English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 3 to Minister 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 3 to Minister 
[Volume:617;Page:13313] 
7.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: Does he regard Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology spending at least $80000 on inducements as a breach of interim funding guide rules; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 I am advised that the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology is not in breach of the interim funding guide but that this remains a point of discussion between the Tertiary Education Commission and the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology as part of the review of all of its 5.1 programmes currently undertaken by the commission. I also add that the funding guidelines that I first introduced in 2002—there were no guidelines under the National Government—are being reviewed so that the rules can be made even clearer that no inducements of any kind will be offered to students from any source of funding. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister recall telling the House that no one should make a profit out of education and in light of that comment what action will he take when he finds out that Brylton Software which is part-owned by senior staff of Christchurch Polytechnic received $5.44 million for the Cool IT programme? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I have said before in response to the implication behind the member’s question that there is some irregularity here if the member can table some evidence of that I will always take it seriously. In the meantime I have an investigation into the Tertiary Education Commission and that organisation going on as it should be. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What evidence has been provided of inappropriate practices on the part of institutions offering community education courses? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There have been a lot of allegations and whenever there is evidence provided of possible inappropriate practices we investigate thoroughly and completely. If I get more evidence it will be treated in exactly the same way. In the meantime we have capped spending in community education and I will announce details of that tomorrow. In 2005 all funding for community education will also be subject to profile negotiations where the commission looks at the contribution of the institution to the tertiary education strategy. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister now telling us that he regards a scheme whereby Christchurch Polytechnic was paid almost $800 for a single person enrolling when that $800 covered the cost of one CD and $15 million was paid over for about 20000 of these CDs and a company that produced the CDs was part-owned by senior staff of the college who were involved in negotiations and that company received a payment of $5.4 million for producing the CDs as something that normally happens in the polytech sector? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It does not normally happen in this particular situation. I am advised by the Tertiary Advisory Monitoring Unit that the people whom the member has accused of being involved in negotiations were not involved in negotiations because of the conflict of interest. I say to that member that I take this seriously unlike the previous Government of which he was a member because we have an investigation going on. That is the proper way to do it and I will not listen to his silly allegations. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are interjections in the second person. They will cease immediately. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite the Minister to reconsider the information he has given to the House while he has the opportunity. In answer to a written question he advised me that the parties I have referred to—that is senior staff in Christchurch Polytechnic who are part-owners and directors of Brylton Software—withdrew from negotiations. Today he has said they took no part in them. This is a vital point in a discussion on conflict of interest. I suggest the Minister clarify his comments. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that I am advised the meaning of the word “withdrew” is that they withdrew because the conflict of interest was apparent and therefore they did not take part in negotiations. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a Companies Office search of the relevant company behind these accusations which proves that its ethnic ownership is not Maori—hence the reason it is not being investigated. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that if this were a Maori organisation the Government by now would have mounted a full-scale independent investigation because the events amount to a $15 million scam but just because it is Christchurch Polytechnic he is waving it past? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Can I tell the member who is so excited as calmly as I possibly can that I take all these issues seriously. Whether it is a Maori organisation or a polytechnic we ensure that they are investigated fully by the appropriate authorities—that is the Tertiary Advisory Monitoring Unit or the Tertiary Education Commission. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will do this relatively briefly. I think it is very important when interjections are being made about protecting people including their mates that they be rejected by you. There has been a history in this Parliament of people being caught looking after their mates. There is a member not currently sitting opposite but a member of this Parliament who was involved in that—a National Party member. 
Hon Bill English 
: What’s all this about? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Murray McCully was caught looking after his tourism mates. It is absolutely on the record. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Be seated! I say to Mr Mallard that that was not helpful at all. I ask him to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My colleague might have been less than felicitous in his way of phrasing the point of order but he was making the point that an accusation was being cast on the other side about looking after mates to members on this side against the Minister. That should be withdrawn. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is absolutely correct if any member was doing that. I heard a comment but I did not see who made it. That member will be leaving the Chamber. If any member made that comment I ask him to stand and withdraw. I heard someone make it but I did not see who. I was looking over the other side. If nobody says who made it then we will proceed. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I made that allegation— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Then the member will withdraw and apologise. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: For the purposes of Parliament I withdraw— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. The member knows he cannot do that. He will withdraw and apologise or he leaves the Chamber too. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And apologise. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why would I be apologising— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will now leave the Chamber. He is just trifling with the Chair and he knows it. 
Gerry Brownlee withdrew from the Chamber.