Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:11989] 
2.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports if any has he received on the level of school funding? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen one report arguing that schools are raising nearly half a billion dollars through fund-raising. To reach this rather outrageous conclusion the author of the report counts only revenue and does not count expenditure. As a result it has been assumed that 100 percent of revenue from say a school tuck shop is profit but of course the school had to buy the products in the first place in order to be able to sell them. That report came from Katherine Rich and I can only say that if that is the kind of “creative maths” approach that the National Party is undertaking we can see how there can be tax cuts and an increase in Government spending at the same time. 
Dianne Yates 
: What further reports has the Minister seen on school funding? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen reports and they have been as diverse as suggestions being made that low-decile schools are “awash with cash” that we should fund private schools at a higher level that privatisation has a greater role to play in education and that there should be a rolling programme of tax cuts every single year. I say to schools that if they have heard those reports and think they are raising money now they should just wait to see if there is ever a National Government to contend with when it will remove all their money for its rolling tax cuts. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Has the Ministry of Education given any consideration to the recommendation in the rates inquiry report that schools should pay rates; if so how does it suggest that such a recommendation could be met without exacerbating the breaches of the principle of equal educational opportunity that occur under the present funding arrangements? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member will know that report is still under consideration. But I think that the point he makes at the end of his question is a very important one. One of the reasons we do not have rateable properties on our schools is that it would cause costs to fall on schools that may well relate to access to education. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Could the Minister who mentioned a report on rolling tax cuts on an annual basis tell the House who made such a statement? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am struggling to find out how that relates to— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Where’s the ministerial responsibility— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That member will leave the House if he keeps interrupting when I am ruling. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. Be seated. Just be seated Dr Smith. I am tired of your constant interruption before I can give my ruling. Would the Hon Jim Anderton like to rephrase that question because by the way in which it was given it was difficult to know where ministerial responsibility lay. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: In relation to the report that the Minister quoted of rolling tax cuts made on an annual basis what would be the implications of that process for any Government; and is there any author to that report whose name can be given to the House? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. That does not relate specifically to education so I rule that question out of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Thank you! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That member is on his last warning. 
Dianne Yates 
: What alternative proposals has the Minister seen regarding changes to the way our schools are funded? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen one report advocating the reintroduction of bulk funding on a “no ifs no buts and no fighting in school communities” basis and stating that that will be a political decision made by politicians. Bulk funding would effectively cap school funding and force schools to employ less-experienced teachers on cheaper salaries. It would slash funding dedicated to teacher professional development and force each school board to negotiate contracts with its own individual teachers. The person who asked for this to happen and who said that it should be a political decision is none other than Mr Bill English supported by Mr Allan Peachey. It is another example of the National Party simply not learning from its past mistakes.