10. Question No. 10—EducationDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 10—Education10. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all his policies and actions around the review of vocational education and his work in the portfolio? Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Education: Yes in the context in which they occurred. Sarah Dowie: Will he give the hundreds of Southlanders who met him last Friday in Invercargill what they want and not include the Southern Institute of Technology (SIT) in the polytech mega-merger? Hon TRACEY MARTIN: On behalf of the Minister it is interesting; I'm not quite sure that's actually what SIT has asked for. I am aware that the Associate Minister of Education has met with Penny Simmonds and had a conversation one on one about the concerns that they have with regard to the vocational training discussion document and they have not yet put their submission in writing. They have not yet made clear and Ms Simmonds is working to do that so that the Government can consider all the challenges raised by SIT and by other polytechs throughout New Zealand while we have this discussion. Dr Shane Reti: When he replied to a large Invercargill audience last Friday that yes he would resign if the reforms were not successful what specific criteria will be used to assess a resignation? Hon TRACEY MARTIN: On behalf of the Minister first of all I would have to check the validity of the statement by the member as I do not have a transcript of the actual statements made by the Minister at that meeting. With regard to the criteria again I would have to go and seek advice about what those criteria might look like because success is different for different people at different times. SPEAKER: Order! I let the Minister run but I just want to make a brief comment about concerns that I have that happen both in questions and in answers where assertions are made that members either answering or asking questions are not factually accurate. When a member is reading something like that out we have to work on the assumption that they are factually accurate and to do otherwise is to doubt their word. The problem that I have—it's been the long tradition of Speakers not to refer people to the Privileges Committee for deliberate errors or what are perceived as deliberate errors made either in a response to a supplementary question by a Minister or in a supplementary question from a member. I must say that I'm getting quite tempted to move away from that practice because I have seen evidence from both sides of gross inaccuracy bordering on incompetence—either incompetence or deliberate misleading of the House—as part of the supplementary question process and frankly it's not good enough. So it's a warning to both sides: be accurate. Don't make assertions unless you can back them up. Thank you. Dr Shane Reti: How can the Minister present major reforms for industry training and polytechnics without doing any modelling on the cost of the reforms as confirmed in written question No. 4689? Hon TRACEY MARTIN: On behalf of the Minister again this is a discussion document. The actual final form of the reforms will not be known until we have taken on board the comments from exactly people like SIT and Otago. To do so before that would suggest that the Government has predetermined an outcome which it has not. Dr Shane Reti: By what specific measures does the six-week vocational education consultation period align with Treaty of Waitangi and Māori time frames for consultation? Hon TRACEY MARTIN: On behalf of the Minister I'm afraid I'm unable to answer that question. If the member would like to put it down in writing I'll make sure the iwi office responds.