Donnelly Brian: Estimates Debate —  
Donnelly Brian: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7207] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee) 
: 
 As the chair of the Education and Science Committee which reviewed this vote I have to say we were somewhat diverted by a bit of a sideshow during the review. There was an unseemly spat between the National spokesperson for education and the Minister of Education. I have concluded that these two gentlemen—if we can call them gentlemen—do not get on very well at all. There is not a great deal of mutual respect. In fact if they were paddling together in Lake Rotoiti they would spend more time trying to tip each other out of the boat and into the water than getting on with the paddling. 
The issue that the Hon Dr Nick Smith raised was whether the real funding the operational funding for schools has increased or decreased since the time that Labour took office in 1999. It is a difficult one to answer because we well know that in the first Budget of 2000 all the additional funding from the bulk funding of teacher salaries was distributed through the operational grants. A large amount of it was distributed through the Targeted Funding for Educational Achievement scheme. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Half of it! 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Yes half of it. The question that really needs to be asked—and I think that who has the biggest type of question is a silly line to pursue—is whether all schools are being funded at an adequate level to achieve the fundamental expectations that are laid upon them. Any locally raised funds should not be included in that particular formula. The basic formula should provide adequate funding. That is a question that the Government has to answer. There are some questions about the higher-decile schools at this particular time. 
I am taking only a 5-minute call and want to make one other observation. Obviously we had the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) at the committee; tertiary education was also being reviewed. We all remember that back in 1999 and prior to that there were all those terrible statements about the burden of student debt and how it was suffocating young people. Labour said that when the Labour Government came in it would slash the burden of student debt. I refer to one of the statements in the report: “The Minister told us that the level of student debt in New Zealand will continue to grow”. How is that for slashing student debt? In fact since this Government took office it has increased at a faster rate than previously. 
But that is not the area I really want to talk about. In the little time I have left I want to talk about the issue of truancy which we spoke to the Minister of Education about. New Zealand has a very good education system. It had a good education system prior to this Government coming to office and it still has a good education system. But the challenge—and it is a challenge for whatever administration is in office—is the tail. The tail is the challenge we have to overcome if we are to have an outstanding education system. One of the things that came through in the reading review was that a large proportion of the tail could be attributed purely and simply to non-attendance at school—through truancy irregular attendance condoned absences or transience. That was put very very strongly in one of the submissions the select committee received. 
It appears to us that for quite some years now we have been asking questions about what the Government will do about truancy. The Minister has quite rightly answered that he has put all his eggs in the truancy database. In this particular review however he has told us—and I quote—“there is no pilot project for a national student database yet as the concept has proved to be more complicated and expensive than was initially thought.” I believe that the Minister’s officials are not taking this issue seriously enough. I also believe that the Government is not taking this issue seriously enough. It still has 1990s thinking. Back then the ministry was a hands-off policy maker and the schools themselves through the boards of trustees were to do things to prevent truancy. The incentives were all wrong. We got it all wrong during the 1990s. 
Since that time some moves have been made to put some systems in place but I say to the Minister that I went out as an honorary truancy officer for 1 day last year to see how things were operating and I saw that although we do have some sort of system in place now it is funded for only 40 weeks of the year so how will we get good-quality permanent staff performing this particular role? We still have really large problems with transience with children moving between schools and not being picked up. They fall between the cracks when they move from one particular area to another. The biggest problem is not bunking. Bunking is when a person just does not go to school; it is condoned absences.