English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:21834] 
9.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What percentage of students who applied to the NZQA for a review of their interim 2004 NCEA results had their final results changed? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Nine hundred and thirteen results were changed as a result of the review process. This represents .05 percent or one-twentieth of 1 percent of external standards sat. Of course just about all those who apply for a review when they get their booklet back—as they do in New Zealand unlike in other countries—on 913 occasions out of the 1.9 million they found an incorrect adding up of marks and in those cases of course just about all of them had the reviews accepted. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware of problems with the assessment of level 1 Technology where in some schools 100 percent of students failed the external assessment and when they resubmitted their portfolios for reassessment 70 percent of them had the result reversed and they subsequently passed? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: If the member had asked a question about that I would have come to the House with the information. The member asked about reviews which is quite different from reassessment. 
Hon Bill English 
: Would the Minister concede that if it is the case that where 100 percent of students failed an assessment and on reassessment 70 percent of them then passed this would be just another piece of evidence that the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) does not provide students with fair and credible assessment and when will he own up to that and do something substantial that will restore the credibility of NCEA assessment in the eyes of parents teachers students and the wider community? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is fair to say that NCEA Technology level 1 has had considerable problems right from the beginning and over a period of 3 years especially around the external examinations for it. If the member has not caught up with that in the last 3 or 4 years I am very surprised. 
Stephen Franks 
: What advice did the Minister receive before he decided not to refund New Zealand Qualifications Authority fees to students affected by the scholarship debacle when Mr Benson-Pope earlier this year told the House that it was under consideration? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I make two points. Firstly when people enter scholarship they do not pay an additional fee; it is part of the NCEA fee. Everyone whose results were changed as a result of resubmitting or reviewing were given a full refund—if there was any marked change. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm what he just told the House which is that he has known about problems with level 1 Technology assessment for 3 years and still at the end of 2004 it was such a shambles that where 100 percent of students were failed 70 percent of them then passed on reassessment; and why did he not do something about it sooner instead of sitting on his chuff for 3 years and leaving those kids without a pass after a whole year’s work despite teaching from excellent teachers who thought they knew the standards and are now totally confused? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As has been the subject of previous discussions—I think Brian Donnelly brought it up in the House probably a couple of years ago—there has been— 
Hon Bill English 
: You have still done nothing. How many years does it go on for? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I think the member should have a discussion with the member next to him as to one of the solutions for his problems. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You ruled earlier today that personal comments of that kind should not be used in this House. The Minister should be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I think that that goes both ways really—with the interjection and with the response. So I would ask both members to stand withdraw and apologise and then we will start again. The interjections made across the House provoked the answers. That is the point really. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have on occasion used unparliamentary language here and then was willing to withdraw and apologise if that was what was required. But I said nothing that breached the Standing Orders. I did not use any unparliamentary language. I simply interjected in a way you did not like. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Madam Speaker I ask you to reflect on whether asking a member to get advice from the member sitting next to him is in fact unparliamentary. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Exactly. I do not regard it as unparliamentary in the sense that it offended the Standing Orders but given the comments that have been made previously about exchanges across the House I do regard both those comments as being designed to provoke the response they got. Therefore to ask someone to stand and apologise seems to me to be the most appropriate thing to do at this stage so that we can start again. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect this House will be a thoroughly antiseptic society if those sorts of rulings stand from hereon in. All that the member was advised to do was to take advice from his colleagues which might help him and he has now been asked to apologise. Plainly those of us who have been in the House for some time understand that certain nuances atmosphere and mores operate here that are unique to this society. If we are going to kill those off then frankly the House will not be worth coming to—even though people want us to. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I do not need any help—please. I do not need any help on this. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I simply seek leave. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You seek leave. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the examination results from 1999 when I was the Minister of Education that show there was none of the bunkum and problems that have been caused by this Minister. That will get the record straight. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It does not actually deal with the point I was making. I take the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ point but the House is obviously not as robust as it once was. I have asked the member to withdraw and apologise please—this member already has—so that we can then continue again. 
Hon Bill English 
: Well Madam Chair I am not going to withdraw and apologise— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am not the Chair; I am the Speaker. 
Hon Bill English 
: Madam Speaker. I am not going to withdraw and apologise. You have no basis for asking me to do so. I have been here 15 years and when I breach the Standing Orders I withdraw and apologise and I have done so on a good number of occasions as have most members. I am not going to apologise for an interjection and I think you are making a mistake to set that standard in this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled. I would then ask the member to leave. I have made a ruling on this and the member obviously does not agree with it so I ask him to leave please. 
Hon Bill English withdrew from the Chamber. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think it is quite reasonable to ask what Standing Order Mr English breached. That Mr English simply interjected by saying to Mr Mallard: “And you did nothing.” does not seem to me to be something that is highly offensive to the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 140/7. Now can we please continue. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The problem we got ourselves into here—and with respect it is your entitlement to make the ruling you have with regard to Mr English but I have to say that I think it is extraordinary as was the requirement for Mr Mallard to apologise—happened when a leader tried to demonstrate that he was a leader and got up and made a very bad very weak and frail point. It had no merit from start to finish and he should have been told that. As a consequence one of his colleagues is now out and we have a new standard in the House which I think is thoroughly regrettable. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. We will move on. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I believe the difficulty that has arisen here is that I do not think you picked up the vicious innuendo in Trevor Mallard’s interjection. In this Parliament at times members do suffer from the innuendo of other members of the House. Often that is not picked up by the Speaker but that does not make it any less painful for those on the receiving end. What troubles me is that I do not believe that you picked up the vicious innuendo. There was absolutely nothing wrong with Bill English’s interjection whereas Mr Mallard’s answer was wilfully intended to cause hurt. It was vicious even though I must say it was cleverly done in order to cause pain in a way he thought you would not notice. He succeeded and I think it would be unfortunate if you let members get away with that kind of thing but punish the innocent party. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I draw the member’s attention to the fact that that interjection has been withdrawn and apologised for. Therefore it cannot be reopened at this point. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have just had 10 minutes or so on points of order which arose from a simple reason—you sought for two members to withdraw and apologise. They both—Trevor Mallard and Bill English—then contested your ruling. Now that is not allowed under the Standing Orders. If the Speaker rules that members are to withdraw and apologise then that should happen. There is no opportunity to contest a Speaker’s ruling on that and that is actually where we have spent all the time. If the House does not back the Speaker when she says something like that we will get ourselves into a mess—as we just saw. So if you ask members to withdraw and apologise I ask that they do so and not argue with you. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his contribution. Can we move to question 10 if there are no more questions— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have just asked us to refer to Speaker’s rulings 140/7 which is a 1996 ruling by Speaker Tapsell. It states: “While interjections have traditionally been permitted during debate they are not in order at all during question time. If interjections become disruptive to the member asking or answering a question the Speaker will intervene.” Are you now ruling that we are to have no interjections at all during question time? The response from Mr Mallard has caused this side of the House enormous offence. What Mr English has been asked to withdraw and apologise for and—because of his insistence that it was not outside the Standing Orders—what he has been ejected from the House for is asking the Minister how long this would go on or words to that effect. Are you ruling that we now cannot interject at all? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am not ruling that. Interjections will of course not be out of order during question time but the Speaker is entitled at her discretion to require members to withdraw and apologise. I had already warned the House about interjections before that particular exchange across the House. In my judgment both of those interjections did in fact provoke disorder. That is the basis for the ruling. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Before all of that happened the Hon Bill English had asked a question about level 1 Technology NCEA results. He asked whether the Minister had known of problems there for the last 3 years and if so what he had done about it. As a result of what has now occurred the Minister never got around to answering the question. I was interested in the answer and I think the people of this country are entitled to an answer to the question. I ask that the Minister now answer the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please address the question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Intense professional development for technology— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Before we come to that answer I note that the question is actually set down in the name of the Hon Bill English who has been asked to remove himself from the House. He has not asked the full range of supplementaries that he had intended asking. We ask that he be allowed to come back to the House to finish that line of questioning. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Under normal circumstances I would have agreed to that but it seems to me that Mr English’s comments directed at the Chair as he was leaving were grossly disrespectful. I had made a ruling. I was entitled to make that ruling within the Standing Orders. He contested that ruling as he left the House. I am perfectly happy for someone to ask supplementary questions on his behalf and to find out what he wished to ask. But he had already asked that question and if the Minister wishes to respond to it then he may do so. I will not take it from National’s question total. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the parliamentary telephone directory. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has sought leave to do that. Is there any objection? I am not quite sure of the member’s purpose. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It will become clear in a minute. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is clear what is about to happen because it has happened twice before. The member will seek a series of points of order designed to force you to reverse a previous ruling. I raise two points about that before we start on this charade. The first is that the member who has been required to leave was extremely lucky in my view not to be named. His comments on the way out—more than one; he made about four or five comments—would have led to his being named by Speakers on any number of previous occasions that I have witnessed. I thought you were actually quite generous in that respect and Mr Brownlee would be wise not to push the matter too far. Secondly I remind the member that there are in fact Speakers’ rulings about wasting the time of the House. That in itself can be considered to be out of order. A continuous raising of a trivial series of points of order as I suspect the member is about to start can be regarded in itself as being out of order and could lead to action on your point. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I think the House has to look at the matter of seeking leave. Seeking leave is an important parliamentary privilege and members can use it. But there seems to be a notion on the part of some members that the Speaker does not have a brain. Of course the Speaker does and the Speaker can tell when a person who is seeking leave is actually challenging the Chair. We have now had three I think incidents involving repeated calls seeking leave to table the Standing Orders which we can all tell is actually a challenge to the Chair. It might be advisable for you to advise the House that you are capable of working out when you are being challenged. If a member does that you can then require that member to withdraw and apologise for having challenged the Speaker’s ruling and if the member does not do so—and the Leader of the House is right—you are entitled not only to ask that member to leave but also if the challenge is repeated to name that member. The reason I raise this now is that I really would like members who are abusing the right to seek leave as a way of challenging the Chair to think through that strategy. It is not as clever as they think it is. I have known previous Speakers who would have named a member for using it. I hear people saying that we have never had the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister thrown out on the same day. They are wrong. I saw Gerry Wall do it. I assure members that a number of Speakers would not have allowed what is going on to happen. I support very strongly the rights of members to seek leave to table documents but I regard it as a challenge to the Chair when members get up and seek to table the telephone book or the Standing Orders. That is clearly a challenge to the Chair and from my point of view it is an offence to the whole House. I think that if it happens again you should ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. I remind members to look at Speaker’s ruling 19/8 which makes the point the members have made: “Constantly raising trifling points of order is itself disorderly.” Perhaps while members are reflecting on that we could continue. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With your indulgence I would like to speak to the point of order currently on the floor raised by Michael Cullen. I certainly accept the points he makes although I did not like the particular suggestions that were of a somewhat threatening nature which should be reserved entirely to the Chair. I also respect the point raised by Richard Prebble particularly his suggestion that a member should be required to withdraw and apologise for challenging a ruling from the Chair. I ask you to consider the exchange that took place in the House earlier in the afternoon when you did in fact require both a very senior Minister and a very senior member of the Opposition to withdraw and apologise for comments they had made. You then went on to suggest to the House that the nature of those comments was not helpful to the order of the House and that you would not be permitting them to go any further. I would then argue quite strongly that in missing the innuendo clearly intended in Mr Mallard’s comments made in answer to Mr English there was a challenge to the Chair. I think that if it takes a rather silly series of points of order such as the one I had just begun to embark on to make that point then it indicates that the House is not in a tidy shape. So while I fully accept that pursuing this matter would be offensive to you and to the House—and we will not be doing so—we do make the point that where challenges to the Chair come from this side of the House it is usually because of a particular grievance relating to a matter that has occurred earlier in proceedings. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but I would just remind the member that I did ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise and he did. That was the end of that matter. If any offence was taken it was dealt with in that way which is appropriate in terms of the Standing Orders. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The area of technology education at secondary schools is one that has been fraught ever since the new curriculum was introduced some years ago. As a result of that this Government has put intensive investment into professional development both directly and as a result of the G3+ settlement and audit so that teachers can better understand the curriculum and the standards.