Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11700. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
2.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received on possible changes to school funding? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen one report advocating the reintroduction of bulk funding and another arguing “it could be the most divisive and possibly the most destructive change in our education system.” The first comment was made by a man who wants to be the Minister of Education if there ever is a future National Government Mr Allan Peachey and the second comment was made by a former National Party MP Tony Steel. Tony Steel knows that bulk funding was a failure but the National Government has learnt nothing during its 8 years in Opposition. 
Moana Mackey 
: What other reports has he received about possible changes to school funding? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen further reports arguing that low-decile schools are “awash with cash” and that “the chequebook won’t solve the problem.” Those comments came from Bill English. In contrast I am told that Katherine Rich was on radio in Dunedin this week arguing that schools need more money—yet another example of how National tells one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Has the Minister received any reports or suggestions that the bulk funding of salaries should be compulsory has he any indication that such a policy would not be resisted as bitterly by the New Zealand Educational Institute and the Post Primary Teachers Association as it was during the late 1980s and the whole of the 1990s and does he believe constructive educational development can occur in such an antagonistic environment? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen that proposal which was put forward by Mr Key. I note that Mr Key has also argued that New Zealand’s education funding is already amongst the top within Western nations and that no more money is required for education. So if a National Government were ever elected the education sector could get ready for bulk funding to be rammed down its throat at a cheap rate without consultation exactly as National did last time it was in office. 
Katherine Rich 
: As the Minister is so interested in the history of bulk funding will he confirm that bulk funding first appeared on the horizon in the Picot report  
Administering for Excellence  
before being made part of Labour’s Tomorrow’s Schools policy in 1989 a policy that was overseen by his colleague sitting beside him Phil Goff? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That is an excellent question because it demonstrates that the Labour Patty can learn and that the National Party cannot. 
Moana Mackey 
: Has the Minister seen any reports that suggest the private sector could play a bigger role in the provision of schooling and new schools should be built by the private sector; if so does he intend to adopt such policies? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I just happen to have seen those reports. I have seen a report arguing that “there’s plenty of opportunities to have the private sector playing a bigger role” and that there should be a greater “orientation towards privatisation” in the education system. Those arguments were put forward by none other than Mr John Key no doubt meaning that apart from bulk funding we also have privatisation back on National’s agenda. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Labour Party bulk-funding policy advocated by the Hon Phil Goff was in fact based on the average teacher salary scale which meant that teachers would have had to have been sacked in order to keep within the limits and that the system of top-of-the-scale funding that New Zealand First agreed to was voluntary and also required a commitment to a national collective contract? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can confirm that that was the policy advocated by Mr Phil Goff. The point the member raises is why of course the policy in the end was not advanced: because we can learn from consultation—we are an excellent Government. I say to the member on this side of the House that if one funds at the top of the scale even in those dollars we are talking about another $350 million. The National Party has never promised a single cent. It has promised only to cut education spending. Bulk funding slashed funding—is that what this country wants? Of course New Zealand First would never support that. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a schedule of comments on education funding by the Hon Arthur Kinsella National’s Minister of Education in the— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.