Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:652;Page:1399] 
10.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Why has she scrapped the planned improvements to staff-child ratios which were to be implemented on 1 July 2009? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 As the member was advised at the Education and Science Committee this morning studies of staff to child ratios are inconclusive as to whether there is any one correct staff to child ratio for early childhood education and care. The focus of this Government is that additional money spent on early childhood services should be directed towards increasing participation amongst groups that have ingrained low participation rates. I was not convinced that the proposed increased ratios would meet this goal. 
Sue Moroney 
: Does the Minister agree with the Ministry of Education’s statement in its annual report that the quality of early childhood education is linked to the level of the qualifications of the staff; and can she assure New Zealanders that she will maintain and improve the use of qualified teaching staff in this sector? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The difficulty is that there was no plan from the Opposition’s previous administration to ensure that the additional teachers needed for this change were there. A lack of qualified teachers would threaten the sustainability of some teacher-led services and limit the development of early childhood education in areas of high population growth. 
Allan Peachey 
: What advice has the Minister received on the impact of going ahead with the planned ratio changes? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have received advice that suggests that the planned changes to ratios would have required an additional 1150 teachers. Despite the previous Government knowing about the size of the teacher injection needed to meet this policy by 1 July 2009 no plans were in place to ensure that this number of additional teachers would be ready. It is another case of promise and hope from the previous Labour Government. 
Sue Moroney 
: Which organisations representing parents or educators did the Minister seek advice from before she made the decision to scrap planned improvements to staff to child ratios in early childhood education? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The previous administration left the books in such a poor state that we have had to make some hard decisions. So we promised a reduction in the staff to child ratio for under-2-year-olds from 1:5 to 1:4 and we will deliver on that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very very direct question: “With whom did she consult—parents or educators?”. The question was not addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the Minister to answer the question. The question was very clear and asked which organisations were consulted. I think that the question deserves an answer. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: As I stated in my answer to the substantive question studies of staff to child ratios are inconclusive as to whether there is any one correct staff to child ratio for early childhood education and care. That answer is drawn from a range of advice. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again I ask you to ask the Minister to answer the question—not to repeat what she read out. Her answer should be which organisations she consulted. That is exactly what she was asked. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I think you have to be careful that we do not get into a situation where people asking questions use the Standing Orders process—or the letter of the Standing Orders to some extent—to ask for interpretations that simply cannot be given by the person answering or accepted by the person asking the question. In other words if we think about the answer that the honourable Minister just gave we see that she essentially said that any analysis is inconclusive. It may be Labour Party practice to consult on inconclusive analysis but that thought just would not enter the heads of most people. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will listen to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I am not quite sure what Mr Brownlee was trying to add to the discussion by way of that last point. If one is asked which organisations one consulted a perfectly legitimate answer is “None.” which I suspect is in fact the answer. That answer should be given. To go off into some fantasyland about what studies have been done and what they mean seems to indicate that the Minister is probably relying upon official advice. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I have heard sufficient on this point of order. It is an interesting point because the question was very clear. The issue for me as Speaker is how closely the answer relates to the primary question. The primary question asked why the Minister has scrapped planned improvements to the staff to child ratios. There is no reason to believe that the Minister could not know who was consulted on the matter. It seems to me that an answer to that question is deserved because there is public interest unless the Minister considers it not in the public interest to provide an answer and I will totally support the Minister if she says that. But I believe that the question is clear—it relates very clearly to the primary question. The House will listen to the answer. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I will repeat what I said in answer to the last question. I took a range of advice including from the ministry. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister has given an answer. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister could repeat her answer. We could not hear it; it tailed off at the end. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will invite the Minister to repeat her answer. I confess I did not hear the last part myself. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I said that I took a range of advice including advice from the ministry. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave to table a document entitled  
The Continuing Contribution of Early Childhood Education to Young People’s Competency Levels 
 in which the authors identify the importance of improving staff to child ratios in the sector. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member seeking to table an academic document? 
Sue Moroney 
: It is a research document. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I seek leave to table a document showing that the previous Labour-led Government increased early childhood spending by 281 percent from over $400 million— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would like to understand what the document is. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: It is a document put out by the previous Government just before the last election showing—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The tabling of documents is a serious procedure and it will be heard in silence. But I warn the member that if the document does not exist he risks misleading the House. Leave is sought— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are dealing with the first point of order. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I want to assure you I have such a document and I will be tabling it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It arises out of the ruling you just gave which was very interesting. I wonder whether I can inquire whether Mr Rodney Hide yesterday tabled the document that he claimed to have. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will listen to the honourable member. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Of course I did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to find a particular document which at the moment for some reason is not on my desk. I seek the assistance of the Clerk. Forgive me honourable members for taking time to find what I want to say about this. 
The honourable member has raised a very serious issue. I note the contribution from the Hon Rodney Hide that in fact he did table the document. I want to make this clear statement to the House. I remind members that the rules for tabling documents have changed. I have indicated to members that where leave is granted for a document to be tabled under Standing Order 368 it must now be provided to the Clerk by the end of the sitting day. Where a member seeks leave to table a document the Clerk should not have to discern whether the document that has been provided is in fact the document for which the House granted leave. It should be evident on the face of it. The purpose of tabling a document is to inform debate by making available to members documents that otherwise would not be available. Members cannot use the procedure for tabling a document simply to make a political statement. If members seek leave to table a document that does not exist they run the risk of misleading the House. I draw members’ attention to Speaker’s ruling 142/4 which says that if the House grants leave to a member to table a document and the member delivers a totally different document to the Clerk the member deliberately misleads the House and commits a contempt. 
Following the granting of leave to the Hon Rodney Hide to table a document yesterday Mr Hide provided to the Clerk a series of documents rather than a particular document. The practice of manufacturing a document after leave is granted does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders. I am aware that this is not the first time this practice has occurred. I am prepared to be lenient on this occasion as the rules have only recently changed. But in the future I will not tolerate the practice of using the procedure of seeking leave to table a document to make a statement and if leave is granted manufacturing a document to fit the leave after the event. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take it then that that means—as you have shown your practice to be—that no newspaper-type clippings should be tabled because they are readily available from other sources. Does that also mean that printouts of blogs which are easily accessible by the public would also be outside the requirements you have just outlined? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has raised a good point. Unfortunately I cannot rule on the type of documents that members seek leave to table. I have made it very clear I think in handling such leave being sought that where members seek to table press statements I try to elucidate the fact that it is either a printout from a blog or a press statement and let the House make its own judgment. There is nothing outside Standing Orders about that but the member raises a very good point. Members should desist from seeking to table press statements because it is not in the spirit of the Standing Orders that they should be raised. I will do everything I can to expose for what they are members who are seeking to table press statements but I cannot rule it out. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take it from your ruling previously that in your view Mr Hide manufactured those documents after leave had been sought and that that is a practice you will not countenance in future. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In fact on that occasion it was not that the documents were manufactured—genuine documents were tabled—but that leave was sought to table one document showing something. The House generously gave leave for that purpose. Instead of one document showing something being tabled a series of documents were tabled. If one went through them one may have reached the point that the honourable member was trying to make. Had leave been sought to table a range of documents then that would have been a different matter. 
That was not the first occasion that this has happened. I am aware of another member from another party seeking leave to table a document when it seemed to me that the document that was tabled at the end of the day had been generated on a computer during the course of the day and clearly did not seem to me to have existed at the time that leave was sought to table it. This is a serious issue and I want to stamp out this practice. It is in the interests of the House because it is just wasting the House’s time. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have to say that I take grave exception to your statement that I manufactured documents. I sought leave to table documents. The first document was a press release in the name of Sue Kedgley. How on earth could I manufacture—as you alleged in your statement—a press release put out by Sue Kedgley? I consider that to be very serious. I did not manufacture that document; Sue Kedgley produced it some time ago and I tabled it. The second document I tabled was a newspaper clipping reporting Metiria Turei complaining about the police operation on University of Otago students. Again I did not manufacture that document. The two documents showed precisely the point that I sought leave to table them for. What did I manufacture? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have allowed the member time because I understand well why he may be concerned by the way I have described the situation. Had the member sought to table two press statements there would not have been a problem. The House could then have made a decision about whether it gave leave to table those two press statements. I invite the member to show me his  
Hansard 
 to demonstrate to me that he sought leave to table two press statements. I do not believe that  
Hansard 
 in fact shows that. 
That is the point I am making: that the House was not given the opportunity to make a judgment about whether leave should be granted. The House was led to believe that a document existed showing two positions on the same document which is what the House gave leave to table. I am not prepared to debate the matter further. If the honourable member wishes to bring me his  
Hansard 
 showing that he sought leave to table two separate press statements then I will apologise to him in the Chamber. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. First of all I thank you for that very helpful clarification and ruling; I think it was very much needed. I suggest that if the House is to be clear about what it is giving leave to table then the title author and date of the document really need to be stated when leave is sought. Otherwise a member may well go and find a document that is broadly related to the topic and nobody can say that that was not the document he or she had in mind. I invite you to rule on that question too please. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable member makes a perfectly good point. She will notice that when members are seeking leave to table a document I allow more time for members to describe the document than perhaps has previously been the case because I want the House to be able to make a valid judgment about the document. She may also note that if it is not clear exactly what the document is I have been seeking further advice from the member to assist the House. The member makes a good point. If members could make it more clear exactly what the document is then we can be more certain that that document is what is tabled by the end of the day. I will do my best to support the honourable member in achieving precision in that area. 
I hope we do not take further time on this issue right now. I think it is important for the House and I appreciate the spirit in which members have taken this ruling. We should come back to question time though which we departed from. We were dealing with question No. 10 at the time but it is finished because leave was sought for a document to be tabled.