Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 23 October 2012. Volume:685;Page:6038. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
6. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Will she extend the consultation timeframe for Christchurch schools which are proposed to be merged or closed to enable them to fully engage with their communities; if not why not? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) 
: 
 That is certainly possible. Over the next 3 weeks I will be spending the bulk of my time in Christchurch visiting schools and listening to parents and their school communities and if they present to me a case including about the extension of the time line I will certainly consider it. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: In light of that response will she take into account the fact that schools are being expected to consult with their communities during term 4 when they have exams school reports end-of-year prize-givings and other matters to attend to and will that be something she will take into account in allowing perhaps until the end of term 1 which is what a number of the schools have asked her to consider? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I will take into account all the issues that a school chooses to raise with me. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Does she stand by the statement in respect of building effective school networks that the ministry must give sufficient opportunity to the community to express its views; if that is the case then why has she so far declined communities the extension that they have said they need? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I will definitely take those issues into account. We provided 2 weeks’ notice of the proposals and a further 10 weeks for consultation in an overall 6-month period that is part of the 2½ years. So we will take those into account and we will ensure that schools have the opportunity to raise all the issues that they wish to raise. 
Simon O’Connor 
: Has the Minister received any reports on the current consultation time frame around the Greater Christchurch education renewal plan? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Yes I have personally received feedback on a range of things including that some schools do not wish for the time frames to be extended as they want certainty as soon as possible and would like to move forward. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Is it her intention that the relevant cluster can submit over the specific proposals to close or merge individual schools within the cluster; if so do they have to submit on those proposals by 7 December as well? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: No. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not understand the Minister’s answer. In saying no—seriously I am not playing games—I did not understand whether she was answering the first part or the second part. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The dilemma is of course that a Minister need answer only one part of a supplementary question and where a member really does need the information it pays to just ask only one part. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! That has been a longstanding ruling in this House. I have hauled that Minister up for not answering questions but she did answer a part of that question very clearly today. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Which part? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not for the Speaker to discern—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! It is not difficult. It is not difficult for intelligent people to ask a straight supplementary question if they really do want the answer to it. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept that Ministers have to address only one part of the question but it should not be too hard for the House to expect that the answer elucidates which part of the question is being answered. Otherwise it makes a mockery of the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Some responsibility falls on questioners as well not just on Ministers. If questioners are serious about wanting information they should ask a simple clear question. Then there can be no confusion. I cannot go back to the Minister when she did answer a part of that question and say: “Minister look I would like you to answer the other part.” I cannot do that. The Minister answered part of that question and as far as the Speaker is concerned that is where it ends. It is up to members in asking questions to think about it—to think more carefully in asking a question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have I think over time set a set a rules around straight questions that get straight answers that do not avoid the question and that do not involve politics. It seems to me that in allowing this approach from this Minister on a straight question on a serious issue you are diverging from what I thought was a very good set of rulings. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member knows I have tried when members ask simple straight questions. For some of his colleagues I have given a great deal of assistance to them to extract answers but I cannot say to Ministers that where a member actually asks two parts to a question they must answer both of them. I cannot do that because there have to be disciplines on both sides of the House. If members are serious about a piece of information they must seek only that information. With a straight question I assure the member I will try to get the answer. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it too much to ask that the House should know to which part of a question a simple answer is being given? Otherwise it is simply not intelligible and that is not too much to ask. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I think we are spending a lot of time—a lot of time—and actually wasting that time when this is a long-held convention. If people want to know what question the answer is for they should just ask one question not several. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member put it very well. We do not need to waste more time on this issue. I realise the member Lianne Dalziel is seeking to ask a further supplementary question. Does the member wish to raise a further point of order? 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 177/6 which you will know well and which says the Speaker is the Speaker not a quizmaster. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Which part of my question did the Minister answer “No.” to? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The last part. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I must be able to hear the member. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: If one of the clusters presents her after 7 December with a proposal that involves not closing or merging one of the schools that she had already concluded consulting on the closure or merger of will she reopen the formal consultation for those schools? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The cluster proposals are not required by 7 December so that question is not relevant. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is word for word the question that my colleague asked the person answering on behalf of the Minister last week. I have repeated the question for the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I believe on this occasion that the question is a perfectly fair question. The Minister has indicated that the cluster consultation is not required to be completed by a certain time but individual schools’ consultation is intended to be completed by that time. The question asked where a cluster proposal emerging from consultation after the point of time where consultation is completed for individual schools whether a proposal emerging from that could reopen an issue relating to an individual school. I think that was a perfectly fair and straight question and the Minister’s answer did not answer that because the Minister in her answer said cluster consultation is not required to be completed by that same date. That was not the question. The question was if after the closure for individual schools a proposal emerged from a cluster that affected an individual school whether the Minister would be prepared to reopen the issue surrounding that individual school. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The proposals relating to 215 schools in Christchurch are on two different processes with two different time lines. Thirty-seven schools have specific proposals that have been put to them and the time line on those is 7 December. Clusters have the opportunity beyond that because they involve more than the schools that have those specific proposals. Those cluster plans are not due before—they will be able to take into account decisions made in respect of the proposals for the individual schools. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order—I can anticipate what it is. That was not the question. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The question asked: if during the ongoing consultation that carries on beyond the specified date for clusters a proposal emerged that affected an individual school or a decision that had already been made would the decision possibly be reopened as a result of the consultation that took place further on in time in respect of the cluster? It is a reasonable question. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I am happy to take into account particular issues determined by the particular set of circumstances that relate to the particular school and the particular cluster. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable Minister. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you will now rescind the Speaker’s ruling to which Mr Dunne referred. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I think we are best to continue to move. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I seek leave to table in the House a letter addressed to the Minister from Aranui Primary School signed by past pupils and past staff of Aranui Primary School who were at their centenary over the weekend asking for an extension until the end of term 1 2013 and my covering letter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.