Williamson Maurice: Urgent Debates — Education—School Review Programme 
Williamson Maurice: Urgent Debates — Education—School Review Programme 
[Volume:615;Page:11239] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I am delighted to take part in this urgent debate today about school closures. I certainly want to start with an apology to the Hon Marian Hobbs. I regret that we have kept her awake this afternoon. Clearly she goes through a process in the afternoon of having a long sleep. I am sorry we have taken the time of the House to do this to her. I hope tomorrow will be a more placid day and she can get back to her sleep. 
I also want to say that the National Party will never come into this House and claim that there has ever been a case for any one school not to be looked at carefully and if the proper consideration process and parental involvement take place perhaps end up facing closure. In most cases if it is worked through carefully the public will support it. But I have been watching from afar Trevor Mallard’s process in these school closures. Every night when I see the Vero advertisement on television—some members might have seen it—which involves a very big bull walking through a china shop past all sorts of delicate things I think the analogy with Trevor Mallard is nearly complete. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: The bull’s much better looking. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I have to say another thing about the bull: he is more gentle in the way he deals with something. He goes right through the shop comes out the other side and everything is still intact but poor old Mr Mallard turns out to be the bloke holding the vase and he has dropped it big time. 
Why did he drop it? He dropped it because he had been told from on high: “We’re in trouble.” There is not a single person in this country—not a single member of the Labour Party not a single acolyte of the hard-line left—who believes that this change has occurred for any reason other than the polls having absolutely spooked Government members. The Prime Minister had Trevor Mallard on the carpet on the 9th floor booted him around and said: “Look at the mess you’ve helped get us into.” It is interesting that Mr Mallard has been appointed to be the man who as the Minister of race relations will get the Government out of the big mess. It is good to see a Prime Minister with a sense of humour—her making an appointment like that. 
The way that this issue has been handled has been nothing short of appalling. People should not take the National Party’s view of that; they should look at what the Government has done. It has completely pulled the pin itself. That is the test. If it were right and proper and had been managed well by the Minister the Government would not have pulled the pin. A Labour Government of the past—and I remember back to the days from 1984 to 1987—did some incredibly unpopular although I think some very good things and it held its nerve. When the Roger Douglas - David Lange Government made changes there were protests on the lawns of Parliament and people up and down the country marched but that Government held its nerve. Its members knew it was right and they boxed on regardless and guess what? In 1987 that Government increased its majority in the House. 
Members should compare that situation where a Labour Government was on the right track and doing the right things—for which it needs to be given some credit—with the way that Trevor Mallard has handled this situation. Never have I seen such a bully-boy tactic. Never have I seen such a Minister say to parents: “You don’t know what’s good for your kids. You don’t know what’s right for your community. I’m coming to town.” I love some of the television clips. There he was with his PowerPoint and his big overhead projector telling people: “This is what’s good for you.” I am delighted that the New Zealand public said: “No sorry you aren’t just going to ride into town in your ministerial limo tell us what’s good for us and leave again.” Trevor Mallard started to yell at them as he is likely to do; he screamed at the parents telling them that they really do not know what is good for them. He was just so far off side. I have talked to some of his own colleagues around the traps who were saying: “Oh gee you ought to see what it’s doing in my electorate mate. I could be gone because of this.” 
I ask whether he wanted to work cooperatively with members of Parliament. Let us give him some credit: I understand that Simon Power has worked quite cooperatively with Trevor Mallard in Taihape. We do not know the results yet we do not know the outcome but I think they have worked cooperatively and I hope they can get a realistic outcome. I think the parents will sign up to that. We do not want our kids going to a pathetically small school that has only a handful of pupils and does not have resources. On the other hand small is not bad in all cases; nor is big bad in all cases. There is no one size that fits all and so on. 
But here is the irony of this Labour Government—and Marian Hobbs will love this. We are talking about schools that have got a bad Education Review Office report. We are saying we cannot afford to force kids to keep going to them so we are going to force the schools to merge amalgamate or close down and the kids will go elsewhere. What about the schools in my patch that have bad reviews? In my patch there is growth in population and we do not have a need to close schools. What about the kids who because of zoning have to go to a school that has a bad Education Review Office report? How does the Labour Party reconcile that irony? Parents in some places in my area have been told: “Your kids will go to that school no matter what.” even though it has a hopeless Education Review Office report and schools elsewhere in the area are saying they would love to take those kids. But no this is the argument we get from Labour Party members; when it suits them they are very happy to say they need to shut down a school with a bad Education Review Office report; however when it does not suit them they pass a law that forces parents to send their kids to such a school. 
When it comes to the Minister himself and the way he handled this issue I am very confused. I have heard members in this House today from his side saying he is a very good Minister who was doing a great job. That is what I have heard; Marian Hobbs said it and I have heard other members say it. If he was doing such a great job why the U-turn? If Trevor Mallard had it all sussed was taking it comfortably was taking the public with him had right on his side had argued it reasonably and had the public on his side why the U-turn? The answer is simply that he had not even started to do it in the proper way. He had not even started to think of bringing the public on side. He had not even set out a plan that said there are some schools with falling rolls there is a need for some rationalisation and there is a need for us to move to better efficiency and functioning within the schooling system. That is what we did not get from the Minister. We got the “bull in a china shop” approach but unlike in the Vero advertisement he took out every vase every plate and every piece of cutlery along the way. 
Then today he suddenly said: “Oh no we didn’t change for that.” I listened to the interview on  
Morning Report 
 this morning and I have to say I could hardly stay on the road while driving. I was a danger to traffic in Auckland when I was driving and listening to it. It was the funniest interview I had ever heard. That speech on National Radio this morning was a “We’re doing a backtrack when we’re not doing a backtrack.” speech of the very best order. Why did he not just say: “Look we got it wrong. I went in boots and all and tried to kick people around before they were ready.”? 
It is quite clear to us that communities can be persuaded with good-quality information. I am a parent and I have small kids at primary school and a boy at secondary school. I am staggered at how well informed parents are. I am staggered at the knowledge that parents have. I am absolutely of an opinion that we could bring parents onside in this debate. I think some of these schools will have to close—there is no doubt in my mind about that. But I think that if it were done properly if parents were brought onside if we argued logically about educational outcomes—teaching and learning being the key focus—most parents would say: “We’re a bit wedded to this school but OK.” But that will not happen if we start telling parents to listen up or as I heard the other night: “Do you want to leave or do I want to leave? I don’t care.” This is the Trevor Mallard school of diplomacy: “Listen up! Get out sir! Get out ma’am! I’m not listening to you. Here’s what’s happening.” 
That is all very well if one can carry through on it but it is a little bit “egg on face” material when right at the last hurdle the Prime Minister not only pulls the hurdle out but whips all the vases off the shelves and there is the poor old bull running around the china shop with nothing left to smash. Trevor Mallard has really screwed up this time and he should tell the House so. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.