have them. It was always this tension, because you knew that young people felt that sense of shame as well, that they didn’t have a lunch. This is a great way to know that those young people don’t sense that emotion and that shame any more.

One of the key areas that I love hearing is that afternoons are no longer a dead time for learning; that young people have that food in their tummies, and that afternoon is actually just as important for learning time as what the morning is. I just think that the amount of time that we’ve given back to kids for their learning, just through this, is worth it alone. So it is helping families. Recently, in the last recess, I had a mum come up to me at another event that I was at, who said to me, “You’ll never know the difference that that’s made to my family. I’ve got money now that I can spend on providing dinner.” I had a teacher who came up to me—at that same event—and said, “I’ve got kids now who come and say to me that they don’t have to decide who has dinner at night time, because they don’t have to spend that money on providing lunches, that they can provide it for dinner, and the difference that that’s making is immeasurable for those families.” You know, these are kids that are excited about being at school, and excited about their learning, but their families are excited because they’ve got more disposable income to use in other areas to support their families as well.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, the Tertiary Education Commission’s development and delivery of an IT system to deliver the unified funding system—I wonder if you could tell us: has it finally been scoped, costed, and a time frame given for that, and, if so, how much has been spent already and what proportion the $7.85 million is of it?

I’ll get back to the member with that information.

I’ve got three questions, Madam Chair, for the Minister: one on achievement, one on attendance, and one on establishment.

Now, the year on year of performance of Māori students in NCEA 2 improved between 2011 and 2017. It went from 53.1 percent to 68.9 percent and now it’s regressed to 58.6 percent. In addition, the university entrance achievement by Māori in 2021 was only 19 percent and I’d like to know from the Minister—the achievement question—what messages is the Minister giving to iwi and Māori leaders on how the education will improve the achievement by Māori students—those young mokopuna and cherished tamariki.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s good to see some questions being asked around the school lunch programme. My question for the Minister is: why was it in this Budget that the healthy lunch programme was only funded for one more year, given all of her comments that she just made around how great she thinks it is?

I’ll come back to the member over there too; I’m just finding the figures as well, so I will come back to that. But I just wanted to say I was quite open about this at the time of the Budget and I was quite open in the select committee about it as well. We had competing initiatives in this Budget. It is a big investment and so we were able to fund it till the end of 2024, but it is something that I continue to keep working on and advocating for.

I’m up to my attendance question now. Now, Māori attendance at school—regular attendance at school—in term 4, 2022, was 38 percent. In term 4 of 2022, 38 percent of Māori kids went to school regularly. There have been some minor improvements since then, but not enough, in my view. Just what messages is the Minister giving to iwi and Māori leaders about how she will ensure there will be improvement in regular attendance by those young people?

The final question in my triplicate is around establishment. So Māori are desperate for performance at school, by schools that generate and facilitate outperformance by young Māori children. And the best outperforming school for university entrance with a majority of Māori students is a school known as Manukura in Palmerston North—a great school. Now, the Manukura principals are taking up residence at a phenomenal school called St Stephen’s School in Bombay. What is the Minister doing to give capital expenditure and operating expenditure support to the re-establishment of St Stephen’s School in Bombay?

Just staying with the healthy lunches theme, I’m just wondering—I mean, the Minister gave some really great anecdotal evidence of people that she had talked to on her visits, which we all get. I’m interested in the evidence. What evidence does the Minister have since the start of the healthy lunch programmes as to increases in attendance, increases in achievement of those students in school—actual data.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order!

Hon Jan Tinetti: We couldn’t hear. Can you start again please?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you.

ERICA STANFORD: My question was: what evidence and data does she have to support the healthy lunch programme in terms of achievement and attendance?

I will have to just get what’s happening with St Stephen’s. I remember reading some work about that, but, of course, it comes under the Hon Kelvin Davis, so I will have to look through that.

Attendance is something that we’ve been aware of for quite some time—or Government, I should say, because this is the big “we” here. We’ve been aware that attendance for Māori hasn’t always been easy to encourage. I know that, going back to mine, again, that when the attendance services were taken and made into bigger entities that that became even harder to establish those relationships, and we know that establishing relationships is really, really critically important with Māori, and so we’ve been working with peak body groups in that area. I know that with the re-signing of contracts, I think it’s almost tripled the number of contracts that we have signed, because we have made those attendance services closer to schools. What I will say is one-third of attendance services are being led by iwi.

I do know that when I’ve visited—and I’m sure that the member has had the same experiences—different places around the motu, where services in any of the education sector are being led by iwi, we’re seeing some really good results. That’s why a number of those contracts—as I say, one-third—have been signed over to iwi, and I’m really looking forward to working with them further to have those results.

The lunch programme—we have had three evaluations so far and they are all positive. We continue to refine the programme. Again, I just want to connect the two questions there, because some of the best examples that I have seen in the lunch programme have also been led by iwi. There’s one, in particular, that really stands out for me, and that is Victory Primary School in Nelson and the work that the iwi have done down there to lead that programme and the difference that it has made to young people’s attendance and engagement in that particular school.

Now, they’re not the only ones, and that’s what we’re gathering through the evaluations to show whether it is making a difference or not. As the member who asked the question about attendance and engagement with the lunch programme knows, I very much always say that I’ve always been an evidence-based practitioner, and it’s really important to me that evidence is collected and that we do see it. If we see that there are some anomalies, I want to know why those anomalies exist, and so that’s been something that I’ve been really clear about. But some of the best engagement that we have seen, and the best attendance that we have seen is because of the work that we’ve seen in those iwi-led lunch programmes, but they’re not the only ones. It seems to be also, I will say, where young people are having a voice and having agency in the delivery of those programmes as well. I think those of us, and there are a few people in the House that I know have been educators, across both sides of the Chamber here—we know that when there is learner agency we do tend to see better results and stronger results, and that is something that I want to follow up with as well.

Hamilton West is a beautiful place and there’s some great schools over there, and I think the Minister would have visited a couple of those schools. A couple of Hamilton West-specific questions. Melville High School and Melville Intermediate School are going to combine soon into a facility called Mangakōtukutuku and they’ve been living in prefabs that are 60 years old. There was an indicative commitment to help with the capital expenditure support to actually refurbish all these classrooms—60-year-old prefabs—and just wondering where we got to, where the Ministry has got to with actually supporting Mangakōtukutuku to get new classrooms and not live in 60-year-old prefabs?

The other topic that I just wanted to mention or ask about was the establishment of a new school in a suburb called Glenview or Peacocke in Hamilton, because that place is absolutely booming and we’ve got massive transport issues carrying kids all over the city, from those suburbs, to get to school. Thank you.

Just going to see—because they’re quite specific questions so I’ve got people looking at those. But I just wanted to go back to your question about St Stephen’s. The Government has considered one application from St Stephen’s, and any further application may be considered, and we need to take into account the costs and other factors as well, so that’s where we’re at with St Stephen’s at this point in time.

I just wanted to touch on that last part of that question, not that I’ve got a specific answer to that just yet about Peacocke—

Tama Potaka: Glenview and Peacocke.

Hon JAN TINETTI: Glenview and Peacocke. Look, Hamilton is one of our growth areas that have been identified, so that will be work that will be going on. The good part I’d say—the good factor about what’s happening in that property space and those growth areas is that we have identified where those growth areas are. So there’s a—it’s a plan.

It’s not just a hit and miss. It’s looking at exactly where those growth areas are, but that those two specific areas we can come back to you on.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to finish up on the school lunch question, because I asked quite a specific question and got a long answer, but not actually the answer I was looking for, which is around the data. What data and evidence is there to suggest an improvement in achievement and kids turning up at school?

The Minister mentioned that there are three evaluations done, and she mentioned one particular programme. I want to know, overall, in those evaluations—given that we’ve been running now for a wee while—is there any evidence to support that kids are achieving better or turning up to school more regularly because of the school lunch programme? So “data”, as she likes to talk about, as she likes to follow—like we all do. What do those evaluations say? Has she seen anything else that suggests that overall there is a lift in achievement or attendance because of the school lunch programme?

You asked about the evaluations and the data that we’re collecting, and I did talk about those three evaluations, but the different evaluations that we’ve done are focusing on different areas. I will talk about the 2022 evaluation and the 2023 evaluation.

The 2022 evaluation showed that the young people at those schools are happier, healthier, and have a higher quality of nutrition, which means that when they’re healthier, they, again—you know, those of us that have worked particularly in those areas that are low socio-economic areas know that when those young people get sick, they get very sick, and so attendance becomes really difficult and really patchy in some of those areas. But what is happening is that they are having healthier outcomes because of the high-quality nutrition, and they are happier, so they are wanting to be more engaged in their schooling and their learning as well.

The 2023 evaluation showed that there are improved outcomes for Māori learners through the iwi-led initiatives, which is why I linked the two answers before—because we are seeing that those iwi-led initiatives are showing improved outcomes for our Māori learners.

Well, in mid-2001, the then Victoria University of Wellington Students’ Association (VUWSA) president sent out a press release titled: “Student Debt Set to Cripple New Zealand”. That association president lamented, “The current generation of politicians are mortgaging the future of our country. The burden of this will not only be felt by students who graduate with large debts, but also by the future taxpayers of New Zealand who will be left to clean up the mess … If we are to get this debt under control fees must come down and access to living allowances will have to increase”. That is a quote from then VUWSA president, now Prime Minister of this country, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

The reason that I raise this is that parliamentarians may be aware that this afternoon, on Parliament’s lawn, there was yet another rally to stop the cuts at our universities. I want to acknowledge the Minister for the work that we’ve both engaged in over the past few months, and particularly what led to the announcement of the $128 million, if we were actually to have seen student enrolment figures at the level that they were once projected to be. But the Minister will be well aware of the fact that there are still universities across this country that are making substantive proposals with regard to staff cuts. So that is my first question to the Minister: what kind of engagement is she having with those tertiary institutions about what options may be available to them to retain those staff or to work through a pathway over the next year whereby these cuts slow down and we can make more strategic decisions?

I’m also aware that, if not this Minister, former Ministers of Education have commissioned advice on, for example, a universal student allowance and the cost of its provisions, particularly, I’d note, with the advocacy of us doggedly chasing that bone, as the Greens in the Education and Workforce Committee. To that effect, I guess, thinking about a universal student allowance, and obviously the fact that approximately a third of students get access to it at present. And just kind of the intersection with that issue around student enrolment figures and the flow-on impact to the tertiary funding that is being received. Where is the place of students and what kind of engagement and meaningful evidence has been collected on student hardship to try and understand how that is then impacting students’ ability to actually be enrolled in their study in the first place, and therefore, through the bums on seats funding model, the funding that these tertiary institutions are then getting access to?

So just to make that really clear: the key kind of issues that I’m interested in here are—noting that the Minister has worked really hard to get that $128 million reallocation—there are still substantive job cuts that are being proposed, so what can be done and what work is the Minister undertaking to ensure that those do not progress? Secondly, what is the role of students and understanding of students’ needs when it comes to this funding model at present? And has there been any investigation of dealing with student poverty to then deal with student enrolment figures? And then thirdly, I guess, dovetailing into that all nicely: where is the review at that was promised of the tertiary education funding model?

Just before I come to those, I’ve got another couple of answers that I said that I would come back on. So with the unified funding system, the initial tactical implementation was completed and up and running on 1 January 2023. The strategic long-term solution is on track for 1 January 2025. Under 20 percent of the budget has been used so far. Now, Peacocke: two sites have been identified. Currently negotiating with developers. I can’t say any more than that because it is commercially sensitive.

Can I also thank the member there for her engagement in this and her advocacy for students in the tertiary sector—a long-time advocate—and someone that I enjoy having discussions with about because of your understanding of the sector as well and of the students’ needs. Just what I was saying before: when I talk about agency, I talk about agency at all levels. And I think, when we encourage and engage with the young people—I’m going to say young people; they’re not all young people. But when we engage with them, the learners, we also know that we’re getting that input and it’s going to work for them, because we’re having them.

Look, I’ve met with the hierarchy of New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations. We’ve had initial discussions just at a ministerial level. It’s not me that’s working through that next stage but I will say that the higher education review officials are currently arranging engagement with the students as well. Those terms of reference are going to come back in by the end of the year. So, basically, taking time to get that right. I know it’s a rushed situation because there’s pressure on it, but at the same time we don’t want to get a situation that doesn’t encompass all of the solutions that we need to see [removes glasses]—I’ll take those off so I can see you properly—to help identify everything. This is an opportunity. I don’t want to get to the end of it and then we hear “Oh, look, why didn’t we think about this at the time too?” So the member is also going to be very important in that part of the discussion.

You talk about the tertiary institution cuts. So one of the aspects that you will know at the time when we made the announcement about the $128 million, which understandably became the big focus at the time that that was it, but in my head the more important parts—or just as important parts—were the review, but also the fact that we were looking at network provision across the network to make certain that we weren’t losing that provision and that was unduly impacting upon students in different institutions as well. So that advice is about to go through to Cabinet around that, so I can’t discuss that here. But we’re very, very close to being able to look at where we’re at with that and if there’s any follow-up that’s needed to make certain that those learners have that provision that’s there and that we’re not losing that across the network. So that’s where that’s at.

I thank the Minister, the Hon Jan Tinetti, for those considered and thoughtful responses to that line of questioning. I guess, just to dig into this stuff a little bit more, it’s really interesting to hear about that advice that is being commissioned and going up to Cabinet with regard to network provision—and there I’m assuming that it’s about the kind of course provision that’s available and the diversity of that course provision, but also, hopefully, the capacity and the skillset in this country to deliver those courses, and their geographical distribution, of course.

I guess, just to that effect, if we can be crystal clear on what that paper may be capable of actually achieving. Is it the case, given those cuts that are presently on the table, that there is the potential here for the Government to step in and to, for example, issue some kind of, for lack of a better term, moratorium on those cuts, to delay them, or to provide some other form of funding model, whether that be through, I don’t know, leveraging or changes to the way that the Tertiary Education Commission is able to issue debt or otherwise? Is there any hope for those students and those staff who gathered on Parliament’s lawn today to have a kind of quite dramaturgic funeral for the tertiary education sector? Is there any way that they can meaningfully engage with that process? And is there potential of more support or more engagement or a creative solution here coming down the pipeline?

I know this is going to be a bit frustrating, but I can’t get in front of the advice that is coming through to me. I can’t go into it, other than to say that I have engaged with the Victoria University of Wellington Students’ Association president and executive as well, and my door is open to them, and continue to engage to just hear first hand. But can I also once again thank the member Chlöe Swarbrick for the advocacy, for bringing those through—and I quite mean that: I really do appreciate what you’re doing in that space, too.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, the arbitration panel for the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) dispute has come back with a recommendation of 14.5 percent, which is, I understand, going to be taken to Cabinet. Do you have an idea of how much that is going to cost and where that’s going to come from? How will that settlement affect the recent NZEI settlement, if at all?

The panel wasn’t terribly complimentary about the ministry’s negotiating skills. I just wonder whether you think the ministry may have the lost confidence of the PPTA—or if teachers, even, have lost confidence in the ministry?

Now, once again, there’s not a lot I can say about that, because that will have to go through and be taken through to Cabinet decisions, but that is currently being worked through.

What I can say is, the member asked about consequences to the NZEI negotiations. Anything that changes in the unified base scale at the secondary has an impact on the primary, which then has an impact on kindergarten collective agreement rates. So there is parity from the secondary, basically, down, in that respect.

I’m not sure that I agree with the member’s characterisation of what the arbitration panel is saying, which is something that I’ve been saying to the unions and to the ministry, and the ministry agrees with us, which is we, possibly once we get through this period, need to look at whether negotiation processes, as they stand at the moment, are fit for purpose for 2023 and beyond, and are there better ways that we can be doing this? Because this is something that I think both sides agree with—is that they want to sort this out without the need for getting to the point of industrial action or the prolonged nature of it. It is a traditional way that has been negotiated, but many unions are changing the way that they are negotiating, and we will have those discussions with the union. The unions are well aware of that going forward, after we’ve got this through and we’ve got these settlements signed.

But that’s as much as I can say on those because of the fact that it does have to go through to Cabinet.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister, for giving a little bit of information about the unified funding scheme (UFS) IT system, but I note you didn’t give a total cost. However, I just want to check with the Minister: are you intending to continue running a dual funding scheme or are you intending to roll out or extend the UFS to degree and above - qualifications?

One final question: I’ve had the great chance to attend a unit for teen parents, and in that unit for teen parents there’s some real concern about housing and the dangers that most of those teen parents have living in emergency housing. And I’m wondering whether or not there’s any evidence gathering that’s undertaken across all the teen parent units in the country around the state of play of their housing situation, especially for young women who are 13- and 14-years-olds living in emergency—thank you.

Can I just go back to your—I’ve just found some information on the Melville site. So Melville School: there is an establishment board of trustees (EBOT) in place for the new combined school. The new site will be taken over in January 2024, working with the EBOT on the master plan property, which will inform future property and funding needs. So that’s the establishment board of trustees, is what we’re saying there.

Just with the final few minutes as democratically allocated to me by the Greens in our process for Estimates, I was just wondering, as others have, in pointing out issues in the state of the school buildings at their local schools, if I could just address with the Minister, given this opportunity in the committee to do so—the Minister may be aware of quite a lot of correspondence both with her office as the new fulsome Minister of Education, but also with the former Minister, around issues with the school building portfolio at Richmond Road School, in my electorate of Auckland Central. There’s quite substantive issues there and I want to acknowledge principal Whaea Jacqui for all the work that she’s done, as well as the board of trustees. But I was wondering if the Minister could enlighten the committee or give us any insight or information into just what the hold-up is there. It appears as though the challenge has been a kind of changing of the chairs and the guard constantly with Ministry of Education officials at the front line, which has made it really difficult to get a foothold on how things are progressing with the master plan and requisite investment.

I have to come back to the member on that one, but can I talk about the higher education funding review; you talked about the dual options there—we will consider a wide range of options, but it won’t be a carbon copy of the unified funding scheme or the review process. So, you know, we haven’t got a set idea there at this point in time.

Housing