Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5626] 
8.  
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports if any has he received on the model for funding of independent schools in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The Labour-led Government provides a pool of funding for independent schools with the amount given to each school calculated on a per pupil basis. Labour in its 1999 election manifesto promised to cap this at $40 million per year. This provides for a range of independent schools such as schools run by trusts and by various churches including for example the Exclusive Brethren sect. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What reports has the Minister seen on plans to change funding provided to independent schools? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen reports from senior members of the National Party in 2003 and 2004 ruling out increases to any education funding. Then on 14 April 2005 Dr Don Brash announced that if elected National would “lift the State’s contribution to independent schools to a 50 percent contribution”. This means for example that the Exclusive Brethren schools would receive double their current funding—an additional $4.5 million over 3 years. That is not a bad return for $1.2 million invested in the National Party. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Will the Minister confirm that these announcements are simply another cynical and vindictive example of this Government punishing anyone who opposes it and can he explain to the 1300 children attending the Exclusive Brethren schools why he is singling them out? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We shall have some silence so that the Minister can be heard. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In answer to the first part of the question the only people we ever seek to punish are the National Party members. In answer to the second part of the question what people need to know from Dr Don Brash is where the diary entries are that tell us about the Exclusive Brethren church and where the notes are that tell us about the $1.2 million. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Is it not correct that because of the capped nature of the independent schools fund the Government’s allowing the 12 Westbridge schools to open to cater for Exclusive Brethren children since 2000 has in fact been at the expense of all other independent school students because their per capita rate has been reduced yet the Government has in fact made an overall saving of 1300 home-schooling allowances? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What rationale exists for a change in the policy for funding— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. If there is any more shouting and members cannot be heard they will leave the Chamber. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What rationale exists for a change in the policy of funding independent schools only? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There is no obvious policy rationale but there does seem to be a political one. It is clear that Don Brash and John Key met with the Exclusive Brethren at the time this policy changed. Don Brash now tells us he has the diary entries. He should tell us when those meetings took place and what was said and he should answer the question about whether the National Party changed its education policy on independent schools in return for $1.2 million. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Leaving aside the obvious shouting and interjections from the National front-bench members who were attempting to disrupt the Minister’s response to the question on many occasions directly unparliamentary language was used to describe the Minister that would normally have seen a member either asked to withdraw and apologise or thrown out. I think the combination of the two should see someone ejected now. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did hear the Hon Tau Henare—and there may well have been others—shout the word “liar”. That is unparliamentary. Would the member please withdraw and apologise for that. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I cannot because he is a liar. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well would you please leave the Chamber. 
Hon Tau Henare withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: As the person responsible for developing the education policy that provided the 50 percent entitlement for independent schools I seek leave to make a personal explanation in respect of the allegations that have been made by Mr Steve Maharey and to make plain that at absolutely no time did I meet with any member of the Exclusive Brethren in the development of that policy. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal statement. The member has asked for leave; is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I also referred to the Minister as being a liar and I withdraw and apologise for that. But I want to ask you Madam Speaker why you did not intervene when you knew that he was alleging blatant mistruths in the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is not for the Speaker to judge the quality of questions or answers. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. So now we are being told that my colleague Tau Henare has to leave the House because he will not rescind a comment he made—a comment that was truthful—against a Minister who is making untruthful statements and I am required in order to stay here to apologise to the Minister for saying something that was equally truthful. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I thank the member but will he please be seated. No the member was asked to withdraw and apologise for using an unparliamentary term. As the member well knows Speakers never comment on the truthfulness or quality of questions or answers. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to what Mr Brownlee just said. He said that what he had stated about Mr Maharey was truthful although having just withdrawn and apologised for it. In other words he repeated the assertion. I suggest he has to withdraw and apologise directly now without any qualification or he too will have to leave the Chamber. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is the difficulty and why we have the Standing Order that says in these instances one withdraws and apologises and says nothing else. Unfortunately the member is correct—the statement was repeated in the course of that. So for the sake of consistency Mr Brownlee would you please withdraw and apologise and do not make any further comment. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can I refer you to Standing Orders 371(1)(b) and 371(1)(c). Both are very explicit directions to the House particularly to Ministers who are answering questions. In no way at all did Mr Maharey’s answers comply with either of those requirements. He has brought into his argument inferences and imputations he has attempted to bring in a discreditable reference and he has by any measure been extremely reckless with the truth. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As the Minister who did the negotiations with the Exclusive Brethren in order to bring them into the system I had a number of discussions with them. I am not sure of the exact amount involved but it is several million dollars. I want to make it clear that the facts outlined as to the large amount of money that has gone to the Exclusive Brethren as a result of advice that I gave them which the Minister was speaking of previously were accurate. As things have turned out it is not something I am particularly happy with but it was done in fairness to them at the time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but this is why Speakers are not drawn into judging the quality of questions or answers—because it does lead to debate which is what that point of order was doing. The answers as I heard them were consistent with the Standing Orders. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not want to prolong things but I would ask you to please look at the  
Hansard 
 and read what Mr Maharey said on no less than three occasions about matters that had nothing to do with this question at all. It seems to me Madam Speaker that your claim that you will not judge the content of answers is somewhat rich in an environment where you have made a judgment by sending Mr Henare out of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As I understand the member he wants me to look at whether the answers related to the funding of independent schools. I am happy to do that. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Has the Minister seen the report by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research carried out in 2003—before Don Brash met with the Exclusive Brethren— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: In the interests of order would Mr Donnelly please just ask his question. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: —which demonstrated that if at the time the Government had increased the funding of independent schools from 30 percent to 46 percent it would have in fact saved money; and can he explain why since this report was written the Government rather than increase per capita subsidy levels has reduced them by more than 7 percent? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No I have not seen the particular report the member is referring to but I am aware of the argument that he is making—that is that putting money into the independent sector means that those students are not coming into the State sector. But the member will know and I know that he himself takes this view that we like countries such as Sweden believe very strongly in a public sector where all students regardless of their background can go to achieve as much as they possibly can. That is where we make our investments. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to know why you asked my colleague to desist from putting a point of history into reference when he said “before Don Brash saw the Exclusive Brethren”. That is a totally appropriate statement; it is very brief. Yet Madam Speaker you allow National members to carry on every darned day making every sort of allegation they like and to get away with every sort of behaviour unaccepted in most Parliaments. My colleague put something very briefly into reference and those members are so thin-skinned that they cannot take it. Frankly if they cannot take it they should not dish it out. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. In the context in which the question was being asked it appeared to me that it could be seen as being contrary to Standing Order 371 and it was important that the member just stick to the question so that the House could proceed. I have ruled on the matter Mr Peters. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My point simply is that putting it into perspective is what the issue is about. That is why the question phrased by Brian Donnelly in that way was in my view correct. It tells the public—and everybody is interested in this subject—just what the chronology of circumstances might have been. That is why it is important. Just because National members start moaning and groaning because they are found out for what they are is no reason for you to abscond. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I thank the member. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Brownlee if you wish to remain with us for the rest of question time please do not interject. I would just suggest to members then—and I take the member’s point and I think it is a valid point—that I think it was more the way in which the question was expressed that caused the problem. So could we please proceed; I am not quite sure where we were though. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I seek leave to table a speech made by Dr Brash given on Thursday 14 April 2005 in which he explains that an incoming National Government would lift the contribution to independent schools to 50 percent. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to Standing Order 116 on page 43. The Minister said that National in writing its policy to allow the 50 percent entitlement for independent schools was improperly motivated by something to do with the Exclusive Brethren. I wrote that policy. I never met with the Exclusive Brethren once in the development of that policy. I take offence at— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to intervene but this is not a point of order. I have already— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You bet it is! You bet it is a point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No it is not a point of order. Would the member please be seated. I have already undertaken after a legitimate point of order made by his colleague Mr Brownlee to look at those answers and to rule on them. Can we move forward. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I seek leave to table the report made by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research into the funding for independent schools which may well have been the source of the policy development for National. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.