Hipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is subject to correctionHipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 13 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:13. Text is subject to correction.]9.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to theMinister of Education: Does she stand by all of her decisions regarding school closures and mergers in Christchurch; if so why?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yes; that is because my focus is and always has been on the children of greater Christchurch and on providing them with the best education possible in modern fit for purpose facilities. The Government is absolutely committed to rebuilding Christchurch. That is why we are investing $1 billion in restoring and renewing the education system over the next 10 years.Chris Hipkins: Did she ensure that all of the available information informing her proposal to merge Phillipstown School and Woolston School was provided to theschools when the consultation period required under the Education Act began; if not why not?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes.Chris Hipkins: Was she satisfied in making her decision to merge Phillipstown School and Woolston School on the Woolston site that those schools had been given all of the information they required to adequately participate in the consultation process required by law; if so why?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was a second part of the question—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Supplementary questions should have one leg. The member—[Interruption] Order! In supplementary questions if members put two legs in the Minister can choose to answer one and she did that quite satisfactorily.Chris Hipkins: Why? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: I think to assist—Chris Hipkins: There was only one leg to that question.Mr SPEAKER: It is impossible for the Minister to answer that question. The member has more ability than that.Chris Hipkins: Why was she satisfied in making her decision to merge Phillipstown School and Woolston School on the Woolston School site that those schools had been given all of the information they required to adequately participate in the consultation process required by law?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Because I provided Phillipstown and Woolston—they were involved in the same process—with all of the information related to property roll growth and demographics. We also funded community facilitation. We gave the principal time off. We had teacher-only days. We doubled the normal length of time for consultation. We provided a key official to provide information that they might need more of and as soon as decisions were made we published those papers on the website. We published the interim business case and as it was updated we made that information available also. In fact the judge said in the judgment about Phillipstown that he was satisfied that the consultation had been carried out in good faith but that in respect of the property costings we should provide a simpler version.Chris Hipkins: Why has she decided to continue the consultation with Phillipstown School and Woolston School given that the High Court ruled that her decision was unlawful and that the overwhelming view from the local community is that they do not want the schools merged they have been through enough trauma in the past 3 years and they want the Government to leave the schools alone so they can get on with the job of educating and supporting kids?Hon HEKIA PARATA: In good faith and as left open for me to do so by the judge in his ruling I have decided to continue consultation. The judge said: “It is open to the Minister to continue the consultation. I deliberately use the word ‘continue’. The breach of natural justice can be corrected without requiring the consultation to start again.”