the National Party on my bill that gives disadvantaged kids a better
chance and,
gives disadvantaged kids a better chance and, Mr Speaker, that
is very sad. Great speech!
chance and, Mr Speaker, that is very
I call Jan Tinetti. I rise to take a call on
call on the Education (Social Investment Funding and Abolition of
Decile
Decile System) Amendment Bill. Order.
Decile System) Amendment Bill. Order. Sorry, I omitted to say
the question is that the motion
be agreed to. Jan Tinetti. Thank you.
Firstly,
agreed to. Jan Tinetti. Thank you. Firstly, ill like to
congratulate Firstly,
Firstly, ill like to congratulate the member... Point of order.
The Hon... I apologise to
my colleague for interrupting her I
think it's important that new members don't
get into bad habits. The
member Simeon Brown was questioning an
absence of the member from the House and you
should pull him up
the member from the House and you should pull him up on that. I did
not hear that.
should pull him up on that. I did not hear that. But if the members
should pull him up on that. I did
all know that we are not to mention the absence of any member. Jan
Tinetti.
the absence of any member. Jan
Firstly, I congratulate the member Stanford tan for having this
Stanford tan for having Erica Stanford for having this drawn.
piece of legislation that I could never, ever support so much as
what I cannot support this piece of
legislation. Out
I cannot support this piece of legislation. Out of anyone in
this House, anyone in
this Parliament, full parole, there is no
the knowledge of the in depth personal knowledge that I
have on decile funding. I've over
28 years I have worked at a decile 10, a decile
9,
have worked at a decile 10, a decile 9, a decile 5, 6 and latterly
a decile 1 school. So, I
have a pretty broad
broad knowledge and have been principal of four of those
schools. I have a pretty
broad knowledge of decile funding. And I also agree
with the
decile funding. And I also agree with the member that it
is a blunt instrument. I will agree
on the point that decile funding is
something that we do need to do something about. We do need a level
offence
something about. We do need a level offence equity funding
funding. This is not the way to do it. This is so far wrong. I
would have to say that there is
an absolute misunderstanding of decile
have
absolute misunderstanding of decile full stop. Decile is not just about
funding.
full stop. Decile is not just about funding. Decile funding itself
is only
funding. Decile funding itself is
that goes into school. Decile to me as a principal of a decile
1 school meant so much more than that. Decile
1 was also
meant so much more than that. Decile 1 was also where we got to determine
the eligibility
1 was also where we got to determine the eligibility for or professional
learning and development contracts
that we
learning and development contracts that we entered into with the
Ministry of Education. It
that we entered into with the Ministry of Education. It also
gave us allowances. As the dekrill
1 new
decile 1 school, I had several staff members that were eligible for
the Voluntary Bonding Scheme. So, this
bill
Voluntary Bonding Scheme. So, this bill talks about abolishing deciles,
so does that
bill talks about abolishing deciles, so does that mean we
say to those
eligible anymore because we've got rid of those de
eligible anymore because we've got
under this scheme. Next year it might be 24 so you won't be
eligible because 25
might be 24 so you won't be eligible
We haven't thought these things through obviously. This is not
the way to do this. Decile,
more importantly for me, meant
that other services, such as family works who
provided our social worker in school, provided to us the
social worker, because we were a decile
1 school. Suddenly, does that
mean we will get rid of decile, shall we get
rid
will get rid of decile, shall we get rid of decile so we won't
have the social workers in school anymore
because they go
social workers in school anymore because they go to decile 1 to 3
get rid of deciles. That is the name
agree that deciles are a blunt measure. They are not
a great measure and we do
need to do something about them. But that work
is currently being done.
something about them. But that work is currently being done. This
would override all of that
work, absolutely completely. It would
confuse what was
absolutely completely. It would confuse what was happening.
I also when I was reading the bill
confuse what was happening. I also
completely confused by the bill that defined the decile system
because the bill had to define
that decile system because it's not anywhere
else in legislation.
system because it's not anywhere else in legislation. It defined the
to then prohibit the use of the decile system. So, to
prohibit the use, you had to actually define
it first. I know! Very funny that that
would actually happen,
first. I know! Very funny that that would actually happen, that you
could do that. And
would actually happen, that you could do that. And then prohibit
theous of
could do that. And then prohibit theous of the decile system
decile system to allocate money. It doesn't make sense that
we would do it that way. As I've already said,
using
it that way. As I've already said, using the legislation is
inconsistent with
using the legislation is inconsistent with the way that the
Education Act takes
inconsistent with the way that the
they take to school funding. It is not the way that we do that. We
do not use legislation. Here's
an example. A few years ago when
I was on the negotiation team for
the primary principals contract, the
then Government
primary principals contract, the then Government worked with
the ministry to introduce a literacy and
numeracy
ministry to introduce a literacy and numeracy payment to principals,
primary
primary school principles. The minister had the flexibility in
the funding arrangements
funding arrangements to put that into the schools at that particular
point in time. There was funding that went alongside with that to
actually
that went alongside with that to actually develop literacy and
numeracy in the
actually develop literacy and numeracy in the schools. And the
Minister could make that arrangement and it happened quickly. It
did not need to come to the House to
change legislation. Using legislation to
determine school funding is just a
wrong way of
determine school funding is just a wrong way of doing it. We need
a system that
wrong way of doing it. We need a
can change with needs. Also we know that we haven't got this right. We
know that we've got
that we haven't got this right. We know that we've got lots of work to
do in this
know that we've got lots of work to do in this area. So if we put this
piece of
do in this area. So if we put this piece of legislation in, and then
we found that a year
piece of legislation in, and then we
will talk about how quickly things can change in school funding very
shortly, we found that
can change in school funding very shortly, we found that a
year down the track that that needed to
change, we would have
the track that that needed to change, we would have to go back
through
change, we would have to go back through the whole
legislation process again. That is not
good enough for schools who
need flexibility and
flexibility and need things to change when things happen to
school. We need to be responsive to what
the schools are telling us. What I said
before was that I
schools are telling us. What I said before was that I would talk about
how things can change
before was that I would talk about how things can change in
school funding, and, yes, we had a Minister
a came of
funding, and, yes, we had a Minister a came of years ago who decided
to change things up in school
funding. When it came to the
2016 Budget we instead of getting the inflation
adjusted budget increase
instead of getting the inflation adjusted budget increase in
our operations grant, we got the
social
funding model was used. Children were
funding model was used. Children
social investment funding to identify the numbers of children
in each school. What a load of
rubbish! That was the biggest
insult to schools that I have seen. I
was the principal of a decile 1 school. A
school
principal of a decile 1 school. A school where I had
principal of a decile 1 school. A
children were identified as coming under that particular system. Why
my funding advice notice how many children in my school were
identified under
children in my school were identified under that social
investment
identified under that social investment model. And
that Opposition tells us that that data
is going to
Opposition tells us that that data is going to be
Opposition tells us that that data
it's already shown to us that you told us and that funding
advice
Opposition told us how many children we got. Here's how
the narrative changed. It changed from
you're a decile 1 school to how many children
were
decile 1 school to how many children were on your
funding advice notice. And then it changed to
people saying,
And then it changed to people
happening, and yet we have an Opposition who will tell us that
that information will be kept private. Currently we have a system
with the decile system that we can go into review if we
don't agree with it, the decile ratings that are
given to us.
with it, the decile ratings that are given to us. This will not
happen under this. It cannot happen under
this
under this. It cannot happen under this because according to the member
over there, Erica
this because according to the member over there, Erica Stanford, she
tells us that the
over there, Erica Stanford, she tells us that the data will be
private. Well,
tells us that the data will be private. Well, if the data is
going to be completely private, how can
the school challenge
to be completely private, how can the school challenge the
data and say that there number of children
are going to be completely different
It just doesn't make sense to what schools are currently expecting.
Here
schools are currently expecting. Here is my final point before I
finish here. This
Here is my final point before I finish here. This is the point
that really winds me up. We've been
told that this bill
really winds me up. We've been told
was wound up before! This is the part that winds me up.
We get told that the reason for bringing these bill in is because,
oh,
bringing these bill in is because, oh, decile 1 schools, decile
2 schools have this whole stigma.
My school is named
schools have this whole stigma. My
was Mirror Vale. Tomorrow we take the decile 1 target or tag off
it. Do you think that that's going to
stop people saying,
Do you think that that's going to stop people saying, oh, do we
have an issue around poverty and
does poverty mean that things are
harder in those
poverty mean that things are harder
decile 1 target there is just a fallacy that the
Opposition have used to deny poverty and to deny the
effects on
used to deny poverty and to deny the effects on poverty on our children
and in our schools.
effects on poverty on our children and in our schools. And
that really makes me irate that we
have had to put up with this discourse and this
narrative for so
put up with this discourse and this narrative for so long and we
absolutely and
narrative for so long and we absolutely and wholeheartedly oppose
. Nikki Kaye. Can I just say to everybody watching that that was the
most extraordinary speech. I
everybody watching that that was the most extraordinary speech. I have a
will go viral for several reasons. It will go viral because
the member opposite didn't read the bill. It
will
opposite didn't read the bill. It
wasn't in the House but what I can say is it is extraordinary that
he has not spoken on this