English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11501] 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What will be the difference between the process followed by the ministry facilitator and the process to be followed by the mediator with respect to the proposed closure of 13 Invercargill schools? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am pleased that the member asked me this question. During the two previous education reviews while he was in Government whenever there was a meeting in Invercargill that member used to head for Auckland— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now the Minister will answer the question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As the member is aware—because he attended the meeting—the facilitator consulted with the community and developed possible models for future schooling provision. The ministry then used this information to form recommendations to me and I made decisions that became the proposals announced in January. The mediator will review those proposals any alternative proposals lodged as part of the submissions and community views then make a recommendation. I do welcome the member’s interest at last. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the facilitator has already consulted with the community as the ministry’s website says he will has developed alternatives has presented data and information and passes that on ultimately to the Minister for decision why should schools engage with a mediator for whom there are no terms of reference and who can follow only the same process of consultation and presentation of alternative models? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Because I think that they think and communities around the country are thinking that they will get better results. There are alternatives. Simon Power is aware for example that that member’s policy could be applied to Taihape and of the 10 schools there one of which will be merged there will be one fewer school according to my approach; according to Bill English’s approach there will be nine fewer schools. They will be down to one school in Taihape under his policy. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise two points. The first is that in response to the primary question the member was out of order. He does that habitually and I suggest that there needs to be some sanction on him from the Chair; otherwise he will just keep doing it. The second point is that in respect of the matter the Minister raises he is consistently misrepresenting material that he has read somewhere. He continues to do it each question time. I have the right as a member of this Parliament to have my word accepted; how he represents it is simply wrong and he should not be allowed to continue to do so—and in any case it is not his responsibility. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just want to say to the member that as far as I am concerned if a member states something then his word is accepted and I accept the member’s word. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first document outlines the Bill English position on education development initiatives which has been published. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is sought to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The second document is an application of that policy to the current education development initiative areas that shows that significantly more schools would close. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What alternative approaches to reviews has he seen and does he intend to adopt them? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have seen a number of approaches to reviews. The one that is loudest the one that is most coherent and the one that has some elements of logic behind it is that one of Bill English’s and I think it stinks. 
Hon Bill English 
: What do they think of yours? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the riposte was a suitable response. 
Rod Donald 
: Does the Minister agree that with the benefit of hindsight he could have avoided the current school review shambles by adopting a whole-of-Government approach that took account of the economic and social costs of possible closures on the wider community and will he guarantee that those costs will now be treated seriously in the reviews that he is still determined to proceed with? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The very firm feedback I have had from a number of areas is that weak and failing schools are a major reason for population decline. I want to avoid that. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware of a Budget paper headed “Proposal: Network Reviews” dated 19 June 2003 which sets out in great detail his plans to review over 5 years 500 schools and close 200 of them; and does he now still stand by his statement that he had not kept his Cabinet colleagues apprised of his actions; and does he agree that the Prime Minister can say she never knew what was proposed? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Our Prime Minister knows quite a lot. She does not know the detail of all the discussions between Dr Cullen and me. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the true position is that he had informed his colleagues that they did know—including the Prime Minister—that he planned to review 500 schools and close up to 200 of them and that the Prime Minister and he have both made misleading public statements to cover up a very messy back-down where they have both been defeated by public opinion? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I do not accept that because it is incorrect. I would remind the member that the number he suggested is less than the number that were closed in the 1990s. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table a document headed “Vote: Education” and “Proposal: Network Reviews”—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was going to raise this matter at the end of this question but I am pleased that in fact we have had the situation where Mr English sought to table a paper. Earlier on during this particular question the Minister of Education Mr Mallard sought to table two papers. He was allowed without interruption from you to say all that he wanted to say and then you asked whether there was any objection. In the case of Mr English he was part-way through and you interrupted. It seems that often when we are looking to table papers we are interrupted but the Minister or Ministers are not. I wonder whether we can have a situation where someone who seeks leave gives purely just the title of the document or else the person can finish his or her request to table. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the document has been referred to by way of a supplementary question and everyone is well aware of the document concerned as I think I was and everyone else was then I do not need to have its description entirely repeated. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You are going to have to go a bit further than that. Before question time the Minister of Education got up and asked for leave to table some documents and in the process of simply asking for leave before any question had been asked made a debating point about the content of those documents. You ignored it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I made a mistake and I apologise to the member. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Do we therefore have your assurance that in the case of Mr Mallard he will be treated in the same way as the rest of the House in respect of requesting leave to table documents? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Absolutely.