Today’s was a particularly dismal parliamentary question time. Here’s a few of the lowlights:
Note: Questions and answers are paraphrased, unless indicated with quotation marks. See links to uncorrected Hansard transcripts for actual wording.
Question 2 – David Shearer to the Prime Minister (transcript, video):
David Shearer: Given that the Prime Minister has said that 90 percent of schools will have a change to teacher numbers as a result of this policy, how many of those schools will lose a teacher?
Rt Hon John Key: “I do not have that to hand”
There are two things to say about this. The first is that I don’t doubt for a second that it’s not true. The second is that National are supposed to be the party of business. The party who can be trusted to make sound business decisions. The party who have their finger on the pulse of economic issues. And yet the Budget Debate progresses on a policy that affects 90% of schools in New Zealand, and the Prime Minister doesn’t know how many schools will lose teachers as a result.
Question 3 – Dr Russell Norman to the Prime Minister (transcript, video):
Grant Robertson: Can the Prime Minster tell the House what the difference is between the maximum amount a student can borrow for Living Costs under the Student Loan scheme, and the Student Allowance?
Rt Hon John Key: “I’ve been advised it’s very similar.”
…
Grant Robertson (Point of Order): I seek leave of the House to table a document from Studylink that says that the maximum amount of money that a student can borrow for Living Costs is $171.50 per week, and that the maximum amount they can get from Student Allowances is over $350 per week.
(objection, leave denied)
I asked Grant Robertson on Twitter if he had a link to the document that he’s referring to, because the $350 number is a lot higher than others I’ve heard. I expect it’s probably somewhat inflated with extra allowances that remain available under the government’s new cut-back allowance scheme. But even then, I think it’s highly unlikely that the real numbers could be described as “very similar.” According to the comment below from Merrin, the $350 number is hardly extreme, and the question was specifically about “maximum” amounts. This is a significant change that has such an impact on the lives of some students that they will not be able to continue studying as a result. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to expect the Prime Minister to have a better understanding of the position those students are in.
Question 8 – Nanaia Mahuta to the Minister of Education (transcript, video):
Nanaia Mahuta: The Minister must know the budgetary impact of the announcement that “no school will lose more than two full-time teachers as a result of the policy changes in Budget 2012,” so what is it?
…
Hon Hekia Parata: I don’t have the exact figure to hand.
I was glad to see this question asked, as it’s one I also asked this afternoon. There’s no question that this is, as Nanaia Mahuta put it, an about face on the policy stated in the Budget. Whether it’s been caused by National being unaware of the implications of the change or the considerable outcry around the country that this change has generated isn’t yet clear. It’s another example of the Government not being able to show us the numbers, and failing to live up to the myth that National can be trusted with economic decisions.







