Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:666;Page:13842] 
7. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does she stand by all of her statements in answer to oral question No. 8 yesterday? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Education 
: Yes. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How does she reconcile her statement to the House yesterday that she did not say that applause while she was on stage at the New Zealand School Trustees Association conference was a sign of support for her national standards with her statement to the House on 24 August 2010 that “… at the annual conference of the New Zealand School Trustees Association the president of that association who along with her executive has been extremely supportive of national standards got a standing ovation.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The second statement is factually correct. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House could not hear the answer. I apologise to the honourable Minister and ask him to repeat the answer. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The second statement is factually correct. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why then did she go on to say on 24 August: “That was a very good sign that the 600 representatives at that conference were supportive of the executive’s stance.”—that is its stance on national standards? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Because she believed that it was. It is interesting to hear that member making much of what might have happened at a conference. I can recall his fronting up to public meetings of a thousand people who opposed his policies— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not necessary to answer the question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How does she reconcile an ovation for Lorraine Kerr’s 21 years of service as a trustee with the Minister’s claim that that ovation was for Anne Tolley’s national standards? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Minister did not claim that it was an ovation for her national standards. She said that it was an indication of what is factually correct and that is broad support among boards of trustees for national standards. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Going back to a previous supplementary question why then did she say that that ovation for 21 years’ service was “a very good sign” that the 600 representatives supported her national standards? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I presume it was because the Minister believed that that was the case and there is plenty of evidence from around the country that it is the case. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: When she said yesterday that the 20 letters she has received this year—to June—from boards of trustees were not expressing any discontent with the national standards had she read the letter of 4 February which states: “I’m not alone in having other concerns about the proposed changes the lack of a trial the threats to school boards the un-thought-through demands on busy teachers and who this will benefit.” or the email of 19 February which states: “I am now of the belief that there is enough wrong with the new standards that you must take action to correct them. Rolling them out as currently proposed is wrong.” or the letter of 23 February which states: “There are ramifications from these”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the questioner has made his point. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: From what the member read out there were people who had concerns questions and advice for the Government. None of them actually said they were opposed to the national standards in the way that the Labour Party is. I understand that Labour is committed to abolishing national standards. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek leave to table the letters to the Minister of Education this year which she has released to me under the Official Information Act all bar one of which show opposition to the national standards. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the member had just got up and asked for leave in the normal way everyone does then we might have granted it. But he used the opportunity to make a speech. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am aware that some Speakers have been very strict on this putting real constraints on what can be said when leave is sought to table a document. Rather than doing that I have taken the approach of limiting the kinds of documents for which leave to table can be sought but also of making sure the House is aware of what the documents are. In this case because of the questions I guess that members would have been aware of what the documents were. I believe that members do need to be able to describe the documents to the House and I would rather have it that way; I have put constraints on which documents leave can be sought for but a reasonable description when leave is being sought to enable members to make up their minds is I think not unreasonable. That is why I did not intervene at that point. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek leave to table letters and emails to the Minister from between 1 January this year and I think 13 May this year being the total of those that were released to me as being from members of boards of trustees or from boards of trustees during that period. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It seems to me that that is the same leave that was sought a moment ago. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is but it is in the terms asked for by the Minister who denied it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: OK. To assist the House not to waste any more time on this I will put that question. Is there any objection to that leave being granted? There is objection.