Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5607] 
10.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How much additional operational funding will secondary schools receive next year per pupil to assist schools with NCEA-related costs in relation to the funding announcement on 2 May 2003? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I announced a $78 million package recently and there will be more in the Budget for schools. The member will have to hold on until Thursday. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. In a previous answer and a previous point of order you said that with questions on notice it is reasonable for members to expect detailed answers. This is a very detailed question that asks what is the funding for secondary schools per pupil. It is based on an announcement that was made last Saturday. I think that it is reasonable for me to expect an answer. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Apart from the fact that my colleague would question the veracity of the last part of that statement the important point is that the final details on funding will be announced on Thursday and it is standard for Ministers to give those kinds of answers whether or not the question is put down. I invite those members to go back over  
Hansard 
 from Budget weeks of many many years when Ministers gave answers saying: “Wait till Budget day.” 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is quite different because this is part of an announcement that the Government made pre-Budget. The announcement was as I understand it made on Saturday—or it might have been made on Friday. But the point is that the announcement has been made and the figures are there. It is a fairly easy mathematical calculation for even this Minister to make. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If that was what the Minister said in his original answer I would be asking him to be more specific. But the fact of the matter is he said we have to wait till Thursday for any extra funding. That is a traditional answer relating to Budget announcements. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have sat through I think 12 annual rounds of questioning about the Budget. I hesitate to challenge your ruling directly but the fact is that the traditional circumstances are that the Opposition asks questions about matters that have not been announced. In fact it is only in the last year or two that there has been the practice of making a substantial number of Budget announcements before the Budget is published. I do not believe that it is correct to say it is traditional in this House that Ministers answer the questions in that way because that has not been the tradition at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I listened to the Minister’s answer. I thought he said he had made an announcement on Saturday and that there may be something further in the Budget. I thought that was an entirely appropriate answer. He is not forced to release details—he said “recently” actually—of Thursday’s announcement before the Budget. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have a two-page press statement made by the Minister on 2 May setting out the funding for each individual item. I think it is extraordinary then for you to rule that it is not reasonable. I even wonder why the Clerk would accept a question that asked how much does this mean per pupil per year. It seems that if Ministers are able to get all the free publicity associated with such statements and not be able to answer questions in the House it is an extraordinary ruling. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot rule on the actual answer given except to say that I heard the Minister say quite clearly that there may be something further in the Budget about this. At that point the answer then becomes in order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With due respect that pronouncement from you misses the point. We get limited opportunities to question the Government about its activities. A set of conditions is laid down in the Standing Orders that requires us to verify questions whenever we go down to the Clerk’s Office. We go over this again and again. It is abundantly clear that the Government has announced this funding. To get a simple calculation of how much this means per pupil to assisted schools should not be greeted by an answer that says “Wait till Thursday there might be more.” The Government has made an announcement. It presumably has stated what the bulk is and it is embarrassing for its members to find out that it is something like $1.60 per pupil. But Government members should be made to answer that in Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member asked a question. The Minister gave an answer. The member can now have supplementary questions on that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister advise the House how much funding there is per pupil for secondary schools in the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) funding he announced last Saturday? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As I said earlier firstly there was not an announcement on the Saturday. Secondly I cannot give the total amount of operational grant funding that will be used on the NCEA because that is a matter for schools. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question very specifically talks about the funding announcement on 2 May. For the Minister to start dancing around and playing semantics over whether it was a Saturday or a Friday or anything else is inappropriate. Further everyone knows that this Government has taken decisions off schools and centralised them back to the bureaucracy in Wellington. He must be able to give an answer on a per pupil basis. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He gave an answer and I judged it to be within the Standing Orders. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In your ruling you said that the information might come through in the Budget on Thursday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not know whether it will; I said that it could. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You excused the Minister answering the question on notice on the basis that it would. On that basis what action is available to me in the event that it is not? Because from my experience of being involved in a number of Budgets this information will not be available on Thursday or subsequently because it will be in a more detailed form than the normal announcements that are made in a Budget. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that information. But I too have been in a Cabinet and observed this happening and observed similar situations in previous years right through the time that I have been here. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to take this matter on a little further. This question talks about a measure of per pupil per school. Everyone knows that all funding available to schools is committed on the basis of per pupil. It is one of the things that this Government has hung its hat on. It is one of the things that Labour members run all over the countryside skiting about. It is not acceptable for the Minister to be supported by the Chair and fail to give an answer to the House in some sort of an obfuscation of his obligations to Parliament 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am not supporting the Minister. I am saying whether the Minister gave an answer. Having examined what was said by the Minister in his first and second answers I will give the member another supplementary question in relation to that and we will see how that goes. 
Jill Pettis 
: Would the Minister advise whether funding was available to support the implementation of the NCEA when he became Minister? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Despite the fact that it was due to start in 2001 no. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Can he confirm that the increase in operational funding for secondary schools is complementary to additional funding for the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and that both are specifically targeted at covering increased expenses associated with the implementation of the NCEA as identified by the select committee in its report? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes and I want to thank the chair Dr Ogilvy and others—sorry Bernie Ogilvy—for their very good work. I just say that it is a pity some members of the committee did not read their own report. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister please advise the House as in the announcement made on 2 May how much funding there is for schools per pupil for implementing the National Certificate of Educational Achievement? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The full amount of operational grant funding increases has not been announced and therefore I cannot. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister in the announcement justify giving the Qualifications Authority an extra $69 million on top of the Government’s approved increase in fees for parents of $40 million while giving schools just $2.4 million—a ratio of 50:1—and is that how the Government rates the bureaucracy versus the work done by schools in the education of our children? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There were some pretty simple questions asked by members of the select committee and they got some very good answers. The very clear message members gave was that the system and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority in particular had been under-resourced. I listened to my parliamentary colleagues and fixed it—unlike that member when he was Minister. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I note in the evidence before the select committee that secondary schools advised that the average cost of implementing the National Certificate of Educational Achievement was $50000 per school per year and that this funding package will provide less than $1000 per school per year so I ask what secondary school programmes the Minister expects schools to cut in order to be able to implement the national certificate? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member’s figures are inaccurate. He does not take into account the rest of the statement which indicates the things that will be paid for in schools by the National Certificate of Educational Achievement. He is a very foolish member. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will now withdraw and apologise for that unnecessary comment. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On the one hand when I ask for the numbers I am not allowed them. Then when I do a calculation based on averages with the limited information I have I am accused of giving inaccurate information. How can a member do his job? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: By reading the statement in his hand.