English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:615;Page:11420] 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Was his spokeswoman correct when she said that he “kept Cabinet colleagues apprised of the situation” with regard to school closures or was the Prime Minister correct when she stated: “When colleagues start to see reports coming in from across the country they say what’s happening? And then it appears there was a programme of network reviews and that was something that hadn’t been anticipated”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 While I kept Ministers and MPs in the affected areas informed I did not formally report to Cabinet on the programme of network reviews. I have however shared with colleagues the member’s promise to put 650 schools under review which he announced a month ago. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware of the Prime Minister’s claim that this issue has never been dealt with by Cabinet; and does he believe that claim when this piece of paper addressed to him shows that the matter was considered by the Cabinet expenditure committee as long ago as November 2001? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes I am aware of the Prime Minister’s statement and I want to make it clear that that paper dealt with the process for dealing with reviews not with their number or shape. 
Helen Duncan 
: What options are available to communities in areas currently under review that are unhappy with the current proposals? 
Rodney Hide 
: Vote National! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Did Rodney Hide say that? I think Rodney Hide said to vote National. That is a party that has given up is it not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And that is what happens when people interject before I call for an answer. Mr Hide has had his one warning of the day. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have said I will agree to independent mutually agreed mediators if communities in the 11 school review areas want to appoint them. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Are the decisions that the Minister has made regarding future schooling in the Kawakawa-Moerewa area set in concrete or is there still the opportunity for submissions to enable some fine-tuning—not going back to the status quo—of the Minister’s proposals? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. I think as I indicated in answer to the last supplementary question that there is some room for fine-tuning. I want to make it clear to the member that I have made only proposals not decisions and to have someone else look at them could be a good idea. I think that if the member and Mr Carter did that together we would probably get a very good result. 
Rod Donald 
: Will the Minister given that he refuses to extend the moratorium to the current 11 review areas remove as a sign of good faith the threat of his proposed school closures and suspend ministry negotiations on those closures in the areas that agree to an independent mediator; and will he make available the resources necessary to ensure that all areas not just the wealthy ones can engage in that mediation process if they wish? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have said to people that I would like to get on with the mediation if they would like to do it. I have heard that in a number of areas there has been a lot of pressure locally for people not to stick their heads up regarding voluntary mergers and I will take that into account in making the final decision. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Does the Minister consider that his Cabinet colleagues were kept sufficiently informed of the programme of network reviews noting that section 3.13 of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 states: “As a general rule Ministers should put before their colleagues the sorts of issues on which they themselves would wish to be consulted.”; if so why? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Has the Minister been called to the principal Minister’s office to explain his failure to inform his colleagues of the extent of the school review programme; if not why does he think that the principal Minister has now overruled his school closure programme? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it might be appropriate to refer the member and the House to the political cartoon of a couple of days ago. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He can tell us what the cartoon was. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I did not see the cartoon. On reflection I want the member to say a little more. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is quite clear that the Prime Minister has made clear her displeasure to me. I think it is fair to say that she has indicated over a period of time that she has not been happy with the approach. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I seek leave to table that particular cartoon. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Bill English 
: How does the Minister feel about the Prime Minister’s new-found reluctance about the school network reviews when they have been going on for 2 years with extensive publicity and were almost certainly discussed extensively by the Labour caucus because the network reviews will put several of those members out of their seats? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I want to make it clear as the Prime Minister has that her views on school reviews are not new-found. 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the Minister now release as he was asked to do on 22 July 2003 all Cabinet and Cabinet committee papers and minutes relating to the network reviews or will he continue to obstruct the Official Information Act like the civil servants in the Immigration Service did? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question is in order. The second part is out of order. I will have just the first part answered please. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have just watched that exchange which I have to say looked like a direction being given to the Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Bill English 
: Hang on Mr Speaker. I am giving you an opinion about it. I am not asking you for a ruling. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Then that is not a point of order. You cannot ask for an opinion; you can ask for a ruling on a point of order. As far as I am concerned I heard a comment from Mr Mallard and took absolutely no notice of it. I can give the member that assurance and I can say that I was reflecting on the question. The last four or five words were not in order but the rest of the question was in order and I said to Mr Mallard that he must answer it. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked to release that information on 22 July 2003. A letter of 15 August 2003 simply overlooked the request for Cabinet and Cabinet committee papers. The discussion about the use of the Official Information Act has been topical recently and I do not see anything out of order about drawing a parallel between a recent well-publicised event and the Minister’s behaviour in trying to hide this information. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot impute improper conduct to another member by saying that he did not observe the Official Information Act but I will allow the member to rephrase his question. Perhaps he could restate it. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled in allowing him to ask the question again. 
Rodney Hide 
: Mr Speaker I rise in your defence. There is a proper way to address the Speaker in this House and it is to take a point of order and raise it. It is not for the Minister of Education to slouch in his chair calling out to you in an attempt to give instructions. If he wants to make a point he should rise to his feet take a point of order and address you in the correct manner. I think he owes this House and you an apology for his behaviour. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I always appreciate the member raising points of order and offering me advice but on this occasion I took absolutely no notice of the comments the Minister made. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware of the Prime Minister’s claim that this matter was never dealt with by Cabinet and so that we can verify that claim will he now release—as he was asked to do on 22 July 2003—all Cabinet and Cabinet Committee papers and minutes related to school closures and network reviews; and if he is not going to release them why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am quite happy to table—and in fact will do so straight afterwards—the paper that goes to the essence of the member’s question. The paper is one I think of 9 November 2001 and it makes clear the new funding structure for network reviews but there is no indication of the number or scale of them. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister now conceding that the Prime Minister has been right all along—namely that he did not keep his colleagues informed that he bit off more than he could chew and that the process was wrong—and how can either his colleagues or those communities facing 71 school closures have any confidence in his capacity to now carry out his task even-handedly and with any competence? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Prime Minister is always right. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was going to table something? The Minister is seeking leave to table a document. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not think I need to do that for an official document do I? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: At this point you do. Please read the Standing Orders. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise this point for clarification. During that exchange Mr English used an analogy or a comparison of some information that he was seeking from the Minister and he alluded to another case on which the Ombudsman has written a report. You ruled that he was not able to use that case as a comparison— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Not part of that question. 
John Carter 
: —in regard to his question. Does that mean we are not allowed to use comparisons where there are like cases? That would limit the ability to ask questions or indeed to give answers. I wonder how far that ruling now goes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. It was the way he put the actual question that was out of order and not the fact that you cannot refer to that particular issue. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: On reflection I seek leave to table the document in which the information I indicated to the House is contained. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Parliament is now in a difficult situation. That document was requested under the Official Information Act 7 months ago. It should have been produced when the Minister wrote back to the National Party on 15 August 2003 and now Parliament is put in the position of being asked to allow leave for him to table a document that he has wrongly withheld under the Official Information Act. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not have anything to do with the Official Information Act. The fact the member has raised by way of point of order is in fact a statement; it is not a matter for a point of order. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask for further clarification. You have ruled that Mr English in some way offended or that his question—or part of it—was not appropriate. I wonder whether you could give a further explanation of that because I now do not understand what part of Mr English’s question was out of order. I wonder whether you could help me and perhaps the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was out of order when he made an accusation of improper conduct. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hope you will go back and make a considered ruling about that. I referred to a document that has actually been tabled in this Parliament and my reference was much milder than that used by the Ombudsman when he was describing the behaviour. If you are to say that some things are able to be stated in a document tabled in Parliament that are improper for an MP to refer to then I think that is something that needs a considered ruling—not something done off the top of your head. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is a senior member and I respect the point of view he has raised. As a consequence I will do what he requests.