Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 30 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2670. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: When did she inform Cabinet of the 2 FTTE cap on teacher losses and what is the estimated reduction in the savings she has budgeted from class size increases that this policy will have? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Talofa lava Mr Speaker. To the first part of the question as examples and concerns came to light early in the week a group of senior Ministers was asked to look at the transition options and spell them out earlier to alleviate many of the concerns raised. To the second part of the question none because the contingency fund for transition options had been set aside. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: How much funding has she set aside in the contingency fund for transition costs and is this enough to cover the cost of the two full-time teacher equivalent loss cap in each of the next 4 years? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: We have set aside between $10 million and $20 million in each of the next 3 years. We are unable to be more specific than that because of course rolls will not be cast until September as the member knows. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Will the amount of funding to be invested in better quality teaching be reduced as a result of her announcement yesterday; and will the commitment to work specifically with Christchurch schools remain? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: To the first part of the question no and to the second part yes. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: I seek leave to table a document that shows that only— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member must cite the source of the document first. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: It is from the Ministry of Education and shows that only 14 days have been set aside for Government consultation with the education sector in Christchurch to comment on the draft education renewal recovery programme. 
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. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did Cabinet sign off on the new teacher staffing ratios including the policy of merging technology staffing into the general staffing ratios prior to the announcement being made on 16 May? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Both proposals were taken to Cabinet and Cabinet approved them. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did she ask for or receive a list of the schools that would lose or gain more than one teacher as a result of the new ratios prior to taking the policy to Cabinet for approval; if not why did she not ask for that list? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: We have made it clear time and again that 90 percent of schools can expect to lose up to one or gain one full-time teacher equivalent and that 10 percent would have a greater impact. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With all due respect that was not my question. My question was around whether she had asked for a list— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to repeat his question. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. Did she ask for or receive a list of the schools that would lose or gain more than one teacher as a result of the new ratios prior to taking the policy to Cabinet for approval; if not why did she not ask for that list? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I did not ask for a list of the 2436 schools. It was based on forecast modelling of their rolls now and what they might be in the future. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you would allow me to repeat the question a third time because it still has not been addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I believe that the Minister has answered it because I think the answer was no. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not ask her about a list of all the schools. I did not ask her about the impact on all the schools. I asked her specifically to refer back to what she had referred to—the 10 percent of schools that would lose or gain more than one. That was what I was asking about—240 schools. She referred to all schools. That was not what I asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member’s point but my interpretation of the Minister’s answer was no and if I am wrong in that the Minister had better correct the impression gained. I heard the member’s question and the way that the Minister shaped her answer. I cannot dictate how Ministers should shape their answer but from the way that she shaped her answer it appeared to me that she was saying no to the member’s question. If I am wrong in understanding that from what the Minister said I invite the Minister to answer further but I do not think she— 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think your interpretation of the Minister’s answer was very useful. However it leaves the Opposition in an interesting position where the Minister’s answer is not clear and we are left relying on your interpretation of it because actually it is not what the Minister has said; it is what you have interpreted it as being. I actually think if that was what the Minister was going to stand up and say that would be fine but it is very difficult for us to go back and ask on a future date further questions of the Minister when in fact it is not actually her answer that we have got; it is your interpretation of it. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It is becoming quite a habit now for two things to happen. One is for the Opposition to assert that the answer given to a question was not an answer to the question asked and for there to be some interpretation given of it. I think that is becoming a problem frankly. But I would like to say in this case that the Minister said she did not seek a specific list of schools and then went on to explain that the macro policy was discussed at Cabinet level. That is a perfectly legitimate answer to the most salient part of his question which is all that can be expected. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The problem is—and I am sure that you will be able to interpret for the Leader of the House—that the Minister in fact did not refer to the 240 schools about which my colleague had asked but to the 100 percent the 2400 schools. If she had referred to the 10 percent of schools or used the figure of 240 and had said she had not asked for that list then of course we would have accepted the answer. The problem was that she said she did not ask for a list of 2400 schools.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I think this particular primary question was a very fair straight question on a matter of some public interest and that is why I have been quite careful to make sure answers are being given to this question—because it was an absolutely straight question seeking information. And the supplementary questions have been in pretty similar vein and that was why I invited the member to repeat his question. My dilemma is that I cannot go on indefinitely inviting members to repeat questions and that is why there came a point where I assisted by interpreting the Minister’s answer. I said that as I understood the answer given the answer to the member’s question about whether she had sought information on the list of schools that would be losing teachers—how many teachers those schools would be losing—the Minister did not give an absolutely direct answer to it and I accept that but my interpretation of her answer was that she was actually in fact saying no in a roundabout way. When I stood and said that that was my understanding of her answer the Minister nodded. So she has made it very clear to the House that that is in fact what her answer was saying. There is a limit to how much I can keep going back to Ministers and saying their answers are not clear. But it works reasonably well. I think that on this occasion members have got reasonably clear answers to their questions. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not relitigating it at all but just now asking going forward whether it will be in order for members from this side when we are submitting primary questions to submit them in the form “further to the Speaker’s interpretation of the Minister’s answer” because we have got an interpretation now that was not available without a nod and a wink to you from the Minister when you made it clear. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It probably does indicate the difficulty that we get into when there is too much generosity shown by the Speaker in trying to explain why a ruling has been made— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. Order! I am not going to take more of this. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: From that generous member. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! This is a very serious matter. The question asked was straight. I would have preferred the Minister to answer the question. And the answer seemed to be very clear—no she did not seek that information. That was very clear. Given the fact that the Leader of the House feels I have been too generous I invite the member to repeat his question. The House deserves an answer to what was a very straight question.  
Chris Hipkins 
: Did she ask for or receive a list of the schools that would lose or gain more than one teacher as a result of the new ratios prior to taking the policy to Cabinet; if not why did she not ask for that list? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: No I did not.