Donnelly Brian: Urgent Debates — Education—School Review Programme 
Donnelly Brian: Urgent Debates — Education—School Review Programme 
[Volume:615;Page:11229] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I have to ask the Minister: at the school that he went to in Northland when all the parents were waiting outside were they waiting for their T-shirts? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I have to get a bigger size for the member now. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: In Peter Jones’ territory yes that is definitely so. The second element that arose from the Minister’s speech was this: he is using as an excuse the fact that if he turns up at a school people might think he is going to close it. All I have to say to the Minister is: “What appalling communication!”. It is appalling communication from himself and from his ministry if the parents at a school do not know when he turns up there whether he will close it or whether the visit is about anything else. That is a very limp excuse for this U-turn in policy. 
The case of Taipuha School which I pointed out today is a true case. That school went through a heart-rending process. It had been going for 75 years but realised that on behalf of its children it needed to close down and merge with another school. It had asked in plenty of time for this to take place before the beginning of the school year this year and that request sat on officials’ desks for month after month. The school had to come to me to get it moving and even now it has not been moved in time to close the school in a timely fashion. This shows that ministry officials have been so tied up with these school network reviews that they have not been able to get on with the other bread-and-butter tasks that they should be doing. I believe that is appalling. 
It is an appalling thing for a Minister to say: “The days of people worrying that when the Minister’s coming to your school he’s coming not to praise you but to bury you are over.” If that is what the parents of our nation’s schools have been perceiving over the last 12 months that is an appalling statement for the Minister to make about his own performance. That is why he was doing it. I think that we need to listen to the quotations of Trevor Mallard within the last 3 months—the justifications for the policy were there. Here is one: “It is about ensuring the school network as a whole is viable enough to continue to provide local children with the quality education they deserve in 10 to 15 years’ time. It is about using the best of education that is provided now and joining forces to provide an even better education in the future”. I cannot really argue with that. New Zealand First would support that. Here is another one from 25 October 2003: “It is far more prudent to plan for change now from a position of relative strength than to wait for the damage to set in and for schools to start self-destructing.” And from the same press release: “The new policy means that taxpayers’ money is spent on teaching and learning and not on the upkeep of unnecessary grounds and buildings”. Then we move to 15 November 2003: “I do believe it is essential to seize the opportunity and start planning from a position of relative strength rather than wait for schools to spontaneously self-destruct as population decline starts to hit hard on school rolls.” I could go on and on with statements the Minister has made that he would rather spend money on quality education for students than on bricks and mortar. 
 The question that has to be asked in this debate—which I remind people is a debate about the decision yesterday to impose a moratorium on school network reviews for 5 years—is this: if those conditions were true 2 days ago or 2 months ago how come they not true today? If those statements are true and the policy is justified why is it not justified now? Are we going to have a nation run by protest and polls or are we going to have a nation run by good policy? What Mr Mallard has done in this particular case for all educationists is prevent us from having any confidence in the validity of any policy—because it will be determined by what people say in the polls. 
Bill English is correct in one respect. He is correct in saying that the determination of the school network—the future of schools in New Zealand for the next 5 years—has been made according to which side of a poll communities have fallen on. So if a community was in the programme on one side of the poll it is now out. Its schools will be closed left right and centre ruthlessly callously to future-proof that community. The programme was to future-proof communities for the next 15 to 20 years and therefore it was in the best interests of the community’s children regardless of what adults thought and the points they had been making. But if a community falls on the other side of a couple of polls then its schools can continue with a lot of wasted educational money in that community and not the best education for the community’s children. The Government is not prepared to make any changes in that community because if it makes those changes people might not like it any more. Is that what our Government is supposed to be about? 
Mr Mallard has made the statement that National Ministers never fronted up to communities. I can say that I as an Associate Minister fronted up to the community of Oamaru and I can say that it is a very passionate emotional situation. But Mr Mallard then turned round and accused those National Ministers of not having any guts. Well what is this U-turn? He is a Minister who firmly believes in the review programme. He has his whole ministry geared towards it so that the ministry cannot do the bread-and-butter tasks it needs to do to support schools. Yet after two polls the policy is reversed. We have to ask ourselves: what is that? 
I have to say that New Zealand First has not opposed ideologically any network reviews. We are not like some who for example during the period between 1996 and 1999 closed 95 schools and then said that no schools at all should be closed. We are not like some who said that it should be parents’ choice when the policy of their party—which is the use of vouchers—would close every small school in this country. New Zealand First has said: “Let’s take this on a case by case basis.” We have watched on a case by case basis and I must say that we have become increasingly disturbed on a case by case basis. What has been happening is not rational decision-making in the best interests of education—or saving money and making the best use of the educational dollar. There were some very good decisions and they were accepted by the Northland community up in the mid-north—painful as they might have been—and they leave a platform for future development. But in other areas there were increasing concerns about situations where viable constructive and good schools were being shut down and monster schools were being created and that is not in the best interests of children. 
In some cases we would have to say that our fears were about the final decisions. I suggest that the one in Timaru really is of concern because all the recommendations were reversed at the last minute and do not make any sense and in fact it was the considerations of local politicians their concerns that finally held sway. New Zealand First is extremely concerned about this particular decision because the decision is saying that in future this Government will run the country according to polls and according to protest. John Minto could be the most powerful man in this country purely and simply by running protests. He is good at running protests. So anybody who wants this Government to do anything should just mount a protest and such people can be absolutely certain that this Government will fall into line with them. That is not what we consider to be a very good way to govern a country. 
We think that the decision to put off the policy of the network reviews of schools for 5 years has ramifications and implications that are extremely serious for the future governance during this particular parliamentary session of this particular Government. In fact the decision demonstrates that this Government does not know where it is going and is swayed simply by public opinion. That is not a good way to govern a country. People need to know that their Government which is there to make decisions on their behalf has firm policies that are sound and resilient and that it has Ministers who have the guts to stick with them—not just turn round on a poll.