For those without high or even medium-speed broadband, the Hansard is below:
6. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her commitment on The Nation on 20 August 2011, that low and middle income families would not pay more for 20 hours of early childhood education in the next three years if the Government is re-elected?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) : That is not what I said. If the member listens to the interview again, she will hear that I was not asked about low-income families. But I can tell the House that this Government will be maintaining the 20 hours’ early childhood education policy should we be re-elected.
Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The text of that question was validated by your office, and the Minister has disputed that that was a statement that she made.
Mr SPEAKER: And it is absolutely the right of a Minister to do that. Although a question is validated as being compliant with the Standing Orders, a Minister is still at liberty to totally disagree with what may be included in the question.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Did she make the comment that was referred to in the primary question?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: My answer to the primary question was that I did not say—I was not asked about low-income families.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very direct question: did she make the comment?
Mr SPEAKER: I hear what the member’s point of order is. The member did not ask whether the Minister was asked in this interview about low to middle income families. The question was whether she made this comment about low to middle income families, and that is a different question.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I was neither asked nor did I make comment about low-income families.
Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Minister.
Sue Moroney: Will she commit her Government to keeping the existing subsidies in place for 20 hours’ early childhood education for the next 3 years if it is re-elected?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It is good to hear the Opposition talking about this Government being re-elected. What I can say is that this Government will be retaining 20 hours’ early childhood education and fee controls.
Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was specifically about keeping the existing subsidies in place for 20 hours’ early childhood education, and the Minister made no reference to that in her answer.
Mr SPEAKER: Given the unnecessary comment at the start of the answer, I think the Minister should be asked to answer the question again. The question was quite specific. It contained no criticism of the Government; it just asked whether it was the Government’s intention to maintain current subsidies during a further term, should it be re-elected. I do not believe the answer was fair in responding to that question.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The answer to the question is that we will be retaining the 20 hours’ early childhood education and fee controls.
Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, the Minister failed to answer the question, which was about keeping the existing subsidies in place for 20 hours’ early childhood education for the next 3 years if re-elected to Government. The Minister has made reference to fee controls. She has made no reference to the specific question, which is the only part of this question, about the existing subsidies.
Mr SPEAKER: I think the member who asked the question has a fair grievance, in that the question asked about subsidies and the answer spoke about 20 hours and fee caps. I might be stupid, but I do see a difference. When members commendably ask straight questions, I think it is in the interest of the House that they are answered.
Hon Steven Joyce: I am new here, but my sense is that obviously 20 hours’ early childhood education is a subsidies programme, and I would have thought that the Minister did answer the question. Perhaps more broadly, I think we are getting into a situation this afternoon where members of the Opposition are not only seeking to ask questions but also seeking the exact answers that they want, as well. It is perhaps getting a little bit tough, because the Minister does have the ability to answer the question that I think the member asked.
Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any further help on this matter. As I said, I might be stupid, but members have a right to ask questions and Ministers are accountable. Where questions are absolutely within Ministers’ portfolio areas, they are accountable to answer those questions. The question did not ask whether the Government intended to keep the 20-hours policy in place. The question did not ask whether the Government intended to keep a fees cap in place. The question asked whether the Government intended to maintain the current subsidy levels. I cannot help with regard to the questions asked. It is not my job as the Speaker to stop members asking questions. It is a fair question, it is in the public interest, and I believe it should be answered. It may be that no decision has been made; it may be that there are trade-offs in certain areas. But to ignore the question totally is, in my view, not on, because Ministers are accountable to this House and the House deserves an answer. As I say, the question was commendable in that it did not make any criticism of Government policy. It was a straight question, and I believe it deserves to have some kind of answer.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I attempted to answer the question by saying this Government, should it be re-elected, intends to maintain 20 hours’ early childhood service, which is a subsidy programme, and the fee controls. They are the two essential parts of 20 hours: universal provision of early childhood services for 20 hours for every 3 and 4-year-old, with fee controls—
Hon Members: Free.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It is not free. It never has been free, which is why we renamed it. It was never free—
Mr SPEAKER: I have assisted the Opposition to obtain an answer here. To put up a barrage like that when the Minister is answering the question as she sees appropriate is not on. If members of the Opposition want the Speaker to assist in getting answers, they should treat answers with more dignity.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There is something happening towards the end of November, which is called an election, and if the Opposition wants to know what the Government’s policy is, it will have to wait until it is announced.
Sue Moroney: When the Minister says the subsidy programme will continue for 20 hours’ early childhood education, is she committing to the same level of subsidies that currently exists?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have just said any election policy will have to be announced as part of an election policy, but this Government is committed to 20 hours. We have extended it to k?hanga reo, Playcentre, and 5-year-olds, and we have said we would maintain fee controls. Parents like it, parents use it, and we will retain it.
Sue Moroney: Do her promises on this issue carry the same weight as her promise in National’s 2008 education policy that “National is also committed to keeping all other ECE funding.”, given that she subsequently cut $285 million from early childhood education in 2009 for improved staff-child ratios and $400 million in 2011 for centres employing more than 80 percent qualified staff?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It is pretty rich to get that sort of a question from an Opposition party that, when in Government, allowed early childhood education spending to treble while less than 1 percent more children turned up at school having experienced early childhood education. This Government has increased the spending on early childhood education by almost 40 percent over what the last Government spent, and we are determined to make sure that those children that will benefit the most from it—that is, M?ori and Pasifika children, and children from poorer backgrounds—actually get access to good-quality early childhood education.
Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table the education policy document from 2008.
Mr SPEAKER: We will not do that sort of thing; that is all available to members.
Sue Moroney: Will she rule out any funding cuts to home-based early childhood education and k?hanga reo, should her Government be re-elected?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This Government has proven time and time again that it believes in having a diverse sector; we believe in having a very diverse early childhood education sector. If there are any changes made to the funding system, it would be to make it less bureaucratic and much more flexible than it currently is, and to maintain the diversity. Home-based care is extremely important, as are parent-led services, to parents. We believe in parents having choice.
Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very straightforward: will she rule out any funding cuts to home-based early childhood education and k?hanga reo?
Mr SPEAKER: The member has done pretty well today, but, as has been pointed out, some of these questions are about what the Government might do after the election. The Minister made it clear that there is an election policy to be finalised in this area. I think that was a fair answer to that question.
That reads like NACT will be cutting the subsidy if, and only if, they get back in.
NACT will be cutting the subsidy if, and only if, they get back in.
The inverse of that is: if they don’t get back in, then they won’t be cutting the subsidy.
Doesn’t that just sound like a typical bit of Anne Tolley logic.
The TV3 clip is here
http://www.3news.co.nz/Education-sector-and-Tolley-at-loggerheads-again/tabid/1356/articleID/222830/Default.aspx
Its about the middle , but Garner specifically asks if middle income and higher parents will pay more .( as recommended by the education task force)
Tolley reponds …no ..no
Garner: And thats a guarantee
Tolley… Absolutely
Trevor, how dare you say that about one of National’s up and comers?
!
I must say I was impressed by Garner in this interview, he kept plugging away, as Tolley floundered- throwing all the usual platitudes – “no plans ” etc behind her as she sought to escape
But he had her cornered in the end and she had to say ” Absolutely” to the guarantee question.
2 weeks later in parliament, she denies she even said it, so you can be pretty sure once the election is over the “plans” will materialise.
“if the Opposition wants to know what the Government’s policy is, it will have to wait until it is announced.”
Where are all the Nat posters railing against National for not announcing their policy until so late in the piece???
Trevor – I recently heard a rumour that post election the Nats (if re-elected) intend slashing the sports funding budget, in particular SPARC’S. My sources tell me that the newly formed HPSNZ is to get most of the money. The sense in the sport community is HPSNZ will get the lion’s share and then credit for any olympic success will be used by politicians to justify it and laud it up.
Have you heard similar whispers?
Tracey, please enough of sport, they have their own posts
gwwnz: do you have any tips on how… those of us unimpressed (to put it politely) with the game of rugby can get through the next six weeks unscathed?
hahaha, well I will give you this, you Labour people are funny.
Not sure how you came by the Heading.
If anything it only showed that Labour are nit-picky, childish, scroungers for any scraps they can get…
Please get a clue , focus on real issues and try act your age a little.
jem , dont you think breaking promises is important, from $50 pw tax cuts, to GST to Pike River miners to Christchurch residents and now to ECE . The Minister guarantees no fee increases on TV and then denies she said anything of the sort.
Hi ghostwhowalksnz
I know what you are trying to say, I just don’t think the Labour party, or quite frankly any political party, can “call the kettle black”. Labour lied on more than one occasion in their time in power. They made promises they never kept and changed their minds on issues as they wanted. They are also the cause for such a huge % of this country, unnecessarily, being on the benefit.
Like many NZers before the last election, I finally got fed up with all their nonsense and lies, and moved to the other side of the fence.
Of course National are not perfect, but they are a dam sight better than the current alternatives.
“Of course National are not perfect, but they are a dam sight better than the current alternatives”.
So jem,
Um, how would you know?Have they got a blog? Once again we have National devoid of any meaningful policies. Interesting how Ryall suddenly has backtracked on sleepover care givers back pay. Their timing is predictable. Labour had a very good track record over 9 years, National’s stinks in the first 3.
At least Labour have announced a brilliant policy to get unemployed youth into trades that will benefit the Christchurch recovery.At least they are not all secret squirrel like Brownlee manages so well, when answering genuine concerns regards Insurance.
Especially if you are in the top 5% of income earners and wealth owners.
Try speaking for the other 95% of NZers next time OK?
Calm down Viper, you’re going to have an apoplexy. National look after those in the middle, median salary earners ($50,000p.a. according to Stats), hard workers, families, non-criminals, non-beneficiaries. Labour do not care about those people, they are not their constituency (“rich pricks” I believe we’re known as). Even if you believe in your own postings that only 5% benefit from or believe in a National Government, explain why the MAJORITY of New Zealanders disagree with you and with the policies you espouse? Surely it can’t be that you’ve got it wrong have you, surely it can’t be that the majority may disagree with you? Or do you not believe in democracy? Pretty sure Stalin didn’t believe in it either – what a workers paradise that country turned out to be. When eh alternative is a policy vacuum my dear, dear CV, the status quo will always survive and, indeed, flourish.
Jem – You must be living in a very different universe – to what lies are you referring, when in fact Labour kept all their policy promises [& many people have the cards of the promises to prove it]. And where on earth did you get the bit about the benefit numbers – get real! Actually look at the stats of the time, and stop purveying the lies that National & ACT supporters try to throw around about increases in benefit numbers, especially the sickness benefit & the DPB – the facts just don’t bear it out.
And don’t go on with the pretence of being someone who ‘moved to the other side of the fence’ in 2008. You are clearly a Nat, if you try that one and pretend to forget the Exclusive Brethren rorts and lies – let alone the rest.
It is very enlightening that your ‘dam sight better’ includes selling state assets. This is just not the comment of someone who claims to have been a past Labour supporter. Try harder if you are going to try and assume a persona, or just don’t bother.
A “bad day” for National is still better than a good day for Labour it seems, if support is a measure.
Dave , what support would that be , even on numbers based on phoning 900 people at home during dinnertime, about 50% of the population wouldnt vote for national.
@Sofie Bribiesca
“At least Labour have announced a brilliant policy to get unemployed youth into trades”
You may want to look at your history…this is the same nonsense Labour has promised at least 4 times,while in power) since the 1980s. Yet surprise surprise they never once followed through….. makes you wonder doesn’t it
@Colonial Viper
“Especially if you are in the top 5% of income earners and wealth owners.”
Yes well …. my total family income(with 4kids) is less that 80k/year…no NO i am no where near the top earners! Im just an average joe who is sick of Labour giving those who don’t want to work a free ride!
@Wendy
“to what lies are you referring, ”
Plenty, but here is one. The year that Clark was elected she promised to have ALL treaty claims settled by 2008…. Did she come even close to following through on this promise?? I think we all know the answer to that.
“And don’t go on with the pretence of being someone who ‘moved to the other side of the fence’ in 2008″
For your info I was a labour supporter…I was of those who VOTED Labour in, in 1999 . I am not Nat or labour..unlike extreme loyalists liek yourself, I am someone who THINKS and votes for the party who will best suit the countries needs, and labour are simply not it at present, and the polls clearly show I am not alone in this thinking.
Jem you are making stuff up.
ACT was the party in 1999 which wanted all treaty claims processed by 2005 and settled by 2010
“Labour leader Helen Clark attacked Act’s deadline as a “bumper-sticker solution” which would only pitch New Zealand into a new cycle of grievances and claims”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=102016
So as, they say ‘put up or shut up’
Sorry ghostwhowalksnz but I am not making anything up…
Extract from NZ Herald, titled “Labour unveils deadline to treaty claims” By Ruth Berry and dated Thursday Aug 4, 2005
“Labour will today unveil its fourth campaign pledge – a deadline on the filing of historical land claims with the Waitangi Tribunal by 2008.”
So I stand by my previous statement… Labour made a promise that they came no where near fulfilling. Lucky for them, people like you have short memories.
Oh and despite Clarks best efforts, I still have a right to my say..SO YOU’D BETTER GET USED TO IT.
Ghostwalker, at $110m per year you ought to be more interested
Good work here. National is on the defensive everywhere in Education as various chickens come home to roost. Memo to Labour: Make the most of it.
You finally have your act together on National Standards, and this should produce a positive impact. But now is the time. With Murray McCully and Maurice Williamson you have a perfect pair in RWC land. Stay on the offensive in Education ECE and Nat Stds!!\