Hipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13829. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to theMinister of Education: Is she satisfied that she is fulfilling all of her legal obligations under the Education Act 1989; if so why?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yes because I am working hard to raise achievement for five out of five kids.Chris Hipkins: Did she ensure that all available information informing her proposal to mergePhillipstown School and Woolston School was provided to the schools when the consultation period required under the Education Act began; if not why not?Hon HEKIA PARATA: As this judgment is still within the appeal period and one or other of the parties may appeal it would not be in the public interest for me to comment.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order and it will be heard in silence.Chris Hipkins: I did not ask in any way about the case that is before the court or the court’s judgment. I asked her about a consultation process under the Education Act that she initiated and whether she felt she had—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I thought in the question the member asked he referred to two schools beingPhillipstown School—Chris Hipkins: Yes.Mr SPEAKER: Well then that is the crux of the court case so the Minister’s answer was quite in order.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify—you are not in any way questioning the ruling I have just given?Chris Hipkins: No no. It is some clarification.Mr SPEAKER: Let us hear the fresh point of order.Chris Hipkins: The clarification is that I did not ask her to comment on the court’s ruling. I asked her about decisions that she had taken. I am not asking her to say whether she agrees with the court. I am asking her whether she is satisfied with the decisions that she made even prior to the court considering the matter.Mr SPEAKER: And I accept that the member is now raising exactly the same point of order again. The Minister said that because it was involving those two schools and that is the court case the Minister because it is still within an appeal time does not feel it is within the public interest for her to answer further. That is a satisfactory answer for the Minister to give.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister may or may not appeal this court case but the matter is not sub judice at all until she does. That is the legal point and the Speaker should have regard to it.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need assistance on that particular point. The Minister did not say it was sub judice. What she is saying is that there is a possibility of appeals by either party and on that basis she does not feel it is in the public interest to further answer. That is a legitimate answer for the Minister to give.Chris Hipkins: Were all of the schools proposed for merger or closure in Christchurch provided with detailed information on the likely cost of her proposals as against the retention of the status quo during the formal consultation period required under the Education Act; if not why not?Hon HEKIA PARATA: As the matters the member is inquiring about are contained by the judgment and it is still within the appeal period one or other of the parties may appeal and it would not be in the public interest for me to comment.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There were several dozen schools in Christchurch that were proposed for closure or merger. The court case that we have dealt with relates to only two. My question related to all of those schools. If the Minister does not want to address the issue that may possibly be subject to a court case she could still address the rest of the schools proposed.Hon Gerry Brownlee: This is a serious matter. It does involve the rights of a community to question decisions around this sort of activity. It is also the right of the Minister to determine what is in the public interest when it comes to answering these things. There should not be anything said in this House that might prejudice either position. That is the position the Minister has taken and that is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from Grant Robertson.Grant Robertson: The question that my colleague asked was not one that actually engaged at all with the proceedings before the court. He asked a question about facts seeking facts from the Minister. The question did not ask for an opinion; it actually just asked her about a broader set. I wonder whether you could get my colleague to re-ask the question and we might be able to take the matter forward from there.Mr SPEAKER: In regard to the very first supplementary question I have no doubt that my decision was absolutely right. I accept the point that Chris Hipkins is making. This one was more general. At the end of the day I am not going to be responsible for the answer that the Minister gives. She has said it is not in the public interest to answerit—on a number of schools in Christchurch—which frankly I find a surprising answer but that is the answer given. I think the best way forward is that I will allow the member an additional supplementary question for him to use.Chris Hipkins: Were all of the schools proposed for merger or closure in Christchurch other thanPhillipstown School and Woolston School provided with detailed information on the likely cost of her proposals as against retention of the status quo during the formal consultation period required under the Education Act; if not why not?Hon HEKIA PARATA: As the question relates to issues dealt with by the judgment which is still—Hon Annette King: No it does not.Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes yes they are. It is still within the appeal period and one or other—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am having trouble actually hearing the answer. Can the Minister please repeat it?Hon HEKIA PARATA: As one or other of the parties may appeal it would not be in the public interest for me to comment.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question specifically excluded the schools that have taken court action against the Minister’s decision. It is not unreasonable to ask her to answer for her actions as required under the Education Act in relation to a matter that is not before the courts that has not been put before the courts and as far as I know that no one is going to put before the courts.Mr SPEAKER: To move the matter—[Interruption] Order! To move the matter forward I am going to ask the member to ask the question again. I would hope that an informative answer could be given to the House.Chris Hipkins: Were all of the schools proposed for closure or merger in Christchurch other thanPhillipstown School and Woolston School provided with detailed information on the likely cost of her proposals as against retention of the status quo during the formal consultation period required under the Education Act; if not why not?Hon HEKIA PARATA: As the matters the member inquires about are relevant to the judgment which is still within the appeal period and one or other of the parties may appeal it would not be in the public interest for me to comment.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I presume that the Minister is using Standing Order 383(1) in order to say that the answer she is giving cannot be given consistently with the public interest. We are faced with an enormous difficulty on this side of the House if Ministers are simply going to invoke that no matter what question is asked. I know that you have taken the attitude that you have given the member an additional question in the hope that the Minister will answer. I do not find it acceptable under the Standing Orders that you will now potentially move on from that. The Minister is obliged to give an answer that addresses the question. She cannot simply invoke the public interest randomly. It has to actually relate to a specific case. This does not.Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for his point. I can only ask the Minister in answering the question to be informative to the House. At the end of the question it is over to the Minister to decide how she answers the question. If she decides to invoke the public interest then that is where the matter lies. I cannot insist on a particular answer from a Minister. I would have hoped that the answer would be more informative.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Although you cannot insist on a particular answer it is your job under Standing Order 383 to ensure that the Minister addresses the question. Nobody is asking for a specific particular answer. Mycolleague asked the question which could be addressed in the public interest. He excluded the matters that you were concerned about earlier. It is your job to require a Minister to address a question. The Minister has failed to do that.Hon Gerry Brownlee: The member’s question was a clever way of getting in exactly the same position and trying to put the Minister in a difficult position. [Interruption] Look yes he is one of your more talented members—no doubt about that. However if you go to Speakers’ rulings 172/5 right through to Speakers’ ruling 173/5 there are all of the rulings that the House has in front of it with regard to questions and answers and it is very clear that the Minister has to make a decision about what is in the public interest. A Minister who is potentially engaged in further court action will often decide that it would not be fair to either party to progress the answer being sought by the Opposition.Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member. If I could refer back to Grant Robertson’s point where he correctly pointed out that it is my job to see that the Minister addresses the question in my opinion the Minister has addressed the question but certainly not to the satisfaction of the member asking the question nor indeed to Grant Robertson’s satisfaction. [Interruption] Order! The member has invoked an answer that says it is not in the public interest to answer it. I do not find that at all helpful to the House or informative but the Minister has addressed the question. I invite Chris Hipkins to continue his line of questioning.Chris Hipkins: Is she satisfied that all of the schools in Christchurch on which she has made decisions to close or merge as a result of the formal consultation period other thanPhillipstown School and Woolston School were provided with all of the information they needed to have a meaningful say in the consultation process?Hon HEKIA PARATA: As consultation was the subject of this judgment which is still within the appeal period and one or other of the parties may appeal it would not be in the public interest for me to comment.Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Given her responsibility under the Education Act is she satisfied that all the reporting obligations of TeKōhanga Reo National Trust and any subsidiary entity have been met?Hon HEKIA PARATA: No.Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Subsequent to that answer has she received any advice from ministry officials or her advisers regarding inappropriate spending associated with TeKōhanga Reo National Trust; if so what action will she take?Hon HEKIA PARATA: No but notwithstanding that the action I have taken is to call an urgent meeting of the national trust which will be held this evening.Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Have any matters been brought to her attention regarding TePātakaŌhanga requiring her to investigate the use of public moneys intended to achieveMāori language learning outcomes?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am aware of the allegations in respect of TePātakaŌhanga. That is one of the reasons why I have requested an urgent meeting and it will be held this evening.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When the Minister in answer to so many supplementary questions replied that it was not in the public interest on what basis to do with the Standing Orders constitutionally or legally was she making that statement?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I was making it constitutionally so that we would not breach the separation of powers between the judiciary and Parliament and I was making it legally on the advice that—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. No separation of power matters arise here—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’m making my point of order—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need to hear it from the member. Will he please resume his seat. The member asked on what basis the Minister was giving those answers. The Minister gave a perfectly adequate answer to that.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister is required to be terse and to the point and the point had to be in respect of the three issues put to her. If there is no court case pending or even contemplated to the best of my knowledge how could she possibly answer the question that way?Mr SPEAKER: By opening her mouth and giving the answer that she did.Chris Hipkins: Does she stand by all of her school closure and merger decisions in Christchurch other than her decision to mergePhillipstown School and Woolston School; if not why not?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a point of order.Chris Hipkins: If the Minister is able to answer that she stands by her decisions why is she not able to answer questions on the reasons for that on which all my earlier questions were?Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has now been given an answer that he is satisfied with this time and he is then going back and questioning earlier answers that the Minister gave. We have moved past that. I agreed with the member—I thought those answers were less than helpful to the House. They are the answers that have been given.