Hipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 17 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5891. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
11. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Is she confident that the information she relied upon in deciding on proposals for school closures and mergers in Christchurch was robust and reliable; if so why? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) 
: 
 No. The Ministry of Education has acknowledged that there was a small number of errors in the original data for the 215 schools. The ministry has assured me that the latest information given to schools last week was the best available. In addition I have asked the ministry to put in place a special team inside the ministry to be based in Christchurch to receive and review all new information. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Was she provided with or did she ask for a physical assessment of the damage at each of the schools proposed for closure or merger and the likely cost of repair prior to finalising her proposals; if not why not? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I was provided with a range of assessments that went from an exterior inspection depending on the age of the school through to a thorough physical site inspection as well as desk-based information and as well as advice obtained from independent contractors who are geotechnical structural engineers property managers quantity surveyors and others who are experts in property assessments. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very helpful answer but— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was not an answer to the question asked. I could see it coming. The Minister was actually asked whether she asked for evidence of physical examination of the schools involved in the proposals in respect of merger and closure prior to making any final decisions on those matters. I hope—I have paraphrased the member’s question but that was the guts of the question: whether the Minister asked for physical examination of those schools. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I think the question was whether I asked for or whether I received; I had both. In some cases the schools are of a particular age such that we know that they will not meet the earthquake standard. We got a range of assessments done all of which contributed to the range of proposals that were put forward. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did she ask? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Well yes for some and I received some. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think this time the Minister has indicated that yes she did ask. I suspect there is more ground for supplementary questioning there. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept that in your paraphrasing of my question perhaps we might have lost some of the meaning. It was a question of whether she asked for and received a physical assessment of the damage at each of the schools she has proposed for merger or closure. I think that is quite specific. It could be a yes or a no or whatever but we could at least get a bit closer to the actual question that I asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Clearly the member is not satisfied with the answer he has received. The Minister has indicated that yes she sought advice in respect of physical examinations of some of those schools. I think the reasonable thing is to ask further supplementary questions to dig into that answer rather than to endlessly pursue the one question. I think it is possible to dig further into that answer. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did she ask for or receive a physical assessment of the damage at some of the schools proposed for closure or merger and not at others; if so why did she not ask for that for all of the schools that she had proposed for closure or merger? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The schools that have had proposals made to them have proposals on the basis of a mix of information. That information does relate to direct earthquake damage but also it relates to the weathertightness of the buildings it relates to the geotechnical integrity of the land and it relates to the functionality of the buildings. It related to a range of issues all of which coming together related to the particular proposals that were considered. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept that the Minister is being helpful in her answers in giving probably more information than I am asking for but in doing so she is not actually giving me the information that I am asking for. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is asking pretty straight questions—I agree with that absolutely—but I think what the Minister has indicated in her answer is that for some of the schools involved in closure or merger information in respect of earthquake damage was not asked for because there were other matters that affected those schools like geotechnical stuff relating to the ground and existing weathertightness issues. If I am wrong there the Minister had better correct me. If the Minister wishes to correct me—if I am wrong there—she is welcome to. Was that a correct interpretation of what the Minister told the House? If it is not the Minister had better correct it. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I think I have given a comprehensive answer. There are 215 schools of which 42 have had direct proposals. Those 42 schools have different permutations of effect that have led to the proposals. Some have had direct earthquake damage some have had weathertightness issues some have had functionality issues and some have had strengthening issues. It is permutations of all of those that have led to the basis of the proposals. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think I am bit more confused now having heard the Minister’s extra answer. It is even further away from the original question I asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! National Party members know that this is a point of order. The member has in my view some legitimate grievance. He has asked very straight questions and he has not received very straight answers. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member has asked some very straight questions. When I interpreted the Minister’s answer and the Minister got to her feet I think she repeated exactly my interpretation of a previous answer. The dilemma is that the member has only a limited number of supplementary questions available. I think he has three more by my reckoning. It is unreasonable if Ministers avoid answering straight questions. On the previous question I said that the member had more supplementary questions to dig into it. What I am going to invite him to do because a certain amount of time has gone by now since he asked the question is to repeat his second supplementary question. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I will give it a go Mr Speaker. I am not entirely sure I can remember it. I think it was whether she asked for or received a physical assessment of the damage at some of the schools but not others that she proposed for closure or merger and if she received that assessment only for some but not others why she did not ask for it for all of the schools that she was proposing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I think—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! On listening to the question my interpretation of the Minister’s answer was exactly right—that in fact for some of the schools there were other issues involved and that is why she did not seek the information about earthquake damage. It seems to me that the Minister has in fact answered that question and I think we should go on to the next supplementary question. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Why did she state in her answer to my primary question yesterday that the categories “restore” “consolidate” and “rejuvenate” did not relate to individual schools when her written answer to exactly the same question stated that the criteria for determining whether an individual school was classified under one of those headings were “the extent of damage cost of repair demographic projections and opportunities for … renewal.”? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The learning community clusters have been categorised under “restore” “consolidate” or “rejuvenate”. The question the member asked yesterday mixed the individual schools and the descriptors of the clustered communities. So that was what I was trying to answer. There are for instance in the “restore” category 65 schools in I think about 12 clusters. They are not all exactly the same except that—[ 
Interruption 
] As I was saying there are 65 primary schools for instance in 12 clusters within the “restore” category. There are criteria that apply to the clusters that do not all apply to the specifics of the individual 65 schools but the 65 schools do have some or all of those criteria. It is that complex. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept that that was the Minister’s explanation that she gave yesterday but if that was the case yesterday when she answered the primary question it was also the case when she answered the written question. I asked her to explain why she gave different explanations in her answers to the written question and to the primary question and she has not actually addressed that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Members should respect the fact that there was a point of order being raised. The member is raising legitimate points of order because the question the member asked related to the difference between the answers to the oral question yesterday and to a written question previously submitted. The Minister indicated as I heard her that the difference was that some of the criteria do in fact apply to individual schools and that is why her written answer indicated that whereas yesterday she indicated to the House that her criteria applied principally I would understand to the clusters and she is arguing that it is complex like that. That seems to explain that difference. 
Nikki Kaye 
: Are there any other measures that she is putting in place to ensure that the sector parents and school communities can be confident that information received on these proposals is robust? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: In addition to the special team I have already mentioned I have asked the ministry to appoint an appropriate independent Christchurch person to oversee the consultation process to ensure that the views of parents and school communities are heard. The person will ensure that community feedback is incorporated in the ministry’s final advice to me. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Is she confident that the assessment of damage at each of the schools proposed for closure or merger provided her with an accurate basis for decision making; if so why given that Central New Brighton School was identified as having 13 damaged buildings when in fact the most damage the school can identify is two cracks in its paintwork; and why did she not ask for a physical assessment of all of the schools she was proposing for closure or merger prior to putting that proposal forward? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: As I acknowledged in my answer to the primary question there are some errors in the information that was originally used for the first proposals. That is why I have asked for a team to be set up to ensure that all new information that becomes available is used for this process. We are in a consultation. We are keen to learn of these issues. If the member has more helpful operational detail he would like to offer I will refer it to that special team. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Will the schools proposed for merger or closure be given extra time to consult with their communities given that they were given the ministry’s estimate of the costs to repair earthquake damage geotechnical data and demographic projections only on Monday—over a third of the way through the time that has been allowed for consultation—and given that secondary school students in particular are focused on their exams at the moment rather than on worrying about the future of their school; if she will not extend that consultation time frame why will she not? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: From the time the proposals were launched on 13 September and the time line that I set out in my letter to schools on 28 September it makes it clear that there are different phases available for this consultation through to April next year. There is overall a 6-month period. However it is a process. I am keen to listen to the views of parents and the school communities and I will take along with them the time that it will take. We—all of us—are interested in getting this right and getting in place the best possible education system for the Greater Christchurch region. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not entirely sure the Minister has answered. I asked her whether the time frame—it is a legal time frame that I was asking her about and I am asking her whether she is extending it now. That answer could be interpreted as either a yes or a no. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask her— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I think Ministers are at liberty to answer—in my view that question was answered. The Minister made it clear that where there are issues at a school that would take more time to sort out with the school more time would be made available. And although it may not have been exactly the wording the member expected I believe that that question was answered. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What I said was— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member cannot by way of a point of order now add to her answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect you sought to adduce an answer that the Minister clearly does not agree with. Nor do I and nor do most people in this House. We are sick and tired of having Ministers’ non-statements interpreted as other statements and those interpretations becoming the record of the House except that we cannot quote them because the words are from you not from the person who gave them—namely the Minister. I am sick and tired of it and I think the House and the public are. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I am very grateful to the member for his views. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to indicate that the Labour Party will not object if the Minister wants to seek leave now to correct the answer as interpreted by you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: To simplify this process if I in fact interpreted the Minister’s answer wrongly there I will give the Minister a chance to correct that. What I said in declining the member’s point of order was that the Minister had answered the question and that she had indicated that if more time was needed for some schools to sort out the issues that would be made available. That is my paraphrasing of what I thought the Minister said. If that is wrong I am inviting the Minister to correct that and answer the member’s question. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: What I said was that I have outlined an overall consultation time line of 6 months within which there are particular phases. So we have the opportunity to work our way through that. That is what I am saying. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I seek leave to table a letter that the Minister wrote in response to the five schools in Aranui where they specifically requested her to extend the time line because of the many difficulties that they face. Actually the answer is somewhat confusing as that one was— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Ministry of Education dated 16 October 2012 to the director of the Labour research unit responding to an official information request for the advice provided to the Minister prior to her making her decisions withholding all of the information. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.