6. Question No. 6—EducationERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 6—Education6. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Education: Whose authority were her staff acting on when they sent an email on 9 February 2023 to the Ministry of Education stating that FYI the Minister's office are looking to potentially release the Term 3 attendance data early next week" when the Ministry of Education had scheduled the data to be released on 22 December 2022 and does she still believe that the ministry's plan to release that data before Christmas would have been cynical?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): To the first part of the question staff in my office have some general authority to act on my behalf to engage with the ministry and make suggestions on the timing of announcements. In this instance the correspondence to the ministry went too far in presenting this as an instruction to the ministry rather than a suggestion. I have spoken to my staff and been clear that those emails sent to the ministry do not meet my expectations. As I have always said attendance data is the responsibility of the Ministry of Education. I did not instruct that email to be sent. To further increase the transparency around attendance data I have asked the ministry to consider publicly publishing when future attendance data will be released. To the second part of the question yes.Erica Stanford: Can she explain how the public can have confidence in her management of an $18 billion education budget when she has no idea that her closest staff are taking actions on her behalf to deny schools access to data that they needed to inform their annual plans?Hon JAN TINETTI: I believe the member is conflating two different issues there and coming to a conclusion that I believe is wrong.Erica Stanford: When did she first become aware that her office did have a say over the release of the term 3 attendance data which was released later than the Ministry of Education's scheduled date of 22 December?Hon JAN TINETTI: I was made aware of the email that was sent as I've said in this House previously when I came back from question time on 22 February.Erica Stanford: If she knew on 22 February that her office did have a say over the term 3 data publication date why didn't she realise she had misled the House when she said "I have no say over that." and immediately correct her answer?Hon JAN TINETTI: As I have said in this House in the past at the time I still felt that my answers reflected what I was intending him to mean at the time of delivery because the Ministry of Education has the responsibility of the data. I have accepted that this is an incorrect judgment to make and I have since remedied that by correcting my statement in the House.Erica Stanford: Does she regret that the term 3 attendance data was not released on 22 December as the ministry intended when principals have told me they were working up until Christmas and in January and needed that data to better inform their annual plans?Hon JAN TINETTI: No.Hon Andrew Little: And then that member would have accused her of fudging it; you can't have it both ways. SPEAKER: Order!Erica Stanford: Why did her staff engage in delaying the term 3 attendance data to coincide with her policy announcement on 22 February?Hon JAN TINETTI: That member has just made an assertion about my staff delaying that data. I believe that assertion is wrong. The email is something that I was unaware of. I have instructed my staff about the intent behind that email and it did not meet my expectations.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Mr Speaker we have some difficulty with that answer because the Minister has earlier in this question time confirmed the assertion in Mrs Stanford's question that she now denies.SPEAKER: Yeah but the assertion made the assumption about why her staff had done it. That's the assertion that I believe the Minister was addressing.Hon Michael Woodhouse: My point is that the wide question was not addressed; rather the Minister has challenged the subsequent statement which is "Why did something happen?" and the Minister has said "That's not what happened." Indeed the question does have an assertion but it's an assertion that's backed up by an answer the Minister has given to an earlier supplementary question. So the why has not been answered.SPEAKER: I will go back and read carefully the Hansard. But from what I heard the assumption was made within the assertion that they did that for a particular reason. Now if I am correct then the Minister has addressed the question."