8. Schools Funding—ReviewCHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of EducationSchools Funding—Review8. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all of her answers to oral question No. 12 yesterday?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Yes; in the context that my proposal is not to flatten out the current funding rates across different year levels. The proposal is aimed at establishing a per-child funding rate that reflects the teaching and learning challenge at the different levels of the curricula. The publicly available Cabinet paper that I quoted from in my response yesterday acknowledges in paragraph 33 that an effect of this proposal may be to even out the current variance of funding levels. As previously stated these are all proposals and I look forward to receiving the advisory group's report.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday in my primary question I asked the Minister about her proposal to flatten out funding rates. That question was authenticated by your office using the Cabinet paper that the Minister has just referred to. I used four supplementary questions yesterday and another primary question today to get the Minister to answer what was in effect the primary question yesterday was actually authenticated by your office. So I ask you to give some consideration to what remedies the Opposition has when a Minister stands up and denies something that is authenticated in a primary question and then forces the Opposition to waste multiple questions in order to extract that information from her. Mr SPEAKER: I will certainly have another look at the Hansard. I had a very careful look at it yesterday. In this case the primary question today was immediately answered by the Minister. I will have a look at it and may come back to the House—I will certainly come back to the member. But if a member is suspicious that there has been a case of misleading the House deliberately then there is a quite appropriate path for the member to follow if he thinks this incident warrants it.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I am sure that at the same time you will analyse the questions that were asked by the member so that the answers given are relative to the question answered.Mr SPEAKER: I can assure the member that I will analyse the questions as much as I analyse the answers.Chris Hipkins: So why did she state yesterday the proposal is not to flatten out the levels of funding." given the Cabinet paper she just referred to stated "the likely effect of the shift to a standard per-child funding amount aligned to the expected attainment at each level of the curricula will be to flatten and even out the current variance in funding between year levels."?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The member seems to be suffering from a misunderstanding between a proposal and the effect of a proposal. I am happy to table the full Cabinet paper which makes it clear that the proposal is for three components of a student-based rate where the first component is linked to the learning level of the curriculum. The second component is linked to the level of risk against the child not being successful and the third proposal is a component for isolated small schools. Each of those proposals will have different effects and depending on what is finally arrived at we will know the actual effect. But the proposal is not to flatten; it is to provide a student-based approach.Chris Hipkins: Does she think in a consultation exercise that the public who wish to express a view on that are going to be interested in the effects of a proposal rather than necessarily the proposal in a completely abstract form as the Minister has just suggested?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Of course the public is going to be interested in all of that and that is why these papers have been up on the public website for over 3 months. We have not only shared what the direction of travel is what the purpose of it is and what the actual proposal is; we have also explicated what some of the likely effects might be so that there will be informed comment. That is precisely the intent.Chris Hipkins: Did her Cabinet paper further state "there is evidence the distribution of funding could better reflect the per-child investment required to achieve the … level of attainment and progress and each level of the curricula."; if so how does she propose calculating the per-child investment required at each level?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Econometrically.Hon Member: Ha!Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes that is exactly how. We want to work out what the complexities are. In the current system for instance we have higher funding rates at the beginning of the system than at the end. We have the lowest for years 4 5 and 6—where we are seeing some of the biggest achievement challenges occurring. Surely the member and the House are interested in us assuring that we are investing to grow achievement for every young New Zealander."