Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11116] 
2.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports if any has he received on possible changes to school enrolment schemes? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen a report stating: “We would like to relax the school zoning”—effectively abolishing a child’s right to attend his or her local school. However I have also seen a report arguing that the removal of a child’s right to attend his or her local school would be “morally reprehensible”. The first quote comes from John Key and the second from Katherine Rich. The question is: who is calling the shots in the National Party or is this another case of “a different day a different story”? 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister seen any further reports on possible changes to school enrolment schemes? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I have seen a report suggesting that school enrolment schemes should be abolished to give parents more choice. However I have also seen a report suggesting that in areas where the school population is growing there may have to be limitations on choice. Both of those reports came from Bill English—another example of the National Party’s policy of “a different day a different story”. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister confirm that the geographical zoning of overcrowded schools was re-legislated for in November 1998 by a National Government supported by ACT because of the disastrous outcomes of the removal of such zoning by Lockwood Smith in the early 1990s? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can confirm that it was the then National Government that introduced school zoning and that the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech was the responsible Minister. Now of course National appears to be against it. I think we have an expansion of the National principle “a different decade a different story”. 
Katherine Rich 
: If the Minister is on a maniacal crusade to uncover the truth why does he not monitor his own utterances because he was the one who promised the parents of 3 and 4-year-old children that they would “definitely get 20 hours’ free early childhood education in July” and that by the end of this year all junior classes would have no more than 15 students in them; or is this just a case of a different story on a different day? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That is an excellent question. Anybody who goes back and checks will find I said that 92000 children were eligible if they were 3 to 4 years of age and in a teacher-led centre. He or she will find that our policy says that by the end of 2008 the 1:15 ratio will be in place. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister seen any further reports suggesting that parental choices should be limited when it comes to education? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes. I have seen a report suggesting that Labour’s 20 hours’ free early childhood education policy should be retained because “we want all these kids to be able to have 20 hours’ free”. However I have also seen a report suggesting “we won’t keep it”. Both of those reports came from John Key—another case of “a different day a different story”.