3. Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatū) Link to this
to the Minister of Education
What representations did the Minister of Education make to her Cabinet colleagues in the light of her commitment that teachers would not be included in provisions of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill?
Hon Christopher Finlayson Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not raise a point of order when the Leader of the Opposition misread his question, but the Minister of Education has misread his question. He should read what is on the sheet.
Hon Darren Hughes
Mr SPEAKERFor members who did not pick it up, the misdemeanour was very minor. The member read “the Minister of Education” instead of “the Minister”.
My question is to the Minister of Education—with a slight sense of irony. What representations did the Minister make to her Cabinet colleagues in the light of her commitment that teachers would not be included in the provisions of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill?
Hon Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know the member is unused to asking questions, but I think it would be good to get off on the right foot by not including an ironic expression and an epithet when addressing a Minister.
Colleagues, I think the good order of the House would be well-served if members would just try to follow the procedures correctly.
What representations did the Minister make to her Cabinet colleagues in the light of her commitment that teachers would not be included in provisions of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) Link to this
As the member should know, Cabinet discussions are confidential.
The honourable member should be asking a question, not making a statement. I ask him to do that, please.
The honourable member knows that when the Speaker is on his or her feet members should be silent. I say to members that I think a little latitude is appropriate when members are all in new roles here. I ask the Hon Chris Carter to please ask a question.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The proceedings of the House these days are televised, so everyone will have seen that, prior to your standing, the Hon Chris Carter sat down. Apropos a certain ruling early last week, I think you would have to rule that he had given up his opportunity to take this matter any further. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I think it will be very helpful. I was going to seek leave for the member to be able to ask his question.
There is no such provision for the member to do that. I think the Hon Chris Carter sat down because he thought I was going to stand when there was disorder. I call on the Hon Chris Carter to please ask a question.
I would like to ask the Minister why she wrote in the October edition of the New Zealand Educational Institute’s magazine, Rourou—
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. First of all, I think Mr Gerry Brownlee should run a seminar for the Labour front bench on asking questions. But, once again, the previous Minister failed to ask a question. To say “I would like” to do something is not asking a question.
Technically, the honourable member is correct. I call on the Hon Chris Carter, please, for the good order of the House, to take the matter seriously and ask a question. Thank you.
Why did she write in the October edition of the New Zealand Educational Institute’s magazine Rourou“We do not expect a trial period to be included in the collective agreement, in which the majority of teacher and support staff employment relations are based.”?
The member might like to look at the September edition of New Zealand Educational Institute’s Rourou magazine, in which the union itself showed that it well understood that our policy did not exempt teachers, when it stated that if new employees take up an individual employment agreement, they would presumably be subject to the 90-day probation period. This, of course, would still apply only if the individual employee agreed to the trial period.
Allan PeacheyHas the Minister of Education had any reports on whether the new probationary period will be a compulsory element of any employment agreement with teachers?
I have seen some hysterical comments as part of a campaign of misinformation by the Labour Party that suggests that the 90-day trial periods are compulsory for all teachers. These comments are wrong. First of all, trial periods will apply only to schools with fewer than 20 staff, and, secondly, despite the Labour Party’s comments, a 90-day trial period can be included in a contract only by agreement between employee and employer.
Why did she tell a New Zealand Educational Institute political forum in Rotorua on 22 August 2008 that the 90-day period should not apply to teachers, and why did she make that claim?
I made the statement that the member cites on 22 August. After I made that statement I had communications with education sector groups in September and October, and I made it clear to them that there would be no legislative exemption for teachers and other staff. In fact, that is what was published by the New Zealand Educational Institute itself in its Rourou magazine.
If that answer is correct, why did she tell a New Zealand Educational Institute political panel at Epsom Girls Grammar School in Auckland on 20 October that the 90-day rule would not apply to support staff in schools, and what do such clearly misleading statements do now for her credibility as education Minister?
The issue of what Ministers can be asked has already arisen and the Hon David Cunliffe pointed out that his question related to a statement the relevant Minister had made subsequent to the election. It seems to me the quote that the honourable member is asking the Minister to confirm is a statement made prior to the election, and, as Minister, she is not responsible for that. I invite the member to reword his supplementary question to see whether he can bring it within the Standing Orders.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just clarify that what you are saying to the House is that a Minister may do the exact opposite of what he or she pledged to the country before the election and in no sense is accountable to Parliament for that?
The Standing Orders are very clear on the matter. Ministers are separate people from other persons such as leaders of political parties or members of political parties, and in this Chamber Ministers, including the Prime Minister, can be questioned only on their actions and plans as Ministers and Prime Minister, not on any role they may have as political persons, or leaders of parties. There are many Speakers’ rulings that cover that issue, and I am sure the honourable member is well aware of that. In fact, I am aware that the matter was discussed with the Labour Party only this morning in relation to questions being lodged today. The way that questions are to be handled in respect of confirming statements made prior to the election has to be handled carefully. I invite the member to ask a supplementary question and to bring it inside the Standing Orders.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It would be in order for us to ask Mrs Tolley whether she has seen a statement made on a certain date, because she may have seen that since the election and since she became a Minister, and whether she can confirm that she made it but, in fact, it does not represent her views.
Of course, Dr Cullen is quite right, but it would be helpful if he gave his advice to the front bench of the Labour caucus outside this Chamber rather than having to come down and rescue Chris Carter and so embarrass him.
I have heard sufficient on this matter. The point that Dr Cullen made initially is quite correct. The material is not outside the realm of the Standing Orders; the issue is how questions are asked about it. I invite the Hon Chris Carter to bring his question within the Standing Orders.
How does the Minister reconcile her statement to the House just a few minutes ago that she had clarified this matter with the New Zealand Educational Institute in September before its October edition of its magazine, when the date that I have just quoted is 20 October?
I have not seen that statement. I remind the member of what is printed here in the New Zealand Educational Institute’s own document and I repeat—I clarify—that I had communications widely with the sector groups throughout September and October and I made it very clear to them that there would be no legislative exemption for teachers and other staff.
I seek leave of the House to table the October edition of Rourou in which Mrs Tolley clearly states that teachers will be exempted.
I seek leave of the House to submit the transcript of a speech shown on Television One on 11 December. It is of Mrs Tolley telling the New Zealand Educational Institute meeting in Rotorua that teachers would be exempt.