Urgent Debates — Schools, Canterbury—Proposed Closures and Mergers

I have received letters from Catherine Delahunty and from the Hon Lianne Dalziel seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the Government’s proposed changes to education in Christchurch, Selwyn, and Waimakariri. This is a particular case of recent occurrence. The Government’s announcement was, in fact, not publicly released until after the House sat last Thursday, although there were earlier media reports. It involves ministerial responsibility. Although the announcement is a proposal for the future direction, and a detailed programme of engagement is being developed, the proposal is an important one and foreshadows developments of very considerable public interest. Given the significance of the matter, I consider it important enough to warrant the immediate attention of the House by way of an urgent debate. The two applications are not identical, but they relate to the same matter. As Catherine Delahunty lodged her application first, I call upon her to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

Tēnā koe. I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. The Christchurch educational renewal plan is a plan for cluster learning—or is it a cluster bomb? This education plan has a context that has to be acknowledged as a terrible natural disaster now made more complex by a very difficult response by the Government, and there is deep mistrust between Christchurch communities around democracy and around issues of education. So we are looking at a stressed community who are asking for a logical and fair response to a natural disaster. Instead there are going to be 13 school closures and 18 mergers, and people are very concerned about their ability to influence this—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Would members carrying on private conversations like to take them outside the House. I am trying to listen to the honourable member Catherine Delahunty.

—and about what is the underlying agenda behind this. That is why we already have an online petition by people concerned about children, we have had public meetings already referred to in this House today, and we have a rally tomorrow and Saturday in Christchurch by a community who are very, very concerned about both democracy in education and Christchurch people, who have had it up to their necks with stress, with change, with instability, and with shock.

The Christchurch Press has made some interesting comments today, quoting other people from that city, quoting principals, parents, and teachers about what is actually going on for them right at this moment. As one principal said to their children, “You have been through enough.” We are not denying the need for change. It would be foolish to pretend that anything can go back to the way it was. We are not denying the importance of reassessing education, because it is an opportunity to do so, but, unfortunately, what has come out of the renewal plan in the context of the mistrust that we exist in has not been successful to date. It is very unfortunate what happened last week. It is very unfortunate that the way in which the plan was launched created, if you like, an earthquake of its own. It is not being made up by people in this House; it is being communicated to us strongly, to all of us who are open to hearing it, that there are real problems.

This is an issue of education as well as location, and that is why I am standing here in support of the members of this Parliament from Christchurch, from my party, who have told me that they are flooded with emails from local people, as I am myself as an education spokesperson. And all of this is occurring in a city that has been shattered and is seeking hope and regeneration, in a city where facilities such as schools have been the key support for the devastation of those communities, where local really matters more than anywhere else. I myself, having spent time in Aranui during the earliest days in February, saw the role of those schools. I walked those streets, and I know nothing compared with those communities who are saying: “We want change, but we want it on our own terms.”, and I think that is a fair call.

Many of these schools have been the single stable factor in the children’s lives. Their parents may have lost their jobs, their parents may have lost their home, and they may have been moving around their suburb. They may have been through all kinds of changes. And, for children who are young, they may have lost the certainty that the earth actually supports us. Now the school, which has been their key place of reference and source of resources, may be going to close. Maybe some of them need to. If you take the example of Le Bons Bay School on Banks Peninsula where the predicted roll growth is something like six, there is a logic to it, and they support it. But if you take Aranui and the Wainoni area and some of the intermediates, there are real problems with this renewal plan.

Many of the schools are asking us to raise issues about the real agenda. For many people the idea of super-sizing is not logical. It smacks more of what Naomi Klein calls shock doctrine post-disaster reorganising than of a plan based on the educational needs of some of our youngest citizens. A core issue for people is trust. How can they support and trust a Government that has already attacked Environment Canterbury and cancelled the local body election, and now is saying it is going close 13 schools and merge 18 when the criteria have not been made clear?

What happened last Thursday did nothing to reassure anybody that they are going to be heard. The possible option of merging Shirley Boys High School with Christchurch Boys’ High School—although some say it will never happen and it was never meant to happen—is a good example of how, if you put up an option that is clearly a worst-case scenario from those schools’ point of view, you will get that kind of reaction.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

So the renewal plan—sorry, Mr Speaker—is actually putting up options that have, perhaps, made the situation even more fraught, which is really unfortunate, so we have had a lot of principals speaking out and being very concerned. Because of the level of stress, people will take the worst-case scenario from their point of view. They will not just jump on the fact that it may be just an option. I think that is why there has been so much concern.

The other issue is educational reform. What the Government is asking us to do is trust it on education. Well, I am sorry, but we have been in this House for a number of years seeing national standards imposed on schools, whether they liked it or not. We have seen the whole issue of class size turning into a ludicrous debacle, then we have the bizarre spectre of experimental, ideological charter schools, and people in Christchurch—and I have been there and attended public meetings on those issues—do not trust that this renewal plan is not connected to that agenda. In fact, the renewal plan is explicit about taking opportunities, but for whom, and for whose benefit, is what the people of Christchurch who are affected by the potential closures would like to know.

So what are the criteria? We were told last week there are three—that there is demographics, earthquake damage, and also a quiet mention of educational achievement. We would like to know what that means. What is meant by judging a school on the third one? If those schools are being closed because they are failures, then that needs to be put up front so those schools can challenge that, because it is a very interesting criterion to use. So whatever, we need to examine those three things. Demographics—there is a huge debate about demographics in Christchurch right now. There is a huge debate as to whether the 4,500 or so students who have left will return during the rebuild. There is a big debate about what is happening in early childhood education. There is a considerable debate about what is happening in terms of the buildings.

Some of the schools—as the Hon Lianne Dalziel just pointed out in her question—do not have damage. So if they do not have a demographic collapse and they do not have damage, then it is very difficult for them to accept the rationale. If the rationale is they are failing students, then let us go there for a moment. If they are failing students such as Māori and Pacific students, then let us go there for a moment, because the plan is very strong on that. Of course, I myself am very interested in that discussion, but what I am hearing from the two kura is that they are going to be merged against their will if this goes ahead. The two kura are in the paper today saying they are actually going to the Waitangi Tribunal to lodge a complaint about what they describe as a new round of colonisation, which is hardly to the benefit of Māori students who are asking for the choice of having two kura. These two kura are very different from each other and have asserted that they do not want to be put together.

Te Whānau Tahi in Spreydon and Te Kura Whakapumau i te Reo Tūturu ki Waitaha are actually complaining that they are going to be merged, when they come from really different cultures. They compared themselves with Catholics and Jews and said it is like saying that they should all be in one school, which is an interesting comparison. But what I think they are really saying is: “Just because we’re Māori, don’t say we have to merge. If you’re serious about lifting the achievement issues, if you really want to talk to us, be really explicit about these educational criteria that you’re applying in the renewal plan. Don’t just say it is demographics, don’t just say it is geotechnical, unless you have finished the work.” We have got a situation where at Shirley Boys High School, for example, and at other sites, the work is not actually finished, yet the options are being put up that they have got to be moved. So it has created this huge level of confusion.

It was never going to be easy, and I am not saying the Government had an easy task, but what is interesting is what we are hearing back from communities—and parents, in particular—about how they see the consultation to date. So 544 people were involved in the consultation, and many of them emphasised points that I believe have been manipulated, such as the word “school” as “hub”. If you read the analysis of the summary of the submissions, what you are hearing is not that people want bigger schools, but what they want is that if their existing local school can be rebuilt, if there is sufficient logic, and if they agree with it, that they have more services available on those sites, which is actually a hub, but not necessarily to be merged with bigger schools, because bigger is not always better.

There are a huge number of issues that I would like to canvass: issues around early childhood and the concerns around waiting lists that already exist, and issues around school transport in a city that is already really difficult in terms of transport. The rural schools, such as Duvauchelle School and Okains Bay School are raising concerns because they do not necessarily want to be merged with Akaroa Area School. There are issues around unfinished reports and all kinds of community issues. I went to Banks Peninsula recently and I saw the size of some of those schools. For some of them there is logic to the mergers, but for others there is definitely not. The intermediate parents and teachers have raised a lot of issues, because they think there is actually an agenda around it. There are core issues around what is really going on with the plan.

Renewal is about the right of education, for professionals, parents, and teachers to talk about the kind of hope they want for their city—and they did that. They participated. But many of them are now reacting and saying that they are not actually happy with what is being proposed. I have many quotes in front of me from parents saying things like “This has added to our uncertainty.”, “Every person we have spoken to is furious with having something else ‘done to us’ by this Government.”, “The schools have been a real focus of our community. With this side of the city in a constant state of flux, they have been the rocks of our community. By offering the children something normal and stable and predictable, that’s what’s been important.”, and “The communication and transparency has been confused, contradictory, and amateurish.” “There has been a lack of”—this is quoting from parents—“compassion or empathy.” Other concerns are that consultation is a mere talking shop: “To be honest, there will be a further push to leave Christchurch.” And one of the last comments that parents sent to me was: “Don’t experiment with people in vulnerable situations. Don’t experiment with their children’s future.”

They are worried about charter schools. They are worried about super-sized environments. They know there has to be change, but they want the plan to reflect what they are saying about local resilience and local power. Because if there is one thing people care about—and it is obvious in the analysis of submissions—it is that they care about their local cultures, and their local, very specific traditions. The people on the west side are very concerned, but the people on the east side have been through far worse. So if there is a logic to making change, they have to have buy-in, they have to be negotiated with in a way that is respectful for them.

Unfortunately, the launch was a really bad beginning to a very difficult process, and it is really, really important that from here on there is a constructive engagement about the criteria. So the demographics, the issues around whether it is building damage or not, and the issue particularly around the education agenda—whether it is failure or whether it is underachievement or what that means—has to be made explicit to those communities, because they are asking to know “What have we done wrong? Why are children going to have to move?”. I think if you are going to talk about closing a school, even not in a disaster zone, it is always very emotional, it is always very sensitive. If you are going to do that, you have to say you take the community with you.

There is a lot of wonderful rhetoric and there is all this wording about dual shifts and recapitalisation, but it sounds more like de-capitalisation and decapitation. We have to be more careful than this, because I do not think that the people of Christchurch who are writing petitions and who are holding public meetings are being manipulated from Wellington. What they are saying is: “We live here. We want more dialogue. We want to be part of the decision making and we want educational change to be based on the robust and resilient issues that we actually live with.” And everybody like me who comes from a small community knows what a school can be. If it is down to six, close it, but if it is not, if it is an intermediate like Chisnallwood, which is actually seen as highly successful by its community, then we have to make a better argument than say a whole lot of rhetoric about consolidation, rejuvenation, with lots of lovely, shiny documents, and lots of beautiful words. But in the end, people who are traumatised and children who are traumatised need a great deal of care and there needs to be more care than was shown last week. I appreciate the difficulty of what is trying to be done, but hope is based on respect, and respect must be based on listening to the people on the ground. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Huri noa i tō tātou Whare, tēnā tātou katoa. New Zealand has one of the best and top-performing education systems in the world. That has not happened by accident but by design, nor can it be sustained without constant attention and innovation. Our challenge is always how we can do what we do well even better, while constantly looking for opportunities to improve where we must. New Zealand must continue to transform its most potent resource, our people, through the power of education, to grow our productivity and economy, and to strengthen the social and cultural fabric of our society.

The terrible tragedy of the earthquakes, and the ongoing costs of all its measures, has forced upon the people of the greater Christchurch, Waimakariri, and Selwyn areas both its consequences and its opportunities, and upon the people of New Zealand a willing obligation to support. Rebuilding Christchurch is one of four Government priorities. Rebuilding the greater Christchurch area restores the economic pivot of the South Island and the society and culture of its communities. Education not just for now but for a strong future is a critical part of the investment that our Government is making. So on 13 September, together with my honourable colleague the Hon Gerry Brownlee, we announced a $1 billion investment in the education provisions for the greater Christchurch, Waimakariri, and Selwyn areas. That $1 billion will, over 10 years, rejuvenate, restore, and consolidate the network for education options for our youngest learners to our oldest.

We cannot simply put back what was there before. We must also make system improvements. From the consultations we were told that people wanted a mix of both tradition and newer 21st century options, diversity of choice, and more equitable education outcomes. The operational realities of post-quake Christchurch, the experience of sharing and collaboration, and the innovation that has arisen have also provided insights for ongoing provision. As we embark on this third stage of consultation about educational renewal, I want to take the opportunity of once again thanking schools, their boards, and their principals for the leadership that they have shown, and to once again highlight the tremendous success that the senior secondary school students of the region showcase. Some schools have reported an increase of up to 15 percent in National Certificate of Educational Achievement achievements and a quarter of last year’s top scholars came from Christchurch schools.

So how do we both build on that success and invest in raising that success for five out of five learners? Well, in October last year we began the first round of consultation by using an online survey, forums, and interactive small and public meetings on the future shape of education provision. From the over 200 responses we received, we published Directions for Education Renewal in Greater Christchurch. In May this year we produced yet another document, which sets out further provision, but this time on the specifics. We published in July the analysis of over 550 submissions, and in September we published the opportunities for innovation. All of these together provide the context for the third phase of consultation, which we embarked on last week.

The announcements included the $1 billion investment we are making over a 10-year period in 41 learning community clusters, comprising all of the learning options in a geographic community. These clusters provide the opportunity for those communities to consider what they think is their best option, and to put forward their cluster plan. In addition, I announced three categories: restore, consolidate, and rejuvenate. They are based on the level of activity and the level of engagement that we anticipate will be necessary for all of those schools. I announced that of the 215 schools, 42 have firm proposals for a change of status, from closure, to merger, to shared governance, or to complete rebuild. Some secondary schools are awaiting geotechnical information and a range of options have been proffered to them, but no firm proposals or finite options have been put on the table. We are still waiting to have those discussions. Of the 173 schools not affected by these firm proposals—that is, 80 percent—I announced that 40 would now begin repairs, that 23 school swimming pools would be completed by the beginning of term 1, and that new provision would be made in Rolleston, Pegasus Town, and Halswell. I also announced that there would be three advisory groups: an education advisory board, a Waitaha advisory board, and a Pasifika advisory board. I announced a multidisciplined, fast-moving task force that would be set up and would include external expertise.

All of this was announced to all schools, in two consecutive groups, on Thursday. The first group comprised those schools most directly affected. Every school was given detailed information for their school and for the community cluster that they were a part of. They were also given a time line and a process for engagement. They were given contacts for the website, and the Ministry of Education has since followed up with a discussion about when, over the next few days, to schedule a cluster meeting for them. The time line for this third phase of consultation goes through to the middle of next year, with more specific processes for different schools, all of which will be advised to those schools. It is quite understandable that those communities most directly affected are upset. The challenge is providing certainty and clarity about the next steps. That is what I have done. It will require us to work together, and the Ministry of Education has been, or is in the process of being, in touch with every school to schedule that ongoing consultation.

I am proposing that of the 42 schools affected by closure or merger, 13 are proposed to close. Of those, two have sought voluntary closure, five have rolls of fewer than 50, and some have sustained earthquake damage and/or are in a cluster that has a range of other options. I am proposing that 18 schools merge, of which two are kura kaupapa Māori, both of which are in the south and are 5 kilometres apart, whilst there is no Māori-medium option in the north. I am proposing that five be replaced by one whole-of-life campus with shared facilities in Aranui, and three share governance in Banks Peninsula as an area school. Three are awaiting geotechnical information. All of these proposals are made in the context of a land and building assessment, movement of people—before, now, and projected—educational achievement, both pre-quake and post-quake, diversity of provision across the network, and a system-wide lift in achievement.

At the centre of this $1 billion investment is a focus on the learner, now and in the future, and on raising achievement for five out of five learners. I invite all the learning community clusters to take full advantage of the opportunities for engagement and discussion in this third stage of consultation. Thank you.

I actually do not accept that it is good enough for the Minister of Education to cancel a conference that she was due to attend tonight—

💬 Hon Hekia Parata: I didn’t cancel.

She was supposed to be at the conference tonight—

💬 Hon Hekia Parata: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was not my conference and, therefore, it was not in my—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, that is not a point of order. That is a debating point.

It is not good enough that this Minister cancelled out of a conference that she was due to speak at tonight, as part of the opening of that conference, and stand here in this House and not even complete the 15 minutes that has been allocated to her to defend the Government’s announcements last week. I want to tell her that the devastation that she has wrought on the people whom I have the privilege to represent—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may well have ruled that the previous point raised by my colleague was a debating point, but I do think it worth noting that the Speaker signalled, as strongly as he could, last Thursday afternoon that this debate would take place. Anyone who thinks it is a snap debate clearly was not listening at the time. I think the Minister has shown the House appropriate courtesy by being here.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you for your explanation, Mr Brownlee. That too is debatable.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was uninterrupted in her speech, for her 13½ minutes. This member has been interrupted twice—twice—with spurious points that are not points of order. I would invite you to rein them in.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have ruled on them. Thank you.

I do not believe that it is good enough to stand in this House and not acknowledge the impact that this announcement—without warning, without preparation to communities—has heaped upon those people who are suffering down there as a result of the earthquake. In fact, what I really heard the Minister say was that this has given her an incredible opportunity—that is what the earthquake has given the Government—to do things that it would not otherwise be able to do. At the launch we were told by the Government that Christchurch could be the exemplar for the rest of New Zealand.

I want to put this on the record. The Government said that Christchurch would be the exemplar for the rest of New Zealand. I believe that the rest of New Zealand needs to hear what is going on in Christchurch. They have to see this not as a Christchurch issue but as a Government issue, where it is imposing its will on the people of Christchurch in order to pilot the work that it wants to do in the rest of the country. This is not about just Christchurch; this is coming to a school near you. Every single New Zealander needs to be aware of this.

I have to say that this is the message that is coming back from on the ground in Christchurch at the moment as people reel from the impact of that announcement. Nothing prepared these communities for what they heard last Thursday.

The pre-breakfast cross-party forum from the Minister did nothing to prepare MPs for what was to be announced that afternoon. Certainly, we were told about the clusters. We were certainly told about shared site provision. In some instances we were told that there would be some closures. But when we were told that no thought whatsoever had been given to preparing the community for the announcements—they talked about the work that had been done with the schools only, not with the communities; they had done no work with the communities to prepare them for the announcement on closures—that was admitted at that meeting, and I guess that left us thinking that the announcements were not going to be the way that they were. We believed that there were going to be some sensible closures, some sensible mergers, and that they would be the ones that have been sought. We have already heard that there are two schools that are voluntarily going to seek closure in the time frame indicated by the Minister. Everyone accepts there has to be change, but nothing prepared the people of Christchurch for the change that this Government has wrought upon them.

Did the Minister give any thought to the crushing blow that this announcement would have on the parents and the children who have seen these schools as the mainstay of their lives? I want to remind this House that children were at schools in Christchurch on the day of the earthquake, on 22 February, and those teachers and principals made sure that there was somebody with the children all day until the parents could come. But I know that there was a school where the parents never came, and that is because the father was waiting in Latimer Square for his wife, who would never be pulled from the CTV Building, and that is a school that is going to close under the proposals if they are adopted by this Government. I just want to remind this House that there are people in Christchurch who have absolutely depended on the schools to give their children normality and to give them the security of knowing that they are in safe hands while their parents get on as best they can in terms of getting their own lives back to normal. It has been a hard row to hoe, but I have to say that the way this announcement was announced was nothing less than cruel in terms of the impact it was going to have on people.

What of the announcement itself? The day before we heard that confessed to by the Minister in the House as she answered questions today, the principals of schools that were going to close or merge—and, actually, remember that if 18 schools merge, it means that nine schools close; so there are a hell of a lot more than 13 schools that are going to close in Christchurch—got a phone call to come go a pre-launch briefing. So they went to the pre-launch briefing, but before they went to the pre-launch briefing they rang around to find out who got the invitation to the pre-launch briefing, and it started to emerge that, actually, maybe this was not going to be quite what they expected it to be. Was that part of the plan? Did the Government want to create that level of uncertainty so that people whose schools were not being merged or closed would somehow defend the Government’s behaviour?

As people arrived at the meeting, they were given name badges, and then we found out that the colour of the name badge described what was going to happen to their school. This is how we treat principals and the chairs of boards of trustees. It is absolutely outrageous how they were treated.

The Minister then gave a briefing to this assembled group of principals and board chairs, and she told them about the $1 billion to be invested in Christchurch education. She did not say how much of that was going to be poured into the redundancies that will follow. She talked about the clusters and about how this was going to be a wonderful opportunity. While she was speaking, they were distributing the packs to the teachers, to the principals, and to the board trustees, and while they were sitting there hearing words like “restore”, “consolidate”, and “rejuvenate”, they were reading their packs and their packs were telling them that the words “restore”, “consolidate”, and “rejuvenate” actually were Government spin for “repair”, “merge”, and “close”—Government spin for “repair”, “merge”, and “close”.

I think that the Minister has been genuinely surprised at the overwhelming response of negativity from the people of Christchurch, and she had to cancel her attendance at this principals’ conference. She knew it was on. She knew it would be a clash with this announcement, and that confirms to me the view that she intended to release this at the end of August but changed the launch date as a result of the interference from the office of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, and I am sure that he also advised her how to run Government spin around a bad announcement. She knew that the community would be looking for leadership at this time from its school leaders. How dare she treat communities like this—allowing the principals to be away at the time when the community needs them the most? It is arrogance that beggars belief. And now they are being led to believe that their views will count.

Well, I just remind this House what happened when this House was asked to look at Aorangi School. People will remember what happened with Aorangi primary school and how many of those students went to Burnside Primary School, in the electorate of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. How is he going to go and face those parents and explain to them why he closed this school and is now closing the school where they have gone?

I find it unbelievable, really, that the Government has taken this approach. I do not believe that the Government is really going to listen to the people at all, because the Minister has made it clear that these are firm proposals. These schools are predetermined. I want to remind the Minister that when a board wants to merge or close, there are list of questions that the ministry asks the boards to consider. What educational benefits for students would we hope to achieve? Will there be educational and/or social advantages for the students in a larger school? How far away are neighbouring schools? What travel would be involved for the students? Would these schools provide the education the parents are seeking? What are the educational benefits?

These are the questions that we will be asking. I believe that Government members have failed to stand in this urgent debate, which they said they were perfectly well aware was going to happen today, and the Minister did not answer a single question that her own ministry would ask a board to answer before it would consider a merger or a closure.

Everyone expects change to happen in Christchurch; they do not expect a bombshell like this to be dumped on a very, very damaged community.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I would just like to open by acknowledging that this is a very, very difficult situation. It is difficult for Christchurch, it is difficult for Waimakariri, and it is difficult for all the areas of Selwyn that are involved in this. It is difficult for the Government. It is difficult for every single one of us in Parliament to try to do the best by the people, the children, and the families in Christchurch. But, unfortunately, I am going to have to say this was badly done, I say to the Minister of Education. I do not know who advises you, ma’am, but again somebody has advised you badly about how to actually communicate and consult with communities.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Not the Chair.

I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker. Somebody, Minister, has advised badly on how to go about this process.

I want to take a moment to talk about the third round of consultation that the Minister is talking about, and let us just talk about the first two rounds of consultation. The word “consultation” means to seek information and advice from, and to take into account feelings and interests. The first two are quite clearly outlined in the Directions for Education Renewal in Greater Christchurch. The first round of consultation involved focus groups with invited stakeholders. It is of interest—how wide did that stakeholder invitation go? How many of the parents in these communities were invited to those focus groups? Were they advertised in the paper? Were they just the businesses? Were the principals and the boards of trustees also on that invitation list? It would be nice to know, Minister, because it is not actually documented inside this rather large document. Obviously, you have very good staff to produce you a report, but not necessarily very good staff to provide you with information about how to consult.

Then there was an online survey. So an online survey—and we are just in the middle of a digital literacy inquiry, actually—suggests that everybody has access to or the ability to go online to complete a survey. So that makes an assumption that all demographics inside an incredibly damaged area of New Zealand have access to get online to complete this survey. It also begs the question: how was the fact that this online survey was available for this input advertised? Were all the parents of these schools given that information in the link to the survey through their school newsletters? What is interesting is, of all the hundreds and hundreds of people who are affected by this, the number of submissions received.

What is also interesting is the questions that were asked. Some of them have nothing to do with what it is that the Minister announced the other day—useful information perhaps, but they are included inside this report and have no relevance. But one question that is relevant, however, is question No. 8, which asks how important it is to plan for fewer but larger schools where learners may get a richer experience, even if it means children may have to travel a bit further. This was the least supported proposal by every submitter. It was the most answered question inside this survey from the ministry. It was the least supported proposal. Yet, when it is dumped on these parents and communities, this is actually probably one of the most strongly supported proposals by the Government and by the Minister.

I would suggest that this statement that sits on the front of the Greater Christchurch Information Pack: an opportunity plus innovation to enhance education across Greater Christchurch cannot be read in any other way than that the Government has decided to take a few ideas that some sort of elite educationalists or members high up in the ministry, sitting somewhere in the middle of Wellington, think would be a cool thing to do, and has decided to launch it into this city. They may be a very cool thing to do, Minister. They may be some great ideas, but you have to extend the way you consult.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

I beg your pardon—the Minister must extend the way they consult.

I think once again the Government has underestimated the connection that communities have with their schools. Once again, it has underestimated the people of Christchurch. They are realistic, the people of Christchurch. They have lived through some disastrous times—a natural disaster, never witnessed before in my lifetime and in the lifetime of most of the people in this Parliament. What held many of them together was that sense of community. What happens? We have seen it again and again and again, when a Government—not necessarily this Government, but any Government—has closed small schools, rural schools, has attacked class sizes, and has gone into schools and, without widening out the consultation beforehand and taking those parents with them, has run into a brick wall. I can only suggest that the Government needs to learn from the way that it does these things that there is a better way, and it is to not run a focus group and it is not to run an online survey. It is to actually participate on a one-on-one level and give the community some sense of real input that they might be able to trust.

I also want to note that the Minister, in a Māori Television interview last night, did make mention that one of the criteria for some of these schools that have been selected to close was based on academic performance. That is the first time, Minister, that we actually start moving into this area. It is well known among charter schools in America that when there is a standardised testing regime, if the school does not meet the standardised testing regime then the State comes in and closes you down. What happens, unfortunately, and why it is so prevalent around people who believe in charter schools, is because they believe that another private business will pop up and actually fill that space.

But I also recognise that in the same interview on Māori Television the Minister pooh-poohed the concerns by kura kaupapa that they would be merged into a single charter school. The Minister, quite rightly, pointed out that that legislation around charter schools has not come into this House yet; therefore, there is no mechanism by which a charter school can be formed. She is quite right. But why should the people of Christchurch take any comfort from that, Minister, considering that just last week we had the Advanced Technology Institute Bill that needed to come into this House for its first reading, but the establishment board had already been established? The Government continues to hold on to its one vote majority in this House to force things through. The fact that the legislation is not here yet is cold comfort. I think that the Minister, her staff, and the ministry’s staff need to go out there and be an awful lot clearer with regard to these communities and start building back up some trust.

Also, only in that last week, the ability to have an elected body in the same area was denied to them by another Minister in this House. So trust is pretty thin on the ground in Christchurch. It is pretty thin on the ground, actually, in a lot of places throughout New Zealand. I think that this could be improved. I am more than happy to sit down with the Minister and help her to understand how that works—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I have been very tolerant with the member, but can I just advise her that every time she uses the word “you”, she brings the Chair into the debate. She may not do that.

My apologies, Mr Speaker. I will try harder.

There is one other little thing, and that is the billion dollars that is mentioned at the beginning of the opportunity plus innovation pack, and that is great. That is wonderful. The Government is investing up to $1 billion over 10 years to develop Greater Christchurch. I have a question. Is this the same billion dollars that the rest of New Zealand has been told will be spent on them and their schools and their hospitals, or is this another billion dollars being taken out of the future fund? Again, it is not clear, Minister. So there is an awful lot of information that has not been clear. If it is not clear to members of the House, how can it be clear to the parents, the children, the principals, and the boards of trustees that this is going to affect?

I think, in closing, the only other comment I would like to make is that it is all very well and good to send out a letter on 5 September, an email on 6 September, and to follow up with a phone call on 13 September to the chairmen of the boards of trustees. These people, predominantly, are also in employment. They have jobs and real lives that they go on with, while giving their evenings and what time they can to fulfil this governance role to their communities. To say to them that, by the way, there is a meeting in 8 day’s time at 10 a.m. in the morning that you need to take time off work for—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

—sorry—and that it was required of them to take time off work to attend is, I think, outside the bounds of reality, Minister. I think it is very hard. This message has been badly delivered—incredibly badly delivered—and, really, whoever is advising the Minister needs to do better.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, ka nui te mihi ki a koe otirā, ki a tātou o te Whare i tēnei rā. Ko te nuinga o ngā kōrero kua korero kētia e wētāhi, ā, nō reira ka waiho ake ērā kōrero kia iri i te pakitara-ā-Whare. E hāngai tonu ana waku kōrero ki ngā mea, me kī, kua puta i roto i ngā kōrero o ngā mea o roto i ngā kura kaupapa Māori. Me taku mōhio anō hoki kei te ngākaunui tō tātou Minita ki te āhuatanga o te kura kaupapa Māori. Kua mōhio tonu ia ki ngā piki me ngā heke e pā ana ki ngā kura kaupapa Māori nō reira, ko āku kōrero he mea whakatūpato noa ake, ka mutu, ko ngā kōrero kua puta mai ki ngā taringa o te Pāti Māori inā tata nei.

Nō reira, me pēnei rawa te kōrero, wā poto i muri o te putanga o te kōrero i roto o Ōtautahi, kua āhua rerekē te noho o ngā kura i roto o tērā takiwā. I tae mai tētahi īmēra, i tētahi o ngā mātua o roto o te kura kaupapa Māori o Te Whānau Tahi. Ko Melanie Rīwai Couch te ingoa o te wahine nei, anā, i pātai a ia i ētahi pātai. Anei tana kōrero i te reo Pākehā: “The two kura each have a very distinct and unique history, and, while supportive of each other, any talk of merger spells a death knell to any Māori school. The earthquakes are just a cover and local Māori families committed to Te Reo Māori are likely to be the ones to pay for this experiment. Whatever happened to partnership, protection, and participation?”. Koi nei te ia o tana kōrero. Ka mutu, koi nā tana kōrero.

Kua oti i te mema a Catherine Delahunty te whakaara ake i ētahi o ngā take kua puta mai i roto i ngā kōrero ēngari, tērā pea e rua ngā take nui. Tuatahi, ko te wā kōrerorero mō te take nei, me kī i te reo Pākehā, ko te consultation, ā, kua rongo ngā taringa o te Minita i ia e kōrero ana mō te tekau mā marama pea, e kōrerohia ana. Hāunga tērā kōrero ka mutu, me kī , kua oti kē i a ia, otirā, Te Tāhuhu o te Mātauranga, te whakatau i te huarahi ka whaiwhai haeretia e ngā kura ā ngā tau kai mua i te aroaro. E ai ki te Melanie Couch nei he huarahi tēnei, me kī, e whāia ana hei whakakotahi nei, anō nei e ōrite ana ngā kura e rua ēngari, ko tā rātou he kī atu, me kī, ko ngā mea o roto i ngā kura e rua, ēhara. He rerekē anō ngā kura. Ā, tēnā kura me ōna kōrero, me tōna wairua. Tērā kura me ōna kōrero, me tōna wairua.

Nō reira, ko tā mātou te Pāti Māori ko te kī atu, āe, kāre ā mātou raruraru ki te whai atu i tētahi huarahi hai whakapakari ake i Te Reo Māori, te wairua Māori, te ngākau Māori, te tikanga Māori hei oranga mō te painga o ngā tamariki, otirā, ngā whānau i roto i ngā kura. Ko te mate kē i Ōtautahi e ai ki tā mātau e rongo nei, tuatahi, kāre te rū o roto o Ōtautahi i pā ki ngā kura, kātahi ka rua, kai te pai rātau. Kua kī, e ai ki tā rātau ēhara i te mea kua puta te nuinga ki wāhi kē. He aha te take kua pā mai Te Tāhuhu o te Mātauranga ki te kī atu, ā, me whakakotahi nei kōrua nā runga i te āhuatanga o te rū. Ko tā rātau ko te kī atu ē kāo, kāre i te tika. Ko tētahi i roto i Te Kura Whakapumau i te Reo Tūturu ki Waitaha, i kī mai ia, tino ohorere ia nā runga i te kore kōrero a tētahi ki a rātau. Māna tena e whakautu, māna tēnā e kōrero.

Ko tētahi o ngā take nui kua puta mai, ko te kī a ētahi o roto i ngā kura kaupapa Māori, he huarahi tēnei ki te kura hōu, arā, ko te kura hōu rua, arā, ko te charter school. Kāre au i te tino mōhio, āe rānei, kāre rānei ēngari, tērā kōrero, anā, kua tāpirihia atu ki ngā kōrero o te whakakotahitanga i ngā kura, kai reira tonu tētahi raruraru nui. Ēhara i te mea, kai te whakaae atu rānei, kei te whakahē rānei i tērā huarahi, mā tēnā iwi, mā tēnā hapū tērā e kōrero. Mēnā koi rā te huarahi e hiahiatia nei e Ngāi Tahu. Ka pai, whāia atu. Ēngari, ēhara i te mea e pēnei, e pērā. Me whai atu i ngā huarahi e rua, mēnā koi rā tā rātau e pīrangi nei, kura kaupapa Māori, āe, kura reorua, kai a rātau tērā.

Nā, hei whakamutu i taku kōrero, e rua noa iho ngā kura kaupapa Māori o roto o Ōtautahi. Arā nō ngā kura reorua kei St Albans, kei Richmond, kei Rowley, kei Woolston anō hoki. Ko te mate kē, e rua noa iho ngā kura kai tērā takiwā. Ahakoa, he tokomaha tonu ngā Māori kei tērā takiwā e noho ana. Ki te whakakotahi nei, ki te whakakao nei i ngā kura e rua nei, ka whakaaro ake, āe rānei, ka tipu ko tēnei mea te kura kaupapa Māori ā ngā tau. Ko wai ka mōhio?

Ka mutu, ko te kupu whakamutunga, ko tērā i puta i a Mark Solomon, ko tana kī mai, kai te noho āwangawanga ia mō te huarahi e whai haeretia ana e rātau. Ko tana kī mai: “[We] support the extension of Māori-medium education throughout Christchurch and any reduction in services would be inconsistent with this kaupapa,”. Nō reira, me kī ko Ngāi Tahu kai roto i ngā whiriwhiringa katoa, te tūmanako ia ka aro mai te Minita, ka mutu, te tāhuhu ki ēnei manawapā kua puta i roto o te hapori o Ōtautahi. Kia ora tātau.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and a huge acknowledgment to you, and, indeed, to all of us in the House today. Most of the issues have been addressed already by some, and so I will leave those sentiments hanging there on the walls of the House. My comments will focus on things that came out of what those involved in Māori-medium schools have stated, knowing full well that our Minister of Education is passionate about the situation relating to Māori-medium schools. She understands the ups and downs that Māori-medium schools experience, so my sentiments are merely of a cautionary nature and about what the Māori Party has heard just recently.

So let me put it this way: in a short space of time following the announcement of the Christchurch plan, the plight of kura in that area has changed somewhat. An email arrived from one of the parents involved with Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o te Whānau Tahi. Melanie Rīwai Couch is the name of this woman. Now she really asked some searching questions. Here is what she said in English: “The two kura each have a very distinct and unique history, and, while supportive of each other, any talk of merger spells a death knell to any Māori school. The earthquakes are just a cover and local Māori families committed to Te Reo Māori are likely to be the ones to pay for this experiment. Whatever happened to partnership, protection, and participation?”. That is the gist of her comments, and that is what she said.

The member Catherine Delahunty has already brought up some of the issues that have emerged from some of the talk, but there are two major issues, perhaps. Firstly, the kōrerorero about this issue—the consultation, perhaps, in English. The Minister has heard, as she was talking, that the consultations will be for 18 months. That aside, the second major issue is that she, and, indeed, the Ministry of Education, have already determined the future merging process that the two kura will follow. To Melanie Couch, this merging process to be followed by the two kura makes the assumption that the two schools are similar, but they are not. They are telling the Government that each kura is distinctly different to the other. The stories and spirituality about each one are quite different.

We the Māori Party are saying, yes, we do not have a problem pursuing a process that will strengthen Māori language, spirituality, feelings, and culture for the well-being and benefit of children, and, indeed, of families in both kura. The problem really in Christchurch, according to what we heard, is that the Christchurch earthquake did not affect either kura. That is the first thing. The second is that they are fine. To them, it is not as though the majority of students moved to some other place. Why has the Ministry of Education contacted and told them that your two kura must merge due to the earthquake? They have said, no, that is not right. A person from Te Kura Whakapumau i te Reo Tūturu ki Waitaha said to us that he was really shocked because no one spoke to them. No one said: “I will respond to that. I will speak to you about that.”

One of the big issues that emerged was the speculation by some in Māori-medium schools that this is an avenue towards a new school, a new merged school: the charter school. I do not know for sure whether it is yes or no, but that is the talk, and it adds to the statements for the two kura to merge into one, and that brings up another big problem. It is not as though one agrees or disagrees to that avenue. It is for that tribe and subtribe to determine. If that is the way that Ngāi Tahu want to go, well and good, go for it. But it is not saying this or that one in particular. They must pursue both avenues if this is what they want; Māori-medium schools or bilingual schools, that is up to them.

To end my address, there are only two Māori-medium schools in Christchurch, and a bilingual school at St Albans, Richmond, Rowley, and also Woolston. The problem is that there are only two kura in that area, despite the large number of Māori living there. To merge or gather these two kura together, the thinking might be, yes, this thing called a Māori-medium school might grow in years to come. Who is to know that?

In the end the final word might be that which Mark Solomon expressed when he alluded to the fact that he was somewhat concerned at the path that was being pursued. He said: “[We] support the extension of Māori-medium education throughout Christchurch and any reduction in services would be inconsistent with this kaupapa,”. So let us assume that Ngāi Tahu is participating in all negotiations. The hope is that the Minister and eventually the ministry take heed of the concerns that have come out of the Christchurch community. My appreciation to us all.]

Thank you for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate on the announcement of the rearrangement of schools in Christchurch. Can I say on behalf of the Labour education team that we want to acknowledge the stress that the schools, the teachers, the principals, the boards, and the kids have been under since the earthquake. Regardless of where we stand on this particular announcement, I am sure we can all agree that the schools have done an absolutely wonderful and commendable job—

💬 Sue Moroney: And early childhood education services.

—I am going to come to the early childhood education services in a minute—of supporting kids through a really difficult couple of years that, you know, they have experienced down in Christchurch. As my colleague Sue Moroney has pointed out, the early childhood centres have also done an absolutely wonderful job. I guess for those of us living outside of Christchurch it is difficult to comprehend in some respects the difficulty that schools would have with not knowing where parents are and not being able to contact parents. It is the same with early childhood services. They have done an absolutely wonderful job, and I do want to acknowledge the contribution that they have made in that regard.

I am concerned that this announcement goes a little bit further, potentially, than what some would have been expecting. I do not think that anyone would have expected that there would not be change required in Christchurch following the earthquakes. They have had a significant impact on the whole community and on the educational community, as well. I think everybody expected that change was going to come and that it was going to be required. The extent of these changes, however, is larger than what people anticipated, and I think that it creates a lot more anxiety for people when they hear the changes proposed in Christchurch being referred to as exemplars for the rest of the country. I think it would be very unfair on the people of Christchurch that they be used as guinea pigs for experimenting with different models of education, at a time when they are already under significant strain. I am concerned that elements of what is being proposed by the Government certainly would suggest that that is the case. The Government appears to be using the cover of the earthquake to trial things that it cannot do elsewhere, and I actually think that is very, very unfair on the people of Christchurch—I think it is very unfair on the people of Christchurch.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: So rubbish.

If the Government—and Gerry Brownlee says it is rubbish—wants to do things in Christchurch that it is not willing to do elsewhere, it should be upfront and honest about it. It should actually say to the people of Christchurch “Hey, look. We’re going to experiment with the future of the kids in Christchurch to see whether this actually works.”, because that is effectively what the announcements it has made amount to. It is going to experiment on the children of Christchurch, and I do not think that is the right thing to do. You know, some change is required, and I have acknowledged that some change is required, but the Government could at least get the process around that right—it could at least make sure it gets the process around that right.

When principals are saying that teachers in their schools were getting text messages saying that their school is being closed while they were still in the meeting being briefed about it, and hearing about it, and they were not actually in the schools and able to talk to the teachers concerned, that suggests that the process was a complete botch-up—that suggests that the process was a complete botch-up. Giving people colour-coded name tags indicating whether their school was going to close or merge or be pushed out of existence is absolutely disgraceful. That is not the way people should be treated. The Government could have at least afforded some dignity to the process, which clearly it did not in that regard.

Giving people colour-coded name badges to indicate whether or not their school was going to be closed, like naughty primary school kids, is absolutely disgraceful. I am not surprised, though. I am not surprised, given the Minister who has been placed in charge of it. She cannot seem to manage to make any announcement without absolutely hashing it up, although she seems to be better at backtracking than making announcements. So when she comes back to backtrack on all of these proposals, I am sure she will probably get that a little bit better than her initial announcement, and she might have learnt something from the process. Then maybe when the backtrack comes—the flip-flop comes—maybe she will finally get the process right around that, because she certainly has not got the process right around this.

Finally, to conclude, this is not an opportunity for the Government to inflict charter schools with unregistered teachers on the students of Christchurch, who are already dealing with enough challenges without having the Government decide that it is going to trial its ideological charter schools experiment, which has been proven to fail everywhere else around the world it has been tried. This is not an opportunity for the Government to experiment on the kids of Christchurch. It needs to go back to the drawing board and get a process right that is fair, that is open, and that is honest about what it is trying to achieve, because it certainly has not been in this process.

As one of the speakers in this House who actually comes from Canterbury and comes from Christchurch, it is really interesting to see those who cannot even pronounce the names of the schools, let alone know what it is like to live through earthquakes, try to make some comment of any worth in this House. It would be a great thing if the education of our kids and our grandkids could be put above politics, but what happens now in Christchurch is it is not.

We get accused of some sort of breach of the embargo. It was not the Government that breached the embargo—it was not the Government that breached the embargo. We were not responsible for that breach of the embargo. Yes, it was unfortunate, but if we put it in perspective, we have lost 4,500 learners in Canterbury—in Waimakariri, Christchurch, and Selwyn. There are 4,500 learners who have gone somewhere else, and if the members on the other side believe that the loss of 4,500 learners means that it is just business as usual, then there is no wonder that they are still on those Opposition benches.

We also talk about consultation. How many times have we heard that this has been out for consultation? This is not the first round of consultation. This is not the second round of consultation. This is the third round of consultation, and it is still happening. Having said that, there is still, even after all these months in Christchurch, an underlying fragility about the people of Canterbury—about the people of Christchurch, Waimakariri, and Selwyn. These are still challenging times. Change is difficult and we acknowledge that. We also acknowledge that the schools have been fantastic in being a rock for some of those kids, for giving them some sense of stability and some sense of normality. Of course change is difficult, but when we lose 4,500 learners, something simply has to happen.

I would like to mention some welcome news from the announcement. In Waimakariri we have been waiting for a long time for the announcement that we would get a new school, and now we get a new school in Pegasus. We have a new subdivision there with an extra 1,800 homes and an increased population of 4,700 residents. Yes, it means the closure of Waikuku School, but for those who do not live in the area, Waikuku School has actually been wanting to close and shift to Pegasus for some time now. It has not only outgrown its premises, it has outgrown its parking, it has outgrown its drop-off and pick-up areas, and it has outgrown its septic tank requirements. So for them the announcement of a new primary school for Pegasus town will bring relief to the parents, the primary school’s children, and the community in that electorate. We have been waiting for that for some time and that is certainly some welcome news.

I just want to make one mention, and it might be a wee bit off topic, that private schools in our area have also been impacted, yet Labour hates private schools. The only thing I can think of as to why it hates private schools is that private schools gave it Michael Cullen. But private schools have been damaged and impacted by the earthquake. My own school has no chapel, no dining room, no science block, no arts block, and no swimming pool. The students have been in marquees since the earthquake. Do they complain? No. Do they get criticised by the Opposition? Yes. Private schools also provide fantastic education for our schools in Christchurch.

It would be wonderful if this could be seen as an opportunity to have a world-leading education system in Canterbury—not guinea pigs; actual improvement to have a world-leading education system in Canterbury, Waimakariri, Selwyn, and Christchurch, and not just as an opportunity for that side of the House to use its union mates to incite protests and rallies. Our kids are better than that and our kids deserve better than that. Education is above politics—it is above politics, and so it should be.

I am pleased that we have had the chance to have this debate in the House today actually, because, for one, I am getting heartily tired of all the misinformation, scaremongering, and drivel coming from stirrers in the Opposition parties and certain other interest groups in this sector. Like my colleague who has just resumed her seat, Kate Wilkinson, it is pretty hard to sit in this House and hear speaker after speaker from the Opposition benches, who do not come from Canterbury and who are not living with the situation, stand up and, frankly, patronise the people of Canterbury and those of us who are working very hard to try not only to repair and rebuild what we have but also to take the opportunity that this horrible, horrible set of circumstances has given us, and promise the people of Canterbury not just to put back what we had but to build something far, far better.

The earthquakes changed our lives and they changed our landscape. There is no question about that. We all know that the difficulties did not end with the Portaloos, the liquefaction, and the demolition. These difficulties are real, we are living them every day, and they will continue while we go through this rebuild period. But the one thing that we hold on to—the one thing that makes this bearable for us in Canterbury—is that we have a vision of a city that we are going to get from this process. We are going to have the best small city in the world, as Minister Brownlee has told us. The people of Selwyn and Waimakariri, who share in the future of Christchurch City, know that and the people of Christchurch know that. The opportunity for us now is to take this terrible tragedy that has happened to us and build from it, and to offer our citizens the chance not just to go back to what we had but to build something far, far better. That is what my colleague Minister Parata has been working at ever since she took the portfolio, and, before her, Minister Tolley.

I have sat in numerous meetings where I have heard Opposition members and stakeholder groups complain that it was all taking too long and that what our community wants is answers. So what did Ms Parata and Minister Brownlee announce last week? Well, first and foremost, they announced a billion-dollar investment into education in Canterbury—a billion-dollar investment. They announced that 173 of the 215 schools could get on with some certainty. Let us not forget that. I have had a number of emails from principals in my electorate thanking us for that. One principal emailed me last week and said he wanted to pass on his thanks. He said it was a landmark day for his school and his community, and that finally getting word that the rebuild would be happening in the immediate future was truly amazing; it was unbelievable. Another has emailed me to say that the news that the school was going to be repaired was received with great relief and celebration.

I am not saying this to diminish the difficulties for the 20-odd schools that are in a period of uncertainty. I do not want to diminish that for a minute. I know those communities will find this very tough to work through, and we are going to be helping them every step of the way. But let us remember that these are proposals. They are proposals. At some point, you have to come up with a set of ideas, you have to talk to the community about them, and if the community thinks there is a better way of dealing with the challenges we face, then of course we will listen to that.

Let us reflect on a couple of things in this. As well as the 173 schools that have had their futures confirmed, 40 of them can get on with fast-track rebuilding projects, and 23 school pools will be repaired in time for the summer season. We have got two brand new schools immediately green-lighted—one in Pegasus and one in Rolleston—and we have a major expansion green-lighted straight away in Halswell. In my own community, I know the schools of Greenpark, of Burnham, of Yaldhurst, of Duvauchelle, of Okains Bay, and of Le Bons Bay do face change, although I acknowledge that Le Bons Bay School has actually requested that change, so we have to accept that. To hear—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Burnham?

—I said Burnham, Mr Cosgrove, if you were listening—speakers in this House suggest that it should be limited to only schools that have had massive earthquake damage is simply wrong. These schools face earthquake damage, they face population loss, they face earthquake strengthening, they face leaky building issues, and they face, some of them, other education challenges. We have to look at all of these matters before we spend a considerable investment of taxpayers’ money, and make sure that we are spending it for the best future for the children of New Zealand. That is not going back and repairing old schools in communities with populations that are dropping. It is saying: what is the best thing that we can do for our children? Here is a proposal. We want those communities to come and talk to us.

I congratulate Minister Parata. I note that not one speaker in this House who has criticised her has come up with any better way that something of this magnitude and this challenge could have been handled.

I, for one, accept, as do other colleagues—despite the hot air—as do some parents, and as do some teachers, that change had to occur in Christchurch in certain places where, as the last member who spoke said, there has been substantial damage to school property, where the roll has depleted, where the population has disappeared, and where there is not a likelihood of repopulation, if you like, in that catchment. I accept that. No one on this side has said that there should be no change. I accept that change is required in some areas.

Where, though, people have some difficulty—and I should say, in a positive way, in Waimakariri, for instance, I am not sure whether the member Ms Wilkinson talked about it, but Waikuku School is moving to Pegasus Bay. That is something that they welcome, and that is something that that community has wanted for a time. In fact, that was something that was not only signalled but agreed to by the last Government. The last Government set aside the money. When I was the member there, I recall looking at the Budget line items. It was set to be triggered—the money was put aside to be triggered—by roll growth. Then in 2008, when there was a change of Government, it stole the money and flicked it off, and it disappeared. For 4 years—for 4 years—they have waited. But it is good news—and I wanted something positive—that finally the Government has reinstated the money and the school is going to move to Pegasus Bay.

But let me say this. What the last member, Amy Adams, forgot, in a whole lot of sweeping statements about all these schools having damage, their populations being depleted, their rolls being shattered etc., etc., etc., was that there are some difficulties with that proposition. At Ōuruhia School, where I was last night with other colleagues—David Shearer, Megan Woods, and Lianne Dalziel—you have to say that looking around the place, as the principal said, there is a crack in a piece of asphalt and a few cracks in the gym, but even Nicky Wagner, I am told by my colleague, visited the school last week and said that there was no problem with the school. Its roll has remained stable. Yes, Brooklands has disappeared, but, hey presto, go and talk to Peter Simpson in Belfast, and he will tell you—and I think even your colleague, Minister, would tell you—that, given the land approvals and other things that are coming on stream, there is enough population growth signalled there, because Belfast is going to be the size of Levin in not too short a time, for both those schools to be catered for, and enough capacity there to cater for it. So the roll is stable, the school is basically untouched, and there is enough growth in the area, but it is history.

What people object to—and when we sat in the Minister’s office at 7 a.m. on the morning of the great announcement, I was hopeful, as I looked at the weighty tomes that we were given, as I saw the run sheet, that perhaps—

💬 Hon Hekia Parata: What you have never done for us.

Oh, the member interjects. The member could not even spell Nola Kilpatrick’s name right, who was on the advisory board. Gerry Brownlee will know who Nola Kilpatrick is, because he was a teacher there when Nola Kilpatrick was an English teacher, before she became deputy rector. That was the level of oversight that this Minister has.

She can belittle that, but here is the problem. This is not just about schools as such, and communicating an announcement to rejuvenate, whatever that means. If you look at Avonside Girls’ High School it says the options are to continue, close, merge, operate as dual shift, or consolidate. This is about communicating to a community that has been under gross stress, and it has to be done in a way that is sensitive, not by having the principal of Ōuruhia School, who did not even know he was on the radar screen—his roll was stable, there is population growth, and his school is basically untouched—sort of smacked in the head by the political baseball bat as his name is read out, as if he is told he is terminally ill. His school is gone. There was no foreshadowing, no nothing.

So despite all the consultation, run sheets, internet surveys, and all this, it comes down to a number of schools and a number of communities that should be dealt with sensitively. But I have got to say that sensitivity is anathema to this Government. This announcement last week, off the back of the earthquake recovery Minister basically telling technical category 3 land people that they were whingers and moaners and he had had a gutsful of them, ironic that that may be—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s not true.

Yes, it is true. It is absolutely true—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, you’re a liar.

—to the point where he had to apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at that comment. I do not know whether you were listening, but the Speaker has already ruled on that. I require him to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You do not require anything. Look, I did not hear. Did the member say something unparliamentary?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I did. I called him a liar, so I withdraw and apologise.

And that is the sort of foot in mouth—foot in mouth—swashbuckling, swing the lead around style that Gerry Brownlee has exhibited. That actually speaks volumes, and that is why, Minister of Education, people have had a gutsful of that Minister over there. People have a right to be treated with sensitivity.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry, because I thought you were going to wait till the member got to the end of his sentence before you got to your feet. There is a form for withdrawing and apologising in this House. Speakers have often ruled that repeating the comments again is disorderly, and it is your job to stop members doing that.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is technically right, but on this occasion I asked the member. I said—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: You didn’t ask him to repeat the comment.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is true, but I opened the door for him to say it. That was my fault. I think—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Everyone knows what the rules are.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: And I accept that. On this occasion, I asked the member and he responded in a way that was inappropriate—I will accept. But he did withdraw and apologise.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. After a member withdraws and apologises, is it in order for them to loudly boast to everybody “I didn’t mean it.”?

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I did not hear that either.

Well, there we go again. I do not mind it, colleagues. Gerry Brownlee can keep doing it and keep saying it, because for every Cantabrian watching, they know what a buffoon he is. What he said in the Christchurch Press last week—I am happy to furnish him with a copy—kicked Cantabrians in the guts to the point where he had to come out 2 days later and apologise to them. I will just read the member something. In the Press on 16 September, here is what a Mr Les McNamara wrote on his Facebook page: “Such an appalling way”—he is talking about the education announcement—“to treat the people of Christchurch. It’s as though the Government went out of its way to cause as much distress as possible.” I accept that that might be a bit over the top. I accept that the Minister may be incompetent, but I think she did actually act in good faith. She may have a high degree of negligence and incompetence, but I think she actually did not go out of her way to cause distress to people. I will grant her that.

But I just say that 2 years down the track, how many announcements have we had about earthquake matters? You would think that this Government would learn how to do it—would actually learn how to do it. Within a couple of hours of Avonside Girls’ High School and Shirley Boys High School being told that they are history and they are merging with Christchurch Girls’ High School and Christchurch Boys’ High School, suddenly—it is sort of John Banks all over again—the Government has had memory loss and is going to reverse its decision. It might be OK, and the schools might be allowed to stay.

In a community that is under stress, the only constant, really, in a family’s life in Canterbury at the moment is the kids’ schooling—is the fact that the kids can go to school. As a woman said at Ōuruhia last night—she was a member, I think, of one of the emergency services—the one constant in her life was that she knew the kids would be looked after. There was another lady who got up and said that when there was an earthquake she did not worry about the kids at Ōuruhia, because she knew they would be taken care of. She knew that if it hit the fan, they would be moved and they would be looked after. Such is the faith they have in their school.

So what we are down to—and I hope this consultation is going to be high quality; I doubt it—is that parents want to know the justification for these decisions. In Ōuruhia’s case they want to know why it is when the roll is stable, when there is massive population growth just across the road, effectively, in Belfast—enough for both schools; in fact, more, I suspect, than both could cope with—and when they have basically no damage, they have not even seen an engineering report, I think, and an engineering assessment, I believe, has not been done, they are on the block and it was not even signalled to them. I would have thought that if you respect that community—a community that does not ask much, apart from justification from politicians for their decisions—and if you are really interested in consultation, the Government, the Minister of Education, and the Ministry of Education would do that groundwork well before this botched announcement took place.

If it was a high-quality announcement and that groundwork had been done, then I suspect it would have been a very different meeting at Ōuruhia last night. They are good parents. They are not extremist and they are not asking for something they feel is outlandish. They just cannot work out the logic behind this decision, and they cannot work out why there was not a full explanation. According to the Minister Gerry Brownlee, all the geotechnical information on these schools is available. According to the Minister, all the consultation had been done. Yet they are left in tears, many of them, because they cannot work out why this decision has been rendered on them. Shame on that Minister.

For all the weighty documents, for all the run sheets, does the Minister not realise that people are under extreme stress and strain in that province? I know that Gerry Brownlee will get up, and he will spray us all and say this is political opportunism. That is what he interjected on my colleague before.

💬 Hon Hekia Parata: It is.

No, political opportunism, as defined by the Government, is anyone who stands up for the local communities and says “No.”, “We disagree.”, or “We are opposed.” That is labelled political opportunism by that mob over there. They tried in the first 6 months to say that we were just playing to the media. Then it was an election strategy. Well, I say to that member over there, the Minister of Education, that I challenge her to go down to Ōuruhia School, Burnham School, Duvauchelle School, Kendal School, or Burnside Primary School and say: “Well, the members, the people, and you—the community—who oppose us, you are being opportunistic.” I challenge the member to make that claim to the people of Christchurch, or to make that claim about those who represent Christchurch and are local members in Christchurch. I bet you 100 bucks she will not have the fortitude to go down and make that claim in the community. We will wait and we will see whether there is any high-quality consultation, and whether this Government continues to put its foot in its mouth.

I want to start by acknowledging the mover of this motion, Catherine Delahunty. I thought she really did do a good job of indicating, firstly, that this was a serious problem that had to be dealt with, that there were emotions that needed to be considered in all of this, and that there was no particular easy way of going about it, but also that there were, perhaps, some things that could be done better as we progress through the consultation period. I think that as a discussion topic for this House, a debate in this House is perfectly appropriate, and I thank her for the tone of her contribution.

There has been nothing particularly easy about the last 2 years of dealing with the fallout from the earthquake events in Canterbury. There is no particular decision that has come naturally and simply. Every one of them has required a great deal of consideration and a great deal of thought about the best interests of the people who are most affected. I want to say to some of the other speakers who have spoken this afternoon specifically about cases they are familiar with, such as the Māori immersion schools having to come together, that none of that is something that we want to do. It is something that has been put upon us by the circumstance and has to be considered. That is part of this process today.

Ms Martin, from the New Zealand First Party, made a number of interesting comments. Firstly, she said that there was too much information prepared but not enough consultation. Well, I do not know how you have consultation without significant amounts of information being given to people. Further to that, I do not know how the Government was supposed to talk to 500 individuals, so 250 principals and 250 chairs of boards, and then all of the people who support them, the staff of all those schools, and the people who, as the member said, give up their time to voluntarily be on boards, and get them all together—thousands of them, in fact—to give them a message, which she then said should have been delivered one on one.

This is a difficult, difficult process. No one is denying that, and I am grateful that all other members have acknowledged that. I do want to say, though, to people who are listening that there is no part of the city that is immune from the considerations that have had to be put forward in this process. In my own electorate in the north-west there are three schools that face the possibility of being closed. Those schools are in relatively close proximity to each other, and there are numerous schools around and about. It simply indicates that the demographic in Christchurch has shifted quite significantly. The growth patterns for the city have changed and have moved, and it would be plain irresponsible to go around saying to every school “Look, we’re going to come along and fix everything up, and then take a longer period of time to sort all this out.” The one thing that people in Canterbury appreciate most is decisions. They do not like indecision, and the only way that we could get to a decision point in this was to put it all on the table for that wide consideration.

I have to say that I am utterly disgusted at some of the cynical manipulation of what I think is genuine anxiety, for what our opponents, particularly in the Labour Party, perceive as being to their political advantage. There is no—no—winning in getting alongside people who are deeply distressed and telling them that they do not have to deal with the problem that is in front of them, that they should not have to deal with the problem, or that if only there was someone else running things the problem would not be there in the first place. That is not true, and I have got to say that we have been through land decisions where we have had the same rhetoric blown out from Mr Cosgrove, all about “I’m here for my local community. I’m an advocate. I won’t be deterred.” All that does is reinforce the angst, anguish, and hurt that people are having to suffer. It is disgraceful and it is time it stopped, because this country has never, ever dealt with a problem as big as this. It is very easy for the rest of New Zealand to think that it has been 2 years and it should have gone away, but, for goodness’ sake, this is a huge problem. We are tackling it in as smooth a way as is possible. Yes, there will be some people who do not like the way we are handling it. That is what it is all about.

But what I can say in this case is that 173 schools out of 215 got the green light the other day to go ahead, repair, and get on with things. That is overwhelmingly positive. It would not have been right to say to those other schools—schools that know they have lost roll, know they have got declining demographics in their area, and know they have children today in classrooms that are well below the code, should there be an earthquake in close proximity to those schools—that everything is OK, we are going to fix it, and there will be no change. Change was inevitable from the moment the earthquake struck—

💬 Denis O’Rourke: Everybody knows that.

—in September. What we are seeing is this crazy sort of acknowledgment: “Yes, we know there was going to be change, but on the other hand we don’t want it, we don’t like it, and it doesn’t have to happen.” That is plain irresponsible.

This is a billion-dollar investment by the Government in the revitalisation of schooling in Canterbury. You cannot—no one can—make the case that the Government is walking away or cutting corners when you have got such a huge upfront statement about the investment that is available for those schools.

I want to make a comment, too, about Ōuruhia Model School. I thought the chairman of the board there took a very, very sensible stance in saying: “Well, we’ve got a 12-week consultation programme. We are going to go into it, and we are going to fight our case.” I do not like that word “fight”, because I think it is a proper discussion that we need to have. Yes, there has been the loss of a whole population—900 houses in Brooklands, where the children who go to that school largely came from, are no longer going to be there. Yes, there will be shifts further west in the city, and that may have an effect on Ōuruhia Model School, but we do want to talk to them.

I think one of the things that is most annoying about this is that some of those who are politically opposed to what we are doing and how we are doing it are making a big noise about: “It could have been done better, and, if it was only us, it would have been better.” They are even going so far as to say “If it was only us, we probably would not have done this anyway.”, which is a total denial of reality. That denies the fact that this is a proper process, where there will be consultation and there will be discussion. I have to say that I am very, very convinced that the people who are affected here will engage in that process properly, because the experience in Christchurch proves just that.

We have had the dreadful news given to 7,795 households that they can no longer live on the properties that they built and called home. Of those, as the dates have come up for people to have to make a decision about one of the Government’s offers, the overwhelming numbers of people have made that decision, because they simply know that it is in their best interests. What I would say is that—

💬 Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I fail to see how what the Minister is talking about now in terms of compensation for homeowners—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. The member cannot enter the debate by a point of order.

The point of it is simply that of the first 3,000 households, which, I agree with the member over there, had no choice because of the condition of their land, there was only one who took until the last day to make that decision. It will be like that with the schooling issue. It will be like that with the schooling issue.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Do you know why? Because they didn’t have an offer from their insurance company.

What we are getting across the House right now is that denial once again that there really is a problem here. There is the idea that somehow there has been a misleading of people about all of this. This is not right.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I thought you were better than this.

The member says she thought I was better than this. I have to say to that member that she is letting her communities down by cynically manipulating their emotions. It is a disgrace. It is time it stopped.

I seek leave to table a report where Gerry Brownlee accuses earthquake victims of “carping and moaning”—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The source of the report?

—about the situation, in the Christchurch Press, 13 September.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. We do not put leave for press—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: But he said the exact opposite before.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We do not put leave for press statements.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although I accept your ruling, I then ask you what course of action a member has when they are accused of telling an untruth and the evidence is presented to the contrary, and leave is denied. What is the course of action one has then?

There are several courses of action that members can take, and question time tomorrow may be one of them. His own—I am not here to give him a lecture on how he pursues that, but we do not seek leave for press statements or press cuttings to be presented in this House.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.