Estimates Debate — Vote Education (continued)

Kia ora, Mr Chairperson. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. Having been a student at university last year, I have been pretty interested in the big changes that we have seen in the sector since this Government has been in office. We have seen, essentially, the Government make tertiary education less accessible and more expensive. In some ways it is making it downright impossible to even be a student in New Zealand. Today I will grade the Minister for Tertiary Education. He comes across as being a very effective Minister. He is spoken about in sort of hushed and awed terms. When we look at his record and grade what he has done in this sector, we find we could give our Minister something below an A, probably below a B, and probably even below a C. I think the Minister would get an F. I think he has been a failure as a Minister.

Right now, if you want to study at Victoria University, the University of Otago, Waikato University, Massey University, or Auckland University, the chances are that you might not get to be enrolled, even if you have good grades—

H V Ross Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I draw your attention to Standing Order 103 about the use of the word “you”. I know the member is a new member here, so we can make exceptions, but—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member does not have to qualify the point of order by referring to matters of age or the time that a member has been here.

💬 Hon Phil Heatley: Just sit down.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member responsible for saying that will be walking—whoever said that. I do not need any assistance. The member Ross Robertson simply raised a point of order. The point of order was a valid one. The member Gareth Hughes ought to be a bit more careful about the use of some pronouns.

H V Ross Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You are a very experienced Chair, and you will be aware that during the time that you spent addressing my point of order, there was an interjection. People should know, especially long-serving members, that there are to be no interjections whatsoever during the taking of a point of order. It came from members opposite.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes, and I caution the member responsible for the interjection that if there is one more infringement like that, someone will be taking an early shower.

I apologise, Mr Chairperson. I would not give you an F. We are seeing our universities close their enrolments, in some cases, such as Massey University, with only 30 minutes’ notice. I was at Waikato University this morning. This year it has turned away 403 students, many of whom were school leavers who had anticipated being able to study at university, who wanted to become educated, and who wanted to contribute to the economy.

Why are we doing this? It is not because of a well-thought-out policy. It is not because there are more well-paid jobs out there, attracting all the potential students. It is simply because of a lack of funds. It is because the Minister would not get any more funds for the sector. Like Ruth Richardson and Roger Douglas in the 1980s and 1990s, this Minister has used the crisis of the recession to ram through possibly the most fundamental changes to the tertiary education sector. No longer do we have the open, egalitarian system that Kiwis are proud of; rather, we are seeing a more closed system. In this area, the Minister would have to get an F.

In Budget 2010 the budget for tertiary education was $4.2 billion, which is the same as last year’s budget. When we look at inflation, we see that the most recent budget was, essentially, a cut. When we compare ourselves with Australia, which we are trying to catch up to, we see it is investing an extra $5.7 billion over the next 5 years. Compared with other OECD countries we are ranked at 18th out of 30 for the proportion of our population with a tertiary degree—at 27 percent. Australia is aiming for 40 percent. How will we catch up with Australia if we put less funding into tertiary education? In fact, we spend $3,000 less per student than the OECD average, and we are in the bottom quarter of the OECD for expenditure on tertiary education as a percentage of GDP.

Throughout the Budget process we have seen all sorts of “kites” floated throughout the year, and some of those measures were announced in the Budget. We saw a few additional places being funded, but not enough to cater for all the students who want to become more skilled and educated. In that matter the Minister would possibly get a C, or maybe a B. It is good that we have a few more students there, but not enough. The Minister reduced the fee maxima, making certain courses more expensive. I reckon that gets a D: a D for dumb. Do members know why that is? It is because we have a doctor shortage. That initiative will make it more expensive for doctors to enrol in courses. It is bad for our economy, students, and our health.

We have seen the Minister limiting access to tertiary education, based on performance. I thought this Government was about incentivising people, not about regulation, but instead we are seeing in the tertiary education sector more punishments and regulations. The Government could have gone down an incentivised path to promote performance. It also gets a D because this approach will disadvantage minorities, including migrants without English as a first language. It will disadvantage students from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds, and it is not smart for the economy.

The Minister has also introduced a lifetime limit to access to student loans. It does not matter to him that we already have a lifetime limit to access to student allowances, which is already a good balance and check within the system. This Minister is limiting those people who want to do a double degree, or who take a while, like the Minister did, to get their zoology degree. It means the system is very inflexible and very rigid, and again I think we have to give it an F.

We have also seen the Minister prevent access by Australians to student loans. I think the rest of the Committee might agree that that possibly gets a B; it is not the worst thing in the package.

We are seeing the introduction of a $50 student loan administration fee for the 560,000 Kiwis who have student loans. Of course, that has to get an F. Maybe the Government gets an F for failing because the Minister and the Prime Minister would love to bring back interest on the student loans, but the policy that we do not have interest on our student loans is just too damned popular for that to be done. That measure will increase the burden. Nationally, the total student loan debt stands at $11 billion. We need to be reducing the burden on students. This Government gets an F for tertiary education.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. I am proud to stand in this Chamber as the Minister of Education in a National-led Government that has an unrelenting focus on lifting student achievement. I am very proud to be part of this Government. I am very proud to be part of a National-led Government that added $1.4 billion to the education budget over the next 4 years. It means that an extra $417 million will go into the into the education budget this year, and I am very proud, as the Minister of Education, to be a part of that.

I am also very proud to be part of a National-led Government that delivered to schools a 4 percent increase in their operations grant, which was well above the rate of inflation and well above anything that was expected. It means that an extra $156 million is going into front-line services in our schools over the next 4 years.

💬 Dr Cam Calder: How much?

It means an extra $156 million is going into schools.

I am very proud to be in a National-led Government that has put an extra $350 million into property development—on top of the $500 million we put in last year—for school property. Part of that funding, of course, is for new schools and upgrading existing schools, but I am really proud that this Government has faced up to the fact that we have leaky schools. As part of Budget 2010, $82 million is being spent fixing leaky schools during this financial year, but we have to spend another $22 million over the next 2 years to find out how many leaky schools there are.

I do not know what the previous Labour Government did over the last 9 years, when we all knew there were leaky buildings, but it did nothing about leaky schools, and we did not even have the information. I am proud to part of a Government that has faced up to the fact that we have that problem, and has put some money in to start addressing it. Out in our communities there are some unsightly school buildings that have been abandoned or closed down, and they drive communities crazy because of graffiti and vandalism. I am proud that we have put some money into the Budget to take care of those problems.

I am proud to be part of a National-led Government that has put an extra $15 million into the Positive Behaviour for Learning plan, which will make training available for an additional 3,000 families and an extra 2,000 teachers. This programme was developed by the education sector and is being rolled out across the country. It is assisting both teachers and parents to deal with unruly students, and I am proud that we have found an extra $15 million this year to support that.

I am very proud to be part of a Government that has put over $48 million into ultra-fast broadband support for schools. That increases the School Network Upgrade Project and connects nearly 500 schools to the National Education Network trial. I am very proud to be part of a Government that is putting that sort of money into making sure that our children have a modern learning environment.

I am also proud to be part of a National Government that has put $48 million into the Youth Guarantee to give another 500 young people the opportunity for fees-free level one to three education in a tertiary environment. We have already got 2,000 students this year. There will be another 2,000 students next year, plus 500. I think that is fantastic. It means that 2,500 young people who were on the streets, who were not in education, work, or training, will have an opportunity at a tertiary institution next year.

I am also proud to be a part of a National-led Government that has more students in tertiary institutions than ever before. We are funding more students in tertiary education regardless of the half-truths that are told out in the community by the Opposition. We are funding more students than ever before. I am proud to be part of a National Government that has put an extra $107 million into early childhood education, bringing our total expenditure on early childhood education to $1.3 million, and $91.8 million of that is focused on lifting participation.

It is interesting to hear the Minister of Education get up to talk about all of the things she is proud of. I wonder how proud she is of the Building Act 1991, which created the problem of leaky buildings by deregulating the building industry.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh, she says: “No”.

Oh, yes, it did, by deregulating the building industry and allowing the cowboys to take charge. If those schools were leaky, it would be interesting to see how many of them were built in the immediate period after that National Government put in place the Building Act 1991. She also talked a little bit about empty schools. I tell members that there is one time of the day now when there are a lot of empty schools around New Zealand, and that is in the evening.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Why?

Well, that was when night classes were being held around New Zealand. But, unfortunately, in this appropriation and in last year’s appropriation, there was a reduction in funding for adult and community education and night schools.

💬 Paul Quinn: Not in Wainuiōmata High, Grant.

Mr Quinn interjects very loudly. I ask him how many schools in the Hutt Valley, where he allegedly tries to represent people, are offering night classes this year. I ask him how many. I tell Mr Quinn that there are zero, absolutely none, because that member’s Government cut the funding. Mr Quinn can interject all he likes, but in the Hutt Valley—where the people he says that he represents live—there are no night classes this year as a result of the funding cut.

It was interesting to hear in the House today the Prime Minister’s comments on the interest-free student loans scheme. What the Prime Minister said today was instructive. He said that he has no intention of getting rid of the interest-free student loan scheme. Presumably, this is a similar kind of intention to having no intention to mine national parks—“Oh no, we are not sure; maybe we will; we will think about it in the future.” So it was a decisive statement from the Prime Minister today that he has no intention to get rid of the interest-free student loan scheme, except that when he talked to Victoria University students yesterday he said that the scheme is a disaster, economically it does not really stack up, and there has to be a better way of doing it. Well, if he really believes that, why does he not do something about it? Why does he not actually put in front of the public the policy that he believes in? Those members across the Chamber do not believe in interest-free student loans. I know that Chris Finlayson does not believe in interest-free student loans.

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: How does the member know that?

Because I have listened to the member on many occasions. That Government does not believe in interest-free student loans, but it does not have the courage of its convictions to stand up with a different policy, which is what the Prime Minister actually wants. We have a lot of proof of what the Prime Minister thinks about the interest-free student loans scheme, because in this House on 16 November 2005 John Key said: “What a cost to the country. What an unaffordable and irresponsible cost to the country. It is a sad day.” Then he went on to say that National members would be opposing it with every bone in their bodies.

💬 Moana Mackey: Every bone?

Well, there is not a lot of backbone being shown here by Mr Key. If he really believes that interest-free student loans are such a cost on this country, why does he not have the courage of his convictions to put that in front of the public?

The problem with National’s approach to tertiary education is that it sees it simply as a sector to take money from rather than a sector to invest in for the good of all New Zealanders and for our future. I think it is very important to note that this appropriation for education covers the period in which a fundamental change will take place in universities. People who have university entrance will be denied entry to university next year. That is a major change, and the Government is standing there—Mr Joyce is standing there—like a bystander at a car accident, doing absolutely nothing but expressing concern and kicking the tyres. That is all that Mr Joyce is prepared to do while thousands of New Zealanders will not be able to go on to university next year. If they want to go to a polytech, they will struggle to get into a lot of those because tens of millions of dollars are being taken out of the polytechnic sector, as well.

Tertiary education should be the engine room of this economy. It should be part of the plan, if National had a plan, but it is not. Tens of millions of dollars are out of the tertiary sector. There are cuts to adult and community education and to university funding, and now there is a tax on the student loans scheme, as well. It is quite clear that this Government is not interested in catching up with Australia because it has no plan to catch up with Australia. If it did, it would be a plan that would involve investing at least a fraction of what the Australians are, but that is not what this Government has done. We will fall further and further behind Australia if this Government is not prepared to invest in tertiary education.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): We now have a motion in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to change Vote Education. The question is that Vote Education be changed by omitting from Schedule 1 “1,364,193” from the item relating to “School Property Portfolio Management”, and substituting “1,364,593”, and also by omitting “17,610” from the item relating to “Schools Furniture and Equipment”, and substituting “17,210”.