Coddington Deborah: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Coddington Deborah: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:9792] 
5.  
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: In light of his reported statement that the total cost of “network reviews” will be pulled back through the money saved by closing about 300 schools what is the total cost? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The cost of administering network reviews is minimal when compared with the extra money that the schools receive once a review has been completed. The total Ministry of Education budget for administering all reviews is less than $3.2 million. This compares with around $17 million that has been reinvested in schools in just one of the reviewed areas. Previously network reviews did save money because the money was pulled back into central government coffers. Under this Government the savings are reinvested in providing better schooling for children in the affected areas. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Does he know the dollar amount of the projected savings with each review; if so what are they; if not what was the basis for his statement that these closures are cost-effective? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: To answer the second part of the question first it is experience. In answer to the first part of the question this Government does not predetermine the results of reviews. 
Hon Bill English 
: Yes it does. It does so. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member might say that. When the member gets a little better informed he might understand that communities are invited and have an enormous role in making decisions. If the member goes to Turangi or Putaruru and has a good discussion with the locals he will find that millions of dollars have been reinvested in their schools in a much better network that will last. When Bill English was Minister of Finance he confiscated the savings put them in his back pocket and gave them as tax cuts to the rich. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you will appreciate that the Minister was completely out of order in his suggestions about Mr English and I suggest that you ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Mr English made interjections—as he is entitled to make—and the Minister is entitled to reply to them. If people make interjections members can reply to them. As far as I am concerned the answer addressed the question. However further supplementary questions can occur. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled Mr Hide. What is the member’s point? 
Rodney Hide 
: Mr Speaker are you saying that it is OK for the Minister to say that Mr English put the savings in his back pocket? That has been ruled out of order ever since I have been in Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I thought it was a reference to Mr English gaining personally from the savings then of course I would rule it out of order. I thought it was a metaphor that the money went back into the coffers of the country. I am sure that is what the member and everybody else thought it meant. 
Jill Pettis 
: Why is it necessary for the Government to conduct network reviews and what are the aims of those reviews? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The aim of the network reviews is to ensure that all children whatever their background and wherever they live have access to quality education that is sustainable well into the future. I should reiterate that 70 percent of the children in schools involved in network reviews currently live in urban centres of 10000 people or more. People who go around spreading malicious lies that this is a rural issue are away with the fairies. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is the Minister spending so much time and money bullying communities into closing successful viable schools when he and his ministry allow schools that are consistently failing their pupils and their parents to stay open? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have closed failing schools in my electorate such as Waiwhetu School. I have closed failing schools in the member’s electorate such as Ohai School. This Minister fronts up to failing schools in a way that no one now on the opposite side of the House ever had the guts to. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You cannot possibly allow the Minister to rattle on in that way and end up saying that people in the National Party did not have the guts to do something. Those were the very words he used. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes and I think that on reflection those words will be withdrawn and the member will apologise. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister confirm that the per-pupil cost for small schools is significantly greater than for medium to large schools and that therefore the major long-term benefactor of school closures will be the taxpayer a reality that seems to have escaped the spokesperson for the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: If one looks in the very long term one sees that is the case. I reiterate to the member that for the first 4 years for operational matters and for the first 5 years for property matters all the money is reinvested back into the local network as opposed to the approach promoted by the National Party which would have it going to tax cuts. 
Metiria Turei 
: As South Canterbury schools report being told by ministry officials that neither choice nor quality of education counts in the review and in light of even Mr David Benson-Pope’s confession in a newspaper article that the Taieri community had its issues completely rejected by the ministry can the Minister not just admit that the review is designed to extract money out of education as 50 percent of any savings will go back into the consolidated account after only a few short years? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There are a number of issues there. In the Taieri review the second option put up by the facilitator was the one that I accepted. I do want to make it clear that I think it is much better to spend education funding on teachers teacher-aides and information and communications technology not to spend it on painting empty buildings in the way that the Green Party would do with its sustainable approach to empty schools. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: When the ministry analysed the cost savings of closing schools such as the one in Temuka did it also consider the extra cost to families for such things as new uniforms extra transport charges and the problems of special-needs children as well as the need to travel each day to and from Timaru; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No decisions have been made about Temuka and no recommendations have been made to me for that area. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Given that the cost of the $19.4 million review of Wainuiomata will not be recovered until the year 2017 does he know when the cost of the $32.4 million review of Timaru will be recovered; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am pleased the member asked me that question because she misled the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 with that information as well. Regarding the review in Wainuiomata the figures she gave included the $12 million in capital costs—$12 million that was going to be spent anyway. That is not anything to do with the net cost of the review. I am quite happy for the member to get a briefing on it so that she can understand the figures. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Why does he not just leave it up to parents and communities to decide whether to have a 200-pupil school instead of his herding pupils across town or to another town to the school he thinks they should go to? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Because around the country there will be a net 63000 drop in the number of primary pupils over the next 15 years and that will include I think about an 80000 drop in the areas outside Auckland. What happens if we let schools drift to failure in the way that members opposite want? Drift to failure is what happens on a relatively regular basis; I end up closing schools that have teachers and no pupils.