Norman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Norman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5124. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
2. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement “The Government wants all young New Zealanders to have the opportunities they need to succeed and reach their full potential”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has he seen the Cabinet paper on the social obligations for parents policy that states that 2200 parents will have their benefits cut in the first year and how does that help their children reach their full potential? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I understand that that is not actually what the Cabinet paper says. But I think that parents’ knowledge of those obligations means they are likely to comply with them precisely so that they do not put the welfare of their children at risk. In fact if they meet those obligations it will be positive for their children. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table the Cabinet paper that shows that 2200 parents will have their benefits cut in the first year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given that the Cabinet paper specifies that only “the most disadvantaged and vulnerable beneficiary families will be tested for complying with the regime” what will happen to their kids once their parents’ income is slashed? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government takes the view that almost all of those parents will understand that they are reasonable obligations because they are not so much obligations to the Government they are obligations to their own children. We believe that most parents—in fact almost all parents—would comply with those obligations. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given that the Cabinet paper itself admits that around 2200 parents will not comply with the obligations and hence will have their benefit cut is it really moral for the Government to punish children for the perceived sins of their parents? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In the first place let us get it clear that it would be the parents who are punishing their children not the Government. Secondly we take a more optimistic view than the officials’ view in the Cabinet paper. The Prime Minister’s view is that most parents—in fact almost all parents—are likely to comply with those obligations and that means better results for their children. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why does the Minister continue to make the point to argue that parents— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What’s going on here? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Is the member calling a point of order? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No I am asking a question. It is called question time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Sorry. I beg the member’s pardon but I did not see him stand and I called Dr Russel Norman. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given that the Cabinet paper itself says that around 2200 parents will not meet the requirements of this policy and will hence have their incomes slashed by the Government does he take responsibility for the fact that the children of those parents will go hungry because his Government will cut their income by 50 percent? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I believe that the presence of the sanction will encourage almost all parents except maybe those who are completely reckless in their regard for their own children to comply with the obligations. It is an obligation to their children in the first place and in the second place to the taxpayers who are providing almost all of the income on which those families are living. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Prime Minister able to stand by his statement as outlined in question No. 2 today but not stand by his statement as outlined in question No. 1 today? What is the difference here? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The difference is that he was not asked question No. 1. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He most certainly was asked question No. 1 which related to all the statements he— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I have not finished yet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard sufficient. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member will resume his seat. We are both of advanced years but we can move a little quicker than that. The question on the Order Paper today was not to the Prime Minister and that is the end of the matter as far as this House is concerned. The Minister’s answer was perfectly proper. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect the original question that went in from the leader of the Labour Party was to the Prime Minister. That has been clearly established. It was then changed and then withdrawn. I am making the point that the primary question that first came to the Prime Minister question No. 1 which was to do with a statement as in question No. 2 is in fact therefore the same. Therefore why is he able to answer question No. 2 today and not question No. 1 as originally asked? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister’s answer was a perfectly fair answer because question No. 1 today is to the Minister of Education. If the member wants to dig deeper he has further supplementary questions. But I cannot say to the Minister answering it: “Minister you mustn’t give that kind of answer. You must actually interpret the member’s question as meaning this.” I cannot do that. The Minister answers the question he hears and he gave a perfectly fair answer to the question he heard. There are further supplementary questions for the member to challenge that and I am sure he is perfectly capable of that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. First of all is there something going on here where the person in control of the sound system decides unilaterally that he himself will stop the conversation here? That has clearly been perceived outside this House. It is not a laughing matter; it is serious. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! When I get to my feet I think they know that members are meant to cease speaking and resume their seats and I suspect they are being helpful to members because if they do not do that they may not remain in the House that much longer. It has been a practice for some time that when Speakers are dealing with a matter the member whose microphone was on has it switched off. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Am I to understand that that is a directive that the sound system controller is in charge of—that he got a directive saying that or he just worked it out for himself? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Had the member been around during recent years he would have found that it has been a practice that has been going on for some time. I have not directed them whatsoever to do it. I think it is a practice that has developed to assist with the order in the House so that members can hear the Speaker and not other members when the Speaker is delivering rulings to the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect it is not the job of that man there or woman or whoever he is to make those— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member will resume his seat right away. I will not tolerate this nonsense any more. It is the Speaker’s responsibility to maintain order in this House and the member is just trifling with the Chair. I have invited the member to carry on his line of questioning. He has got supplementary questions that he can ask the Minister. If he wants to pursue a matter of interest he should do that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You are saying that we have got supplementary questions to clear this up but the problem is that we have all got limited supplementary questions here. I have a question at No. 11 and every supplementary question I use trying to find out what happened here I have lost when I come to question No. 11. That is surely not an answer. What I want to know is first of all whether or not the Acting Prime Minister was prepared to admit that the question first came to the Prime Minister when it was put in this morning at 10.30. That is the fact that I am trying to get out and I should not have to waste five supplementary questions to get to a specific fact on that matter. It was a very clear question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I accept the member’s right to ask the question absolutely but the question the Minister hears is the question the Minister is obliged to answer. That is why we have supplementary questions. I accept the member’s point that there are limited numbers but it is a matter of what is most important to the right honourable gentleman. The member has to focus on what is most important and use the questions as he sees fit. But I cannot say to a Minister answering a question: “Look the questioner really wanted this answer or meant that.” I cannot do that. That would be wrong for the Speaker to be doing that. I have to try to insist that Ministers answer the questions they hear. The Minister answered the question he heard. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given that his earlier answers acknowledged that there will be some parents—possibly up to 2200—who will have their benefit cut as a result of this policy how can it possibly be ethically acceptable to punish the children of those parents because the Government does not like the actions of those parents? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The point of the policy is to ensure that the parents take actions that are consistent with better prospects for their children in the first place and that secondly they meet their obligations to the broader community which is offering support for that family. The Government is planning to introduce sanctions as the member has pointed out. Those are fairly robust sanctions and the relevant department would ensure that every option is given to the parents to enable them to meet their obligation in the first place. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. Does the Prime Minister agree that the $6.5 million negotiated in Budget 2011 by Maori Party Ministers to expand family-based literacy programmes to all decile 1 2 and 3 schools is a positive step towards allowing those young New Zealanders in those deciles to have the opportunity they need to succeed and reach their full potential? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes and a feature of those programmes is precisely that the parents learn alongside the children. It is consistent with the Maori Party’s general line on policy in this respect: it prefers to discourage dependency and encourage independence if at all possible and the means of doing that should be consistent with the values of whanau rather than the individuals concerned. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: If the principal reason that the Minister is giving behind this policy is that parents in receipt of Government support should be obliged to send their children to preschool and other requirements then why will he not make the same demands of parents in receipt of Working for Families given that they also are in receipt of Government support? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In some respects it is a matter of the practicality of operating this kind of policy. It is simply going to be quite a challenge to operate it for all parents on benefits let alone parents who are in work. But secondly all the indicators show that once a family has work income coming into the household almost all the indicators for children improve significantly. That is why the other complementary part of this policy alongside social obligations is active intervention by Government to help these families get into work and strong encouragement for them to get into work. 
David Shearer 
: Will he commit to a Government obligation to guarantee that every child has a place in early childhood education and free doctors’ visits no matter where they live? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well in the first place if there is not an early childhood education place immediately available of course parents cannot be sanctioned for not meeting that obligation. [ 
Interruption 
] Well we do not need a guarantee because actually with growing demand the early childhood sector will respond as it always has and more places will be available. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to hear Dr Russel Norman’s question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: What kind of a monstrous Government punishes children because it does not like the actions of their parents and is not this Government policy—to paraphrase Exodus—a policy of laying the alleged sins of the parents upon their children? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would ask the question of what kind of a monstrous Government of which the Greens were a part up to 2008 did absolutely nothing—absolutely nothing—for the most vulnerable children and the most impoverished families in this country. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The answer given by the Minister was not an answer to the question that was asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member must resume his seat—the member must. I just invite him to go and read the  
Hansard 
. The question asked was somewhat provocative and the answer given was somewhat provocative but that is the way it works. 
David Shearer 
: Does he believe that access to the Reading Recovery programme is important for ensuring all young New Zealanders are able to succeed and reach their potential? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: For some young children that is the case. For some children actually Reading Recovery does not work; maybe they need access to other programmes. But in the end the measure of it is what those children are able to achieve and that is why it is hard to understand the confused Labour Party policy which cannot decide whether it supports measures of child achievement or not. 
David Shearer 
: Does he agree with the Hon Bill English that “Reading Recovery is a safety net for children who are struggling but half of this country’s lower decile schools for whatever reason are not making use of it.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes he does agree with him—the statement was made I think 6 or 7 years ago. The member advises the Prime Minister that the reason that a lot of low-decile schools do not use it is that it does not work for their kids so they use other programmes. 
David Shearer 
: Does he agree with the statement made by the Hon Bill English that “thousands of six-year-olds are missing their last chance to be caught in the safety net”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I do and that is one of the reasons we came up with the policy of national standards which the Labour Party will be forced to support eventually—within months—because it tells us which individual children are missing out on the safety net. 
David Shearer 
: Does he agree with the Hon Bill English’s statement about the lack of Reading Recovery in low-decile schools: “This leaves a huge hole and helps explain why New Zealand has one of the biggest disparities in reading in the developed world”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The one modification the member would now make to that statement is realising that Reading Recovery does not meet the needs of every child. If that was the case every school would be using it and every child would be able to read. But unfortunately about one in five of our kids is not successfully reading. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked whether he agreed with the statement and we are still waiting to know what the answer to that is. If we are going to have some exactitude in question time then let us have it in answer time too. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He was asked whether he agreed with the statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I hear the right honourable member and I thought I heard fairly clearly that the Minister did not agree and that he actually would modify it now. [ 
Interruption 
] He would modify it now. If the Minister says he would now modify it clearly he does not agree with what he said originally. I mean it is not that difficult. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect I do not think that really we are helping the process if you are constantly doing the interpreting for the Minister. I want to read in  
Hansard 
 what he said not what you said he said. That is how it works. It is actually a situation where tomorrow I cannot use his quote because he did not give the answer you did. So with respect could we have the judge staying on the bench? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I just invite the member to apply his mind. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that that was an unreasonable comment for you to make to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Speaker is very rapidly losing his patience. The member will resume his seat. I think some of the comments made were not that reasonable. 
David Shearer 
: Given that the Prime Minister disagrees with the Hon Bill English is he aware now that the proportion of low-decile schools offering Reading Recovery is currently lower than when Bill English expressed his concern before? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am not sure whether the Prime Minister is aware of that or not but the fact is that now that schools need to comply with national standards they have every reason to seek out the reading programme that works best for their children. It is probably the case that trying to force them all into one Reading Recovery - type programme is misjudging what works best for their children. 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Interjections should be rare and reasonable. I could not even hear for the barracking from the Labour Party. This is the barking and barracking—this is the shambles—I talk about Mr Speaker. Settle them down so we can listen to the answers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I ask the House to come to order. I realise it has been a testy start to question time because of the transferral of a question but we need to get on top of that. I think the House should just come to order. The member’s point is well made.