Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:12757] 
4.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What recent reports has he received on New Zealand children’s literacy? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen a report that shows that our 15-year-olds are third in the OECD for reading literacy. Another report shows that in 1996 approximately 11 percent of 9 and 10-year-old students performed well below average in oral reading but that has already reduced to 6 percent. Unfortunately we still have some progress to make in the adult literacy area. There is at least one dithering person who cannot even read the lines that Murray McCully writes for him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last part of that answer was not appropriate to the answer that was given. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that all our students develop essential literacy skills? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As indicated before we are doing well in literacy but we can do better. Our Government is investing $43 million in targeted literacy programmes this year alone. We are investing in high-quality teaching resources reading-recovery resources reading-recovery programmes and teaching tools such as asTTle. In stark contrast during National’s time in Government it halved the operational funding for resource teachers of reading— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a longstanding Standing Order that says Ministers are responsible for their portfolios. Twice in the answers to both the primary question and the supplementary question this Minister has gone on a “merandering” course of using them just as an opportunity for cheap political shots. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. In the answer to the first question there was a point that I ruled out. There was nothing wrong with what the Minister said in the first supplementary answer. He can compare Governments. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In stark contrast during National’s time in Government it halved the operational funding for resource teachers of reading cut reading-recovery funding in many areas and cut—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: An interjection was made then and the member will withdraw and apologise. He is very lucky he is not leaving the Chamber. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There are some challenges left as was shown by the “merandering” member for Nelson about a minute ago— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. That part of the answer is out of order. The Minister should know better. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. One presumes that it was on the tip of your tongue to invite the Minister of Education to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: If members on a question that asks about literacy invent words like “merandering”—instead of “meandering”—they have to expect some come-back from the Minister of Education. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have never heard of the word “merandering”. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Dr Nick Smith made a reference to me. He will now withdraw and apologise— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —and leave the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I think I was in the middle of a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is right and the member made an unparliamentary comment during your point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I want to say how angry the National Opposition is at the way in which this question has been handled by yourself from the Chair. Firstly the Minister chose to deliberately antagonise by straying into an area that was inappropriate and belatedly you pulled him up. Then he engaged in delivering a series of what he tried to convey to the House were facts but were wrong. When that was pointed out by my saying exactly what he was I willingly accepted your advice that I withdraw and apologise—that is the parliamentary way of doing things. Then there was the deliberate antagonising of Dr Smith who has every right to be upset because of the Minister’s reckless use of the truth in describing the period when he himself—that is Dr Smith—was Minister. It appears that there is a harsh standard applied to us and a very lax standard applied to Government members. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: With respect I say that we have started question time today as with the rest of the year with certain members of the Opposition—I need not point to them—believing that they can mount a verbal barrage if they do not like what is being said—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That member is the acting Leader of the Opposition. For that reason all that I will ask him to do this time is withdraw and apologise but I tell him he is on his final warning. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The second thing is we are not new to the debate in this Parliament to the extent that someone who has grossly made a mistake—unless he were referring to the famous Miranda case in the United States—is allowed to escape the consequences. That is part of parliamentary debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I required an unparliamentary term to be withdrawn and apologised for. The Minister did not use an unparliamentary expression; he was facetious in part of his answer and of course I then immediately pulled him up and said that that part of the answer was inappropriate and would be struck out. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is one other issue here that is important. Dr Nick Smith made an inappropriate comment about you and he was asked to withdraw to apologise and to leave the Chamber—and correctly so. But I remind you that as Chair of the House you also made a remark that caused Mr Smith some offence and unfortunately that is one of the reasons why he responded. It may be that you want to reflect on that as well. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will certainly reflect on it but I want to say that he was told to leave the Chamber because he had made an interjection while another one of his colleagues was on a point of order.