English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:423;Page:18534] 
6.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: What criteria did Cabinet use to retrospectively determine eligibility for scholarship distinction certificates? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 The establishment of the new distinction certificate for 2004 was based on achievement in the excellence category of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 3 for those subjects in which the achievement pattern of New Zealand Scholarship was significantly lower than expected from the ability of the level 3 cohort. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister understand that it may be a mystery to students who wonder how Cabinet decided that out of 14762 level 3 English students—an exam completely separate and different from scholarship—nine were worthy of Cabinet’s new qualification; and when will he table all the papers that set out the criteria behind these political decisions? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The questioner is in error. Cabinet made no such decision. Cabinet made a decision based on the unacceptable level of variance that had occurred in some areas of the scholarship exam. In terms of the second part of the question I am aware that the Official Information Act request has already been submitted by the questioner and he will receive that information in due course. 
Helen Duncan 
: How many monetary awards are expected as a result of the 2004 scholarship exams? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: In the various categories—Top Overall Scholar where there are two; New Zealand Scholar Award; Scholarship Award; Top Subject Scholar; School Award; the new Level 3 Distinction Award—there are expected to be about 524 monetary awards. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Why did the New Zealand Qualifications Authority turn down the request of the Secondary Principals Association to be on the committee supervising the scholarship examinations and is this evidence of an unjustified belief by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority that it knows better than those at the grass roots? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I do not believe that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority position is as the member articulates. But I am advised that there was no clear expression of opinion against the New Zealand Scholarship exam from the teaching profession last year. Certainly an examination of the minute that was tabled yesterday confirms that. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Given that the Minister said yesterday that the outcomes of the scholarship exams were delivered by due process and that they will stand could the so-called internationally reputable NCEA scholarship exams create such controversy this year? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I think it would have been totally unacceptable for the results of the exam to be manipulated or indeed to be reset or re-marked or for standards to be changed. I have no doubt that the integrity of the exam will stand up now and in the future. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister understand why it is much more important that students know the criteria for his distinction certificate than that I get the Official Information Act request because they have to make a decision by Monday about whether to resubmit their papers for reassessment; and how can they make that decision if first they do not know whether they have received a distinction certificate—because no student has been told—and secondly they have no idea what criteria Cabinet actually used for giving them out? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I would encourage any students who are unhappy with the outcome of their scholarship exam to follow the normal resubmission and re-examination process. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does he believe that in the recent scholarship examinations the New Zealand Qualifications Authority achieved its vision statement of ensuring world-class qualifications for all; if as it would appear it has fallen far short of this why has its chief executive officer not been asked to resign? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No I do not believe that that vision statement was achieved but I think that the questioner would also acknowledge that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is only one of the many parties involved in the setting of that examination. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given 2 weeks of very adverse publicity about the scholarship exams will the Minister give an undertaking to the House today that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority will not charge the $30 reassessment fee to those students who resubmit their papers to be assessed again properly? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I will consider that matter but I would certainly not give that undertaking without taking further advice and looking at the wider implications. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Will the Minister concede that the introduction of the NCEA was done with strong cross-party support in this House and that indeed only one party the ACT party has consistently opposed the NCEA as a dumbing-down of standards; if so would he go even further and say to questioners that the fact Cabinet is now deciding who gets the scholarships was absolutely predictable? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am happy to answer some of those questions. I am happy to confirm that the NCEA was introduced with broad cross-party support. I certainly do not subscribe to the member’s suggestion that there is any dumbing-down involved. In fact the difficulty of this scholarship exam demonstrates quite the contrary. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that Auckland University gives significant weight to the scholarship results “for the purposes of ranking and selection into limited-entry programmes” which include law; and what does he say to students who have missed out on selection to limited-entry programmes because of the chaos in the scholarship results now that they know that even members of Cabinet thought the results were so wrong that they had to fix them? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I seek an assurance from the member that he is referring to this year’s policy and not to last year’s policy? I think he is quoting from something 12 months out of date. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member cannot seek that assurance at all. The question was properly asked and now will be answered. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am aware that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has already had extensive discussions with universities about the difficulties it is facing with regard to the scholarship exams. I have no evidence that the statement in relation to restricted entry has any substance. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table the Auckland University policy on the New Zealand Scholarship—which the Minister says has no substance. It sets out exactly how that university weights the scholarship results for the purpose of ranking or selecting students for limited-entry courses. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek an assurance about the date on that policy document because our information is that it does not apply to this year’s entry—that it applied to last year’s. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can ask the date of the statement. Could the member give the date of the statement and then I will take the leave. 
Hon Bill English 
: Yes—today. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am going to ask you please to take the  
Hansard 
 record of the exchanges over this question have a good look at it and perhaps make some recommendations as a result to the Standing Orders Committee. One of the questions that Mr Benson-Pope was asked brought the answer that he was not going to answer the question because an Official Information Act request had already been put in and the person asking the question in the House today would receive that information in due course. We all know how the Official Information Act works. We know that it is not unreasonable for people to request a whole pile of Cabinet papers and we know that they do come in due course. But the substance of the question asked here was whether the Minister knew how criteria would be applied. Clearly he does not and he does not want to tell the House that so he hides behind that Official Information Act request. That should not be allowed when a Minister is answering particularly as this matter is quite clearly one of public interest and it is in the public good to know exactly what Cabinet is up to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the member can make a submission to the Standing Orders Committee and I encourage him to do so. The Speaker is not concerned with Official Information Act requests. It is up to Ministers how they reply. This is not my role at the present time. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We understand that leave was just sought to table a document and the member has declined to make it available until he has removed some information from it. I think it would be appropriate that the document be tabled as it was presented. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. It is up to the member what he decides to do. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That member has just made a comment that is absolutely wrong. I take offence at it and I ask that he withdraw it. The messenger can actually corroborate what I did tell him about tabling of the document. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When offence is taken—and the member has taken offence—I want the Minister to withdraw. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I withdraw. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given that the member claimed that the document was dated today I would invite him to table the document immediately. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you going to continue to allow points of order from that member that are designed to make me look like I am behaving in a dishonest manner? Actually I will explain to the House what I said to the gentleman here. This is a web page. It actually does not have the link on it because it was printed out without the link on the top. I said to the messenger that I will table the document when the link is on it so that everyone knows it is genuine. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member has just made a very interesting admission—that it is the web page that is tabled today not the policy statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. As far as I am concerned a request was made—[ 
Interruption 
] As far as I am concerned when the member insists that his word be accepted it has to be accepted and it has been by me. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.