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: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:14901. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to theMinister of Education: How much of the over $1 billion announced for refurbishing Christchurch schools last week will come from money the schools were already due to receive in the form of regular property funding leaky buildings remediation and insurance payouts?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): As I said yesterday to the honourable member it is no secret that a combination of funding is reflected in the $1.137 billion investment in Christchurch including any insurance payout that is yet to be determined. However I want to be as helpful as I can. The current working provision we have is approximately $400 million of ministry baseline funding and over $700 million extra funding including any insurance payout. Only the most jaded and graceless would be anything but delighted with an investment of over $1 billion to provide a better education for the children and young people of Christchurch. This investment is a combination of funding—much like Mr Cunliffe’s grasp on the leadership some—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That part will not help the order of the House.Chris Hipkins: Did she receive a report in June last year that showed that the Ministry of Education had been planning before the quakes to spend up to $710 million over 10 years on Christchurch schools anyway; if so how on earth did she come up with the figures that she gave in her answer to the primary question?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I cannot speak to the specific June report from last year that the member is referencing but the Ministry of Education routinely makes provision for total school networks. If what we are being accused of is prudent money management then we are happy to be accused of that. We have continued to update the provision for Christchurch as more detailed information has come to hand and that is what has been reflected in the final announcement that I made.Chris Hipkins: Did she receive and consider up-to-date population and demographic projections—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am very close to the member and I cannot hear the question.Chris Hipkins: Did she receive and consider up-to-date population and demographic projections for the greater Christchurch area before making the final decisions that she announced last week—Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I can tell that the Minister cannot actually hear the question that is being asked.Mr SPEAKER: Is the microphone not working? [Interruption] Order! I have a suggestion. We will try it with a lot less intervention and noise coming from other seats in the House.Chris Hipkins: It would take all the fun out of it. Did she receive and consider up-to-date population and demographic projections for the greater Christchurch area before making the final decisions on the proposals she announced last week; if not why not?Hon HEKIA PARATA: We use continuously updated projections on demographic growth and more specifically on projections for actual school rolls.Dr Cam Calder: How will the recently announced investment in Christchurch contribute to raising achievement for all children and young people?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The investment we are making in Christchurch will give schools modern facilities including better access to the latest technology. Students will be able to take advantage of a citywide digital learning network that extends curriculum choice and allows them to study in ways that better suit their preferred learning style. Improving the quality of education so that more students can succeed is a vital part of the renewal of greater Christchurch. That is why we have invested over a billion dollars in the next 10 years to provide a modern centre of learning for the children and young people of Christchurch.Chris Hipkins: Are public-private partnerships being considered for the rebuild of existing schools that have not been considered for merger or closure as part of the renewal process; if so why?Hon HEKIA PARATA: They might be because we are interested in a range of procurement approaches. The reason why we might be particularly interested in public-private partnerships is that they take on the whole-of-life management of the property thus liberating the principal to focus on raising achievement of the students at their school.Chris Hipkins: Will communities have the ability to reject the use of public-private partnerships for the rebuild of their local school if they wish to; if not why not?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The purchase decisions that are related to over a billion dollars will be driven by what the best outcome is for the particular school community as well as what the most prudent use of taxpayers’ money is.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked—Mr SPEAKER: Can I ask the member to repeat the question. The Minister may not have heard it.Chris Hipkins: Will communities have the ability to reject the use of a public-private partnership for the build or rebuild of their local school; if not why not?Hon HEKIA PARATA: If a public-private procurement method is chosen for a community that community is fully involved in the design because the public-private partnership is there to build what is required not determine it.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps we want to give the Minister another go—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Raise the point of order.Chris Hipkins: Once again the Minister has not indicated whether or not communities will ultimately have the say in whether or not they want a public-private partnership.Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.Hon Gerry Brownlee: You ruled yesterday on the issue of “Yes” and “No” answers. The Standing Orders make it very clear that a “Yes” or “No” answer cannot be sought by a member. This question given that it has been repeated twice now effectively goes right to the heart of demanding a “Yes” or “No” answer.Mr SPEAKER: I thought before the Hon Mr Brownlee rose to his feet that the member has now had two goes at the same question. He has not got an answer about whether the community will have the right to reject and I accept that he has not but he has had two goes at it. On this occasion I think the Minister—certainly in the second answer—attempted to address the question. The question has been addressed. The member can use further supplementaries if he so wishes but Mr Brownlee is quite right.Speaker’s ruling 167/5 by Jonathan Hunt clearly says—and it was used yesterday—that a member cannot insist on an answer that is a “Yes” or “No” answer.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify that this is not a point of order relitigating a decision?Chris Hipkins: No it is not at all.Mr SPEAKER: Good. Then I will hear the point of order.Chris Hipkins: It is just a clarification from the ruling you have just made as to whether or not the standard that you are applying is that the Minister attempt an answer or address the question. The Minister certainly attempted an answer but it did not address the question.Mr SPEAKER: That is relitigating exactly the ruling I have given. In my opinion the member on a—[Interruption] Order! The Minister has now on two occasions attempted to address the question. My ruling which I had given the member which he is now questioning is that on the second occasion the Minister addressed the question.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Again I just want to clarify that the point—Hon Trevor Mallard: Well I am going to ask you to explain your answer and the reason is—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That leads to disorder. If the member wants to come and see me afterwards he can do so. I have ruled. If the member wants to raise a fresh point of order I will happily hear it. But if we are going to get the situation where we are having relitigation of points of order that in itself leads to disorder.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Repeatedly in Speakers’ rulings Ministers have been required to address the question. You appear to have set a new standard requiring Ministers to attempt to address the question. I am asking you whether that was deliberate.Mr SPEAKER: No what I am saying is that the answer must be relevant to the question. I make a call on every question that is raised in this House. I have ruled that the answer given by the Minister although not delivering the answer that the member Mr Hipkins wanted was certainly relevant and addressed the question.