Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4323] 
2.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What recent reports if any has he received on mainstreaming in New Zealand schools? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have received a report that states that the Education Act 1989 ensures that all young people with disabilities and special needs have “the same rights to enrol and receive education in state schools as people who do not”. The National Government supported this policy through the 1990s parents support this policy because they want choice for their children and the Labour-led Government has supported special-education policy through a 50 percent increase in funding for special needs since 1999. 
Moana Mackey 
: What recent reports has the Minister seen on alternatives to mainstreaming in New Zealand schools? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen reports of a policy to “wind back the mainstreaming of children”. 
The policy was launched without consultation at the National Party conference at the weekend. The Principals Federation responded with this comment: “Mainstreaming is working reasonably well and National needs to reconsider any suggestion to scrap it. If National does intend to block the rights of some children to receive the same kind of education as everybody else just because they have a disability they should have the courage to front up and say so now.” 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister intend to persist with a policy that may mean for example that a teacher who has to handle a knife-wielding child terrorising a classroom is told by the principal that nothing can be done about it and he or she just has to manage? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I will not allow the member to weasel out of his criticism of mainstreaming and now pretend that he was talking about severe behaviour problems in the classroom. It was mainstreaming that he said he would wind back. That means children with disabilities. Explain that to parents! 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the Minister agree that mainstreaming is not necessarily the best approach for all special-needs children and that some of the resistance to it was created by the misguided zealotry of some educational officials in the early years of the Towards Inclusion policy in insisting on under-resourced mainstreaming or “main-dumbing” as it came to be known? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I agree that during the early days of the 1990s—dark years they were—this policy was not well applied by the National Government. These days mainstreaming means a range of choices for young people. Resources do have to rise and this Government has put in 50 percent more in the last 6 years. 
Judy Turner 
: Is the Minister happy with current conditions for the provision of teacher-aide hours for severely disabled students in classrooms as well as the conditions of employment for teacher-aides themselves? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Once again there has been a very significant rise in the amount of money going to teacher-aides. Any MP in the House would know that many years ago severely disabled students would have gone to schools with almost none; they now find a large number of aides in each of these classrooms. One of the things we want to do though along with the trade unions is look at how to regularise their employment so that they are more stable and more secure. 
Moana Mackey 
: What reports has the Minister seen on the views of parents of children and the education sector on mainstreaming? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In 2004 the Ministry of Education ran an extensive consultation process that gave a wide range of new areas for action and we will be funding them to the tune of something like $400 million in the year ahead. We are committed to mainstreaming in its various forms. In contrast Bill English has said National will abandon mainstreaming. When the Parliamentary Library asked for the speech that contains that remark Mr English’s office said there was not one. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think you know what the point of order is. The member opposite has been here long enough to control his anger and not to interrupt in a way that is outside Parliament’s Standing Orders. 
Hon Bill English 
: This Minister has a habit which he now picks up most days that he answers questions of simply misrepresenting and in fact often of not telling the truth. He says things are one way when they quite clearly are not. In this case he purported to represent a quote from me saying National had said it would abandon mainstreaming. He knows that that is a lie but it has not prevented him from saying it in the House and that is why there is disruption. If he tells the truth then there will not be disruption. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: But the member knows that that is not the way to address those issues—you do not call other members liars. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Speaking to the point of order before the member withdraws can I say there is one other way to clear the matter up. If we could have a copy of the speech which no one can get hold of that would actually give us the full text. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to please withdraw and apologise for using that unparliamentary term. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. I understand that it is not parliamentary to accuse another member of lying but when a Minister says something that is clearly untrue are we obliged to sit and listen to that? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Yes as we are obliged to listen to completely untrue assertions as part of questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is well known that a member cannot say “lie” in this House. That is unparliamentary. The facility in use of the English language is such that most members know how to make their views known and there are a variety of ways to do so under the Standing Orders. A point of order could be taken as could a personal explanation and there is always the general debate. [ 
Interruption 
] The member did withdraw and apologise. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In answer to the question we have run an extensive consultation process. We are funding this area of education to the tune of $400 million a year now. We are committed to mainstreaming. In contrast Mr Bill English has signalled that the National Party wants to wind back its mainstreaming policy—that is abandoning it. What he needs to do is give us a copy of his speech which even the Parliamentary Library has been denied so that we can check on what he says he said.