﻿Mr SPEAKER: Question No 8, Dr Jian Yang.
[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! To both members,
if you wish to have that conversation would you please go outside to do so.
Question No 8, Dr Jian Yang.
Dr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister of Education:
What recent announcements has she made regarding NZ’s education legislation?
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):
Yesterday I launched a public consultation document updating the Education Act 1989
and invited NZers to have their say on the revamp of education legislation
that will make it fit for the future.
I encourage anyone—including the Opposition— interested in helping to create
a world-class education system to participate. All of the information
is online and easy to access and use, even for youth.
Dr Jian Yang: How important is the update of the Education Act 1989?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: When the reforms known as Tomorrow’s Schools were introduced in 1989
they transformed the way education was administered. For the first time local communities,
through their boards of trustees, not a centralised bureaucracy,
became responsible for running schools. That will remain.
However, over the past 26 years the world has changed, as have the demands on our system
and the responses that are required. This Government is clear
that raising the achievement of all students should be the centrepiece
of our Education Act. We know more now than we ever did about where kids are
within our education system and we are concerned to ensure they get it
through a lever of—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to give my last warning to Ron Mark.
If he is going to continue to barrack like that then he will not see the end of question time.
Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will draw your attention
to an incident in this House a little while ago—
Mr SPEAKER: Can I just have the point of order please?
Ron Mark: The point of order is about the inconsistency of rulings from the Chair—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!
The member will resume his seat if he wishes to stay. Throughout the last two questions
there has been a constant barrage from that member, making it very difficult
for me to hear what was going on. I give the warning quite seriously to the member:
if he wishes to stay I suggest he quietens down; if he does not wish to stay
then I can assist him very quickly. Supplementary question—
Ron Mark: Point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: No, I have dealt with the matter.
Ron Mark: A new point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: A fresh point of order?
Ron Mark: Fresh point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: If it—correction. But just before—the member will take a seat.
I am happy to entertain a fresh point of order, but if it is in any way
relitigating the territory we have just covered I will then be asking the member
to leave the House immediately.
Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does the ruling still stand
that we should not read our speeches?
Mr SPEAKER: There has never been a ruling that you must not read a speech.
It has certainly been an encouragement for people not to read speeches.
Very often through question time, as the member will observe as he spends more time
in this House, Ministers do read from a scripted answer.
Ron Mark: Speaking to the point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: No. We have dealt with the matter. The matter—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Supplementary question, the honourable—[Interruption] Order!
Can I just remind Ron Mark that that is the very last warning.
Supplementary question, Chris Hipkins.
Chris Hipkins: If the review of the Education Act is so important—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: A fresh point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just a minute.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I don’t need a ruling.
Mr SPEAKER: That is exactly what the member said last time on an occasion like this,
but I still want to deliver it so he then cannot accuse me of acting precipitously.
I have dealt with this matter.
If the member wants to raise a fresh point of order I will hear it, but if I consider
it is in any way relitigating the territory just covered by his colleague Ron Mark,
then I will not hesitate to ask the right honourable member to leave the Chamber.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: The Standing Orders are very clear about members being referred to
if they are not in the House. When you gave your reply to Ron Mark you used the phrase
“if he spends more time in the House”. That is not allowed by the Standing Orders—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat.
I said “as he spends more time in the House”. As he becomes more experienced
with the Standing Orders and watches question time more often, he will have—
[Interruption] Order! Ron Mark will leave the Chamber.
Ron Mark, would you leave the Chamber.
Chris Hipkins: If the review of the Education Act is so important, why has she allowed
only a 6-week consultation period for NZers to have their say,
which coincides with senior exams, school prize givings, end-of-year results,
tertiary education enrolments, and the end of the school year?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is because the period that we are consulting comes after 2 years
of consulting by the task force on legislation and regulations. It comes after about 40 national
and regional fora at which the proposed changes were discussed, and it comes
at a period of time that having consulted with schools they have identified
as a period in which they welcome consultation.
Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Would Tracey Martin please settle down.
Tracey Martin: Point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: No. [Interruption] Order! The member will resume her seat.
Again she is stepping in the same territory where one of her colleagues has just been.
There was a question asked. It deserved an answer. I am trying to listen to it.
If the member wants to take a supplementary question, do so, but do not interrupt
the proceedings of my House and expect me to comfort the member. Supplementary question—
Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: If it is a fresh point of order I will hear it.
Otherwise the member will get exactly the same treatment if she is relitigating
the territory I have been through.
Tracey Martin: Is it still appropriate for a member to take offence
when told to shut up across the House by another member?
Mr SPEAKER: I did not hear that, but with the amount of interjection from the member
I am not surprised. It is unhelpful— [Interruption] Order!
The member will resume her seat. It is not helpful for any member to my right
to interject that way, but I can understand why a response may have been loosely given
in that respect, because the level of interjection from the member was unacceptable.
Chris Hipkins: Why will not this review include the issue of the support that schools—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can the member please start the question again.
If he is interrupted by a member—a particular member—of NZ First she will be leaving.
Chris Hipkins: Why will not this review include the fundamental issue of the support
schools receive from her department and whether or not it is inadequate, when the proportion
of frontline staff at the Ministry of Education is declining and she confirmed yesterday
that her ministry is planning to cut up to $23 million due to Budget pressures?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: This review is about the Education Act 1989. It sets out specifically
what its themes are. If the member is interested in other elements in the wider education portfolio,
then he should ask a primary question on those.
Mr SPEAKER: Question No 9, Chris Hipkins.
Subtitles by the Amara.org community