$35M for private schools, $2.5M cut for physically disabled kids

I missed this exchange in Parliament yesterday but I'm pleased I spotted it on scoop today. 

Goff does a very good job at exposing the National Government's priorities.  It is these small things that remind people that while National campaigned on being moderate (Labour-lite) and focusing on the "issues that matter" they are really cutting funding to the polices that matter.

Hon Phil Goff: Why, then, did the Budget cut $2.5 million in funding for the most vulnerable people in our community, the children in the physically disabled units in schools, with a consequence that those schools and those pupils will now suffer a loss of physiotherapy, speech therapy, and occupational therapy, to the serious detriment of those pupils?

Hon Phil Goff: What does the Minister say to the parents and the teachers of those children, who tell me that those children’s safety and well-being will be damaged by the Government’s cuts; and will he front up to schools like the Mount Roskill primary, intermediate, and grammar schools and tell the families who are affected why he has picked on them in order to disadvantage their already disadvantaged children?

Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Minister deem it to be more important to provide an extra $35 million to private schools, when most of the children at private schools come from advantaged backgrounds, than to take $2.5 million off severely disabled children, who are the least advantaged in our school system and in our community?

Comments

[Andy]

I dunno man?

[Principessa]

What were the answers Tony?

[Hugo]

Ah the good old selective commie pinko cut and paste. An extra $46 million of funding in the next four years will be given to students with special education needs. It will also free up funding for students with more moderate needs. More students with special education needs will have access to additional resourcing and support. what a wanker you are for using the special ed kids to try and get a headline.

[Clint Heine]

That's really sad Tony. Come on, you're better than that! Why would you deliberately do that?

[Tony Milne]

The answers are in the link. Basically 1) English states the Government has its own priorities, 2) suggest Phil is making things up, and 3)talks about education in general, but not funding cuts for disabled kids.

...

Hon Phil Goff: Why, then, did the Budget cut $2.5 million in funding for the most vulnerable people in our community, the children in the physically disabled units in schools, with a consequence that those schools and those pupils will now suffer a loss of physiotherapy, speech therapy, and occupational therapy, to the serious detriment of those pupils?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Clearly, the intention of the Government is that a group of students like that have the services they need in order to participate in education. Across the board the Minister of Education and the Government have made a number of decisions about priorities.

Hon Phil Goff: What does the Minister say to the parents and the teachers of those children, who tell me that those children’s safety and well-being will be damaged by the Government’s cuts; and will he front up to schools like the Mount Roskill primary, intermediate, and grammar schools and tell the families who are affected why he has picked on them in order to disadvantage their already disadvantaged children?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The first thing a responsible Minister would do would be to verify the claims made by that member, given his extravagant and misleading public claims in recent months.

Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Minister deem it to be more important to provide an extra $35 million to private schools, when most of the children at private schools come from advantaged backgrounds, than to take $2.5 million off severely disabled children, who are the least advantaged in our school system and in our community?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Any New Zealand child has the right to a 100 percent free education. The National Party made some commitments prior to the election to make a marginal increase in the subsidy for children who go to private schools.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very straightforward. It asked why the Minister decided to spend money on that group rather than on the other group. I do not think the Minister actually addressed that question.