Annual Review Debate — Education Sector

I would like to, firstly, acknowledge the former education Minister Hekia Parata for her great contribution to our education improvement and also to enhancing the student achievement in this country. The Hon Hekia Parata worked tirelessly, and she was deeply committed to improving our education system and to improving our student achievement. I would also like to acknowledge, or congratulate, the new education Minister, the Hon Nikki Kaye. I have worked with the Hon Nikki Kaye on a number of projects. I am confident that the Hon Nikki Kaye will be a very capable, very committed education Minister. As the chair of the Education and Science Committee, I look forward to working with Minister Nikki Kaye.

The National Government has steadily increased the funding for education. We understand that education is particularly important to our country and to our young New Zealanders. If we want to have a globally competitive economy, we must have a globally competitive workforce. That is why education is particularly important. Also, education is essential to all young New Zealanders for them to succeed. So we have continually increased funding for all those reasons. Since 2009 we have increased funding substantially—about 35 percent. Our education spending is about $11 billion, which is the highest ever—$11 billion. When compared with other OECD countries, New Zealand spent the highest percentage on education—the highest percentage of our public spending on education. That is how important education is to us.

In terms of our early childhood education (ECE), we have more than doubled our spending there to about $1.8 billion. That is another area—from ECE to primary and secondary education—where we have increased our spending. Of course, in terms of tertiary education, we are also working hard in that area. In terms of per child ECE spending, actually we are amongst the top third of OECD countries.

It is not just about how much money we spend; we also pay attention to how we spend the money. We are trying to spend the money in a more innovative and responsible way. For example, we started the $394 million Investing in Educational Success initiative in 2014. We are focusing on career paths. We are focusing on sharing best practice. We are focusing on enhancing student achievement. So it is not just how much, but also how we spend the money. Also, we now have about 197 communities of learning involving well over a half million students and 184 early learning services and also about 1,600 schools, plus four tertiary education providers. So they are working collaboratively, trying to share best practice and also to enhance our student achievement.

So what are the results? First of all, we must say that we now have more students achieving the minimum qualification for success. That means that these students are able to either go to university for further study or to find a job. So this is a very substantial achievement. Basically, in the year 2016 about 85 percent of our students achieved the minimum—NCEA level 2. That is a substantial increase from 2011, about a 10.9 percent increase since 2011. So that, again, is a very major achievement. That means, actually, that since 2011, 21,000 more students achieved NCEA level 2. And with Pasifika and Māori achievement, it is more impressive. In—[Bell rung]

We need a different approach to the way we deal with education in New Zealand, an approach that is not about narrowing the focus of our education system but one that is about widening the scope of our education system, one that rejects the standardised, homogenised version that the National Government has of childhood and children, to one that recognises diversity and individuality and that kids develop different things at different rates and they have got different strengths and weaknesses.

The standardised approach in New Zealand has failed. It has failed spectacularly, and we know that because the one peer-reviewed overseas study that we focus on, Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)—and I think we focus on PISA far too much—spectacularly demonstrates our tumble down. We get worse in every study.

So let us look at the numbers in the PISA study that the Education and Science Committee was presented with. In 2006, before the National Government, we were fifth in the world for reading, and we are now 10th. We were 11th in the world for maths, and we are now 21st. We were seventh in the world for science, and we are now 12th. But what is more concerning is that it is not just the rankings that have gotten worse in all of these; the average test scores of New Zealand students have declined in every PISA study since the National Party became Government. So it is not just that other countries are getting better; we are actually getting worse. As I have said, I think we focus too much on PISA, but it is the one comparator, the one benchmarking study, that we can look to in order to see how we are doing, and the results are not good. I think that that is concerning.

It is also concerning that the Government crow on about National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) and the increased achievement of NCEA, when I think that is one of the greatest acts of deception and, dare I say it, fraud of any Government when it comes to talking about student achievement in education, because the Government does not care about how students achieve their NCEA. It does not care if the credits that students have accumulated to get their NCEA qualifications lead them to nowhere, as long as they get a level 2 qualification so that the Government can say: “Tick. We hit our target.” If NCEA achievement is so much better under this National Government, why are fewer students getting university entrance and why are more students ending up on the dole, doing nothing, or are “neets”—not in education, employment, or training? Those numbers are going up; the numbers of students getting university entrance are going down, despite the fact that NCEA achievement is improving.

We know that there is a massive socio-economic disparity in the way that NCEA achievement is made up. Students in poorer communities—Māori and Pasifika students—are more likely to be directed through pathways of learning for their NCEA that lead them into low-wage, low-value jobs. That is the stunning reality of this, and we should be taking that seriously. Simply saying that qualification achievement rates are going up and that that is all there is to it is not enough. It is an act of deception. These kids are not being equipped for the world beyond school, and that is something that the Government needs to focus a lot more attention on. It is simply not fair what the Government is doing to those kids, and I think that it is not good enough.

School operational funding has been frozen under this National Government. The result is that 13,000 schools around the country get less money this year than they got last year because of National’s funding freeze. We have a teacher supply crisis in this country because National has not been dealing with teaching issues. We have got a support staff problem because support staff are not being paid what they are worth, they are not being looked after, and, as a result, we simply do not have enough people working with kids to meet their learning needs. Parents are paying more and more for their kids’ education even though it is supposed to be free, because the Government simply is not stumping up with the cash.

In early childhood education (ECE), the picture is equally grim. The National Government and the current Minister of Education’s predecessor Hekia Parata have boasted about the fact that they have cut $523 million out of early childhood education by reducing the funding rates. It was one of the first decisions National made when it became the Government, and it has resulted in a $523 million cut from early childhood education. Despite the fact that all of the research tells us that the more money we put into ECE, the better the outcomes in ECE, and the better the kids do all the way through the rest of the system and later on in life, the first thing the National Government did was to cut funding for that. It has abandoned its commitments to improve the ratio of teachers to children for the under-twos. Remember that? That was its headline commitment in 2008, and it has done nothing towards it. It has cut quality by cutting the number of registered qualified teachers in early childhood education. It is a sad state of affairs. It is one that the Government needs to do a lot more about. I do not think there is much hope of it happening under National.

This might be the last time I participate in speaking on the annual reviews. I have been on the Education and Science Committee now for 8½ years, so I have been through a lot of review processes. I wish I could say that they have provided me with answers to my very, very serious questions about what is actually happening in education, but, unfortunately, it has become a little bit of a rhetorical set piece over the last 8 years. What we have heard over and over again is that the education system is fantastic, that there are no issues, that everything is fine, that the communities of learning will fix everything, and that participation in early childhood education is fabulous, but when we actually ask questions about what is going on in education, there are some very concerning issues. So during the reviews, both this review and every other review that I have participated in, the Opposition MPs Tracey Martin and Chris Hipkins—whom I have been very pleased to work with—and I have consistently asked questions about what is really going on behind the glossy picture, and, no matter how many times the Government has said it is putting more money in, the figures that are beneath that show serious cuts at the front line.

Yesterday I was at James Cook High School, supporting school support staff. An absolutely sterling job is going on in that school with some of the children who suffer some of the most difficult circumstances in this country, and it was obvious that the education system is not able to meet the needs of these students. It was obvious that school support staff are badly understaffed and badly paid and are experiencing extreme stress. They are stressed because the teachers are stressed, because the students are stressed, because we are now in an education system that is probably more unequal than it has been since the Victorian era, and it is disturbing to see it.

Early childhood education is the place I would like to start. Early childhood education—the emphasis on participation. At every select committee hearing on the annual reviews, I have asked the Minister’s people: “What about quality?”. There is no point in talking about early childhood education participation if you are talking about baby barns, with one untrained childcare worker trying to take care of five babies. That is the reality in the wonderful participation figures—one person, five babies. That is disgraceful, and it is a direct consequence of the cuts to qualification and the requirement to have a limited group size, which has all gone out the window and into the wonderful new franchise called the privatisation of early childhood education.

The compulsory sector should not follow this model—it is a disturbed model and a disturbing model—but we have many problems in the compulsory sector. Every year I have asked about national standards. They are standards that are neither national nor standard. They are standards where there has been considerable research—not only from the Programme for International Student Assessment—that shows that literacy is not improving. So if it was all about improving compulsory sector - age children’s literacy, it is not working. National standards are something that were forced upon teachers by this Government. They do not like it, because it does not work. If you want to know what works in education, talk to teachers and talk to students.

I could go on at considerable length about some of the other failings in the education system, but one of the ones that has been the most disturbing—and the glossy annual reports do not tell the story—is that in terms of students with diverse learning needs, the system is broken. I instituted, with the support of my colleagues, an inquiry at the select committee into what is happening with that system. The annual reviews talk about all these wonderful consultations and all this effort that has gone into producing websites while 9-year-old children can be expelled from four schools and, because of a lack of school support, cannot get even an hour a day so that they can attend any school. This is the reality for people whose children have high learning needs, in far too many instances. There are some “magnet schools” doing a great job, but that is no thanks to the Government. This is an underfunded sector, and the children who could be succeeding are failing. It is a disgrace that we treat our most vulnerable diverse learners as expendable.

Set aside the rhetoric. The Government would not adopt my recommendations, or those of my colleagues, because it required some investment in money and a huge attitude change, and the first thing it required was honesty about education.

I am very pleased to speak in this appropriations debate. This is my first day as the Minister of Education, and I want to start by just acknowledging my predecessor the Hon Hekia Parata. It is very important to acknowledge her. Every single year that we have been in Government, we have increased Vote Education, and she won that hard-fought-for cash in the middle of a global financial recession.

The numbers—regardless of what some people may be saying—in terms of funding are $8 billion to $11 billion. In terms of operational grant funding, we have seen the numbers go up by a third. In a range of areas, special education funding has doubled. That does not mean we do not have challenges, and I look forward to working with many members in this House around some of those challenges, but we certainly have increased Vote Education, and in some areas we have increased it very significantly.

I want to take you through some of the big areas of reform and say why they are important in terms of our results as a nation. We know that education can be the difference between a young person ending up in prison or a young person ending up in a great job, and what we saw when we first came in was a huge number of schools at an infrastructure level that were old, cold, and leaky. We have undertaken the largest ever capital infrastructure programme in this nation’s history. We are now spending $5 billion. We have spending a third more over that period than the Labour Government did, to ensure that our infrastructure is world class. This matters for learning because it does matter in terms of the environment that teachers and young people are in, so that is a very significant achievement.

In terms of raising achievement and raising the quality of teaching, I just want to walk you through that. It is about results. We totally understand that people will have different philosophical views on this. But, ultimately, if young people are not able to read and write and do maths, we know—we know from all of the statistics—that their chances of succeeding in a modern economy are much reduced. The fact is that under this Government, we now have more than 85 percent of young people leaving school with NCEA level 2, or equivalent, which is a massive lift. It is over 10.9 percent—that is thousands more kids who are leaving school with that qualification.

In terms of Māori and Pacific achievement, I want to just touch on the comments that Chris Hipkins made. It does matter—it really does matter—the fact that we have seen in some instances a 15 to 18 percent increase in achievement in terms of these young people leaving school without a qualification. We now have thousands more Māori and Pacific kids leaving school with a qualification. That is a very dramatic lift, but we have more to do, and I want to talk about where we have more to do.

Right across New Zealand—and we have heard from the Opposition that not all of those members are supportive around communities of learning—the fact is that half a million children are now in a community of learning. The fact is that we are working through with those communities of learning around their achievement challenges. I think it is a really positive development for New Zealand that we have groups of schools—rather than having a very competitive model—working together, looking at what the numeracy and literacy issues are and looking at areas like special education.

As Minister of Education, I will have the job of endorsing some of those achievement challenges, but the whole point is we now have better data than ever before and a more collaborative system to be able to help more children, whether it is in—as Catherine Delahunty has mentioned—the area of additional learning support and special education, or whether it is around numeracy and literacy. So there is a huge amount that is being done there.

In terms of the quality of our teachers, we know—and Mr Hipkins mentioned the Programme for International Student Assessment—one of the most significant things that we can do is to improve the quality of our teachers. I want to acknowledge the Hon Hekia Parata for the establishment of the Education Council. It is crucial for teachers to be leading that debate around a number of these areas, whether it is professional development or whether it is the qualifications that are required to practise. I am really proud of the fact that we are having discussions with the Education Council in terms of professional development. The priorities are much clearer now—there are very clear priorities around things like digital fluency, but also numeracy and literacy. So there is a lot of work going on. Under our Government we are spending more and we are seeing greater results.

But there are challenges that lie ahead, and as Minister I am really looking forward to the next couple of months. We do have some potentially big decisions ahead of us. We have got a Budget that will be coming through. But I want to finish by saying—and I will have other calls—it is an absolute privilege to be the Minister of Education, and I look forward to working with many teachers and principals across New Zealand.

I want to address the $11 billion. The National Government continues to tell the New Zealand public that there has never been more funding for education before, because it is now at $11 billion. In this Budget there is—it is quite right—$10,792,273,000. That is right, absolutely right. What the Government does not tell you, unfortunately, is that in 2008 the Budget was $10,091,279,000—a $701 million difference over a 9-year period. You might say of a $701 million difference: “Wow, that’s amazing.”

Let us just be clear: in 2009 Anne Tolley put a price on leaky schools—the Minister has just mentioned leaky schools. It is important that when this Government says there is $11 billion in education, the suggestion is that that is being spent on children. The suggestion is that that is directly impacting the education of children, whether that be in more resources, whether that be in more teaching staff, or whether that be in lowering class sizes. We know that is not true, so where is that $701 million going? The price tag put on leaky schools—and let us remember who created the leaky building controversy—is $1.5 billion. So the increase that this Government is telling the New Zealand public about—“Wow, we’ve put this much more money into it.”—is going into property.

But it is not just going into the taxpayers’ property. For example, $61,600,000 has gone to the private property of integrated schools. Those are assets owned by the private proprietors of integrated schools. That is, $61,600,000 of this $11 billion has gone to those private assets.

Let us just talk about the fact of one of the largest private early childhood education providers in New Zealand. Its profit, before financial costs, went up by 121 percent in the last financial year—this Budget that we are talking about—and 82 percent of its business is Government business. So this private company had a 121 percent increase in profit because 82 percent of its money, which creates this profit, comes from the taxpayer—the taxpayers of New Zealand—out of this $11 billion. It had a profit margin of $32.9 million. This is why it is important, New Zealand: do not accept it when backbenchers of this Government say “We put in $11 billion.”—find out where that money is going.

Let us also be clear that $16,824,000 was spent on advice to the Minister, which is an increase of $5 million in this Budget alone; $1,000,624,628 was spent on property; $34 million was spent on services other than policy to the Minister; $761 million was spent on capital expenditure directly for the ministry—not for a school, but directly for the ministry; that is what is in this Budget—and $4,638,000 was actually to set up the Education Council. What is interesting about that is that that cost is now going to be shifted by this Government on to teachers. This Government set up the Education Council. We had the Teachers Council, but we wanted to remove the actual voting rights of teachers to have their own representatives there, so the Government set up the Education Council for $4,638,000. That will run out and is going to have to be paid for by the teaching staff of New Zealand, with a hundred-and-something percent increase in their actual fees to join that organisation, which they must join.

Let us also not forget the cuts that were made by this Government in 2009 before it started to build them back up again. New Zealand, you need to look backward before you decide to swallow the information that is being given to you.

The other reason why, and it is very interesting—this is an article that is from 1 April 2017. And why it actually works into this debate, Mr Chairperson, is that—this is a quote from this article, “The Figures Do Not Add Up, Minister”: “In Parliament, media releases and news reports, the Minister”—that was the then Minister Hekia Parata—“stated that ‘funding for schooling’ or ‘Vote Education’ had increased by 35 percent since 2008.”

💬 Todd Barclay: That’s right.

“The Minister”—sorry, that was Todd Barclay, if anybody is listening, who shouted out “That’s right.”—“later confirmed what many had assumed—her figures included everything in the education budget, not just what schools received. The 35 percent includes everything from ministry consultants to IES, charter schools, rolling out National Standards and school rebuilds and construction.” So let us be clear: do not swallow—[Interruption] Well, let us talk about charter schools. Let us talk about charter schools and the report that came through. I have here an article from 2 May that refers to the $14 million out of that Budget that has been spent on charter schools and to the comment from the Vanguard Military School chief executive, Nick Hyde, when he had to justify why $309,391 in 1 year was taken away from the educational dollar to fund over and above its payment to its principal for management services. He said that splitting that payment off to its management services—i.e., the company that he and his father had run before charter schools ever arrived. He said that by splitting that amount of money off, it led to further success, which included a 100 percent NCEA level 2 pass rate.

Let us read the report on the ministry by the Education and Science Committee: “We note a discrepancy between how partnership schools report on their NCEA results compared with other schools … We asked why the reporting differs for partnership schools. We heard that this is a technical issue. The ministry is investigating how to address it to provide a transparent and accurate picture of the pass rates. At present, partnership schools only know if a student has left the school, and not whether they have left the education system. This means the partnership school may incorrectly count a student as passing NCEA.” What that says is that there is no way to prove what partnership schools are talking about.

What is of even greater concern is that when a State school—and I have known three of them—has reported a 100 percent NCEA level 2 pass rate, the Education Review Office instantly goes in and does an investigation. How come not with a charter school? How come with a charter school we accept it, or we are supposed to accept it through a glossy brochure? These schools are funded to $14 million by the taxpayer, and we are supposed to accept them on face value. Minister Parata and David Seymour stood up and lauded that in this Chamber.

Let us also just remember that so far, of the original charter schools that are still open, around $10 million came out of this Budget alone for those charter schools. What about the Whangaruru money? We have still seen no recovery there. The Ministry of Education estimated—this is from an article in 2016—that the cost of Whangaruru School was $5.2 million. The farm itself, paid for by taxpayers’ dollars, was $1.38 million, and Minister Parata stood up in this House and said that the Ministry of Education was negotiating. Where are those negotiations, Minister? Where are those negotiations at, to get back either the $5.2 million originally funded for Whangaruru School or the $1.38 million that was used to purchased land or buildings, or even to get back the land for the New Zealand taxpayer? We have never heard about it, yet we are supposed to swallow quietly that this Government is funding education appropriately, when it squanders money—it squanders money—that is needed.

The worst thing is the cut of $42,000,908 that the appropriation provided to service individuals with special education and special needs. That was a cut from the last Budget to this Budget—$42 million—for the very children who we at the Education and Science Committee know need the greatest support, yet inside this appropriation there is a cut.

It is an honour to be able to speak on this particular debate. Before I start my contribution, I want to acknowledge the Hon Hekia Parata for her sterling 6 years as Minister of Education. Having had the privilege of working for her for 2½ years as well, I know that she is incredibly passionate about education and she has a lot to be proud of in the contribution that she has made as Minister of Education over the last 6 years. I also wanted to congratulate the Hon Nikki Kaye on being appointed as Minister of Education. I know she is equally as passionate about the prosperity of our young New Zealanders as the Hon Hekia Parata was, and I know she has worked incredibly closely with her, from chairing the select committee in our second term, right through to being an Associate Minister of Education, and now as the Minister. So we all wish her the best in her role.

I just wanted to correct a couple of points that have been raised by previous speakers in relation to the annual reviews. That is that under Vote Education there has been an increase of 35 percent since 2008, to the tune of $11 billion. It is about a fifth of the total Budget that is invested in Vote Education because it underscores the importance of that level of investment in the future of our young people. But it is not just throwing good money after bad each year; it is actually looking at seeing results. Each sector that receives money from the Government has to be accountable for the investment that is received. It is no different in the education sector than it is in the transport sector or the health sector or any other sector.

If you look at how the education sector is accountable to the taxpayer who invests in success, it is through achievement rates. If you look at our NCEA results, national standards, and the other reporting mechanisms, we have got a very good story to tell. We have had a significant increase in NCEA level 1, level 2, and level 3—right across the board—and, in particular, an increase in NCEA level 2 results for Māori and Pasifika. That is a credit to all of the people who work in the sector: the over 100,000 passionate educationalists who support the achievement of our young people. That is important because we need to be able to see that there is a clear line of sight from the investment that is put into Vote Education to the achievement results that come out the other end.

I have got 69 schools in my electorate. I have been to 62 of them—many of those I have been to more than once. It is really great hearing about the contributions that they are making, and the feedback from the level of investment that the Government is putting in across a range of programmes and how that is filtering through the system. If you look at the results that we are starting to see, they are not only because of things like national standards and the improvements to NCEA levels 1, 2, and 3 but also because the Government has made changes to the deployment of professional learning and development for staff, and other investments into the sector.

One of the points touched on by the Minister that was of interest to our select committee was the establishment of the Education Council as a result of the ministerial inquiry into sex offenders in schools, and the changes that were made to the former Teachers Council in the establishment of the new Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand (EDUCANZ). Dr Graham Stoop, as the new chief executive of that organisation, is best placed to lead that change through his collaboration with the chair, Barbara Ala’alatoa, and a number of other sector representatives who sit on that guiding body.

If you look at the education sector in New Zealand, it is incredibly complicated and complex, but it is actually riddled with choices as well. The member who previously spoke, Tracey Martin, underscored all of the flaws with charter schools, but we are fortunate in New Zealand to have a system that is full of diversity. We have got State schools, we have got State-integrated schools, we have got private schools, we have got Māori-medium schools, and we have got partnership schools. Quite frankly, if you do not want to send your kid to a partnership school, then do not—you do not have to. There is plenty of choice out there.

Those parents who do decide to send their children to partnership schools—it is largely because they have not had success in other aspects of the sector. So diversity is one of the remarkable things about the sector that we have in New Zealand, and it is something that is held in high regard by all of the comparative countries that we compare ourselves with across the OECD.

One of the final points that the Minister of Education, the Hon Hekia Parata, did before she finished in her role was to go overseas and speak about some of those achievements that we have. So it is great to be able to make a contribution.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for this opportunity to discuss the Appropriation (2015/16 Confirmation and Validation) Bill for the education and science sector. As a mother of two young daughters—one at primary school and one who has just started high school—I would like the best education for both of them. But can I say that, as an MP and as all MPs in this House, we have a responsibility to ensure the best education for every single child in Aotearoa New Zealand regardless of where they live, regardless of the socio-economic status of their parents, and regardless of their ethnicity. But as a result of National’s approach to education, all of our children in this country are not getting the education that they need and deserve.

The best indicator of a country’s economic and social success is its investment in education. However, when we look at the compulsory education sector there is a real disconnect between the rhetoric we hear from this current National Government and facts on schooling. As my colleague Chris Hipkins discussed earlier on, when we look at our international test scores for the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) we have continued to decline. When we look at the 2006 results for reading, maths, and science, and we compare it to 2015, we are at the lowest, lowest level for PISA test scores.

I agree with a lot of the comments that my colleague Tracey Martin said about funding. We keep on hearing that there is a lot more investment in education, but when we look at per child funding for each child in this country for education, we know that it has decreased. We also know that over the last weekend the outgoing Minister of Education did not deny that the per student cost in education in this country has actually decreased.

This National Government tells us that it invests a lot more in education, but with a huge growth in population we expect there to be more investment in our children. But if you were to ask a teacher, a principal, or even a parent from schools from across New Zealand many of them will tell you that they are struggling to make ends meet at school, and parents are struggling to make ends meet to ensure that all of their children actually have school uniforms and school stationery.

Last year National made this even worse when it froze the operational school funding for every school; 1,300 schools across Aotearoa were affected by this, and can I say that for South Auckland and especially for Manukau East so many of my schools were affected by this. We are told that this new way of funding is supposed to be better, but how can it be better when we heard NZEI Te Riu Roa eloquently say that—and if I can just go back—this cut-price in funding is worth just “half a sandwich per child” a week. It is less than $2 a week per child. It is an outrage that this is what we are told is better funding for our children.

The consequence of the current funding is, actually, under-investment in education, and I will give you these three examples. When we look at teacher supply, we have a teacher supply crisis. Let us look at Auckland. Many of the schools in Auckland are struggling to find teachers, and many of the teachers in Auckland are now looking to move out of Auckland because they can no longer afford to live in Auckland and teach at the same time. When we look at support staff—we know that just yesterday a lot of members of Parliament shadowed support staff, and they saw, face to face, the struggles that our support staff are facing. Because support staff are supposed to be funded from operational grants, the very same operational grants that have been frozen, many of the schools are struggling to be able to afford to hire support staff or even to pay them what they are truly worth. When we look at parental contributions, Statistics New Zealand tells us that parental contributions across New Zealand have increased by 44 percent since this National Government took office. We must do better for every child across Aotearoa New Zealand.

I want to talk about science, and science and innovation, which is part of the discussion today, in particular. I have just come from opening a conference for one of the National Science Challenges, Sustainable Seas - Ko ngā moana whakauka. “Moana” means oceans and “whakauka” means sustainable, or preserving to be long-lasting, and one of these National Science Challenges is about mission-led science, trying to answer problems that are relevant to us. So that mission is to enhance utilisation of our marine resources within the environmental and biological constraints—a very passionate bunch of scientists, sustained by our big investment in science, who are passionate people and very keen to better understand the seas and the oceans that sustain us in so many ways, but it also combined stakeholders from iwi and the many issue groups that are involved in the broader marine environment. It was a wonderful occasion.

I think when we just stand back and ask what we are trying to achieve in Government, much of what we are trying to achieve is around raising the living standards of New Zealanders, and we can do that by creating a stronger or more resilient economy that creates jobs and opportunities for New Zealanders, but we can also do it by delivering better public services for New Zealanders, such as in health or in education or in the many sectors that we work on to improve the quality of our lives through better public services. But that is not all of what Government is about. I see that a fundamental role for Government is about preserving and enhancing what is special about New Zealand. We often think of the quality of our physical environment, but that also extends to our way of life, our social cohesion, and our high levels of trust. Thirdly, Government is about raising living standards, it is about preserving and enhancing what is special about New Zealand, and it is also about New Zealand playing its role in the world.

When I think of the science investment that we have, that can contribute powerfully to each of those areas. World-class science can provide fresh ideas for our companies, for our start-ups, and for our entrepreneurs to enable them to compete successfully in global markets and deliver higher standards of living for all of us. World-class science can support evidence-based decision-making in our public sector, so that we can spend wisely in the education sector and so we can make sensible decisions about regulation affecting our oceans and the many things that we regulate, in the broadest sense of the word. Also, world-class science can help us preserve our national landscape, our water, our environment, and our oceans, fundamentally to help us better understand the world in which we live.

Finally, New Zealanders are not freeloaders. We do not just expect the rest of the world to do all the science and to just enjoy it. Our world-class science and innovators can help solve global problems and contribute to our global understanding of the human condition and the world in which we live. That is why we do continue to invest $1.3 billion a year in science, as we are looking at today as a result of previous Budget decisions, and we are on track to increase that to $1.6 billion annually by 2020.

We invest it right across the spectrum, from fundamental, inquirer-led science in the Marsden Fund and the Performance-based Research Fund, through to the universities, which are powerful contributors to this understanding, right through to mission-led science in the National Science Challenges, such as the Sustainable Seas challenge, but also challenges that are designed to deal with our biosecurity issues and the quality of our soil, as well as ageing well and many health issues. Science investment also extends to the capability building in our Crown research institutes so that when the world looks at us and thinks “Well what does New Zealand have to contribute to our global understanding?”—they expect us know a bit about earthquakes and the sorts of things that GNS Science focuses on. They expect us to know about the oceans, because we have got the fourth-largest exclusive economic zone in the world, and we do have world-class scientists in that area. But also, our science investment extends to the encouragement of business R & D through the Callaghan Innovation growth grants. We have seen a very significant—about 27 percent—increase in business investment in R & D science and innovation over the last 2 years as a result of this encouragement. I am very pleased with the progress that we are making from our very substantial investment in science.

Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Komiti nei. I am really worried about the future of education in New Zealand. Yesterday I attended a pōwhiri for four mokopuna from Mangawhero Te Kōhanga Reo, and they started at their new kura. What I worry about is the legacy that those tamariki, those mokopuna, inherit: a legacy of 8 years, coming into the ninth year, of this Government that has cut the budget, effectively, from the education system. It is a disgrace. It is not good enough. I worry about those tamariki, because here is the fact—and we have heard it in the House before. The fact is that there are 90,000 young people in this country who are not in education, not in employment, and not in training.

What kind of legacy does that leave for the tamariki, those mokopuna I went to support yesterday, for their education? I will tell you what it means. It means that they are reliant on the staff, the teachers, who have to go beyond what they would normally have to do because of the lack of funds, because this Government has frozen the operations grant. The report from the Education and Science Committee spells out the changes to the operations grant. The Government is effectively cutting 66 percent from what would be the increase in the operations grant for this year. That is not good enough. That tells us—it tells the whole country—that this is not a priority for the Government.

I will go on to add another dimension to this: NCEA results in charter schools. Here is a fact. It is in the report. There is a technical issue around how charter schools add up who has passed and who has not. They add them up differently from State-run schools. What does that tell us? If you do not like the results, just change the way you add it up—that is what it says to me: “If you really want to cut 66 percent out of the funds that should have gone as increases to the operations grant, just add it up a different way. Formulate a new way of distributing those funds.” The Government has found that way. That is just not good enough. Those mokopuna who started kura yesterday deserve better than that. I am here, in this appropriations debate, really disappointed with this Government that it has seen fit to take this course of action, or, as I would like to put it, inaction. It is deceitful. It is a way of confusing people around the true amount and value that this Government is putting into education.

That is the main point that I want to state here in this Chamber this afternoon. I have spoken to principals at a number of schools, and they talk about the struggle that they have in coping with not having enough money. Of course, that is not a new issue, but they tell me that this is an issue that is unprecedented. I am talking about principals who have been in schools for long periods of time. They have been principals of schools for up to 15 or 20 years, and they understand the dynamics of how this works. Some of the schools do not have the opportunity to insist on donations from parents. I put a big mihi out to parents as well, along with those teaching staff and non-teaching staff who were acknowledged yesterday, because those operational funds are just not enough for schools to be able to fund those positions properly. Kia ora.

I rise to speak today on the annual review of the Ministry of Education. I do want to concentrate particularly on the Ministry of Education and the appearance of the ministry before the Education and Science Committee to answer our questions. I want to begin by congratulating Hekia Parata on a stellar time as Minister of Education, completely driven to change achievement—we asked in the committee a number of questions about achievement; I will go into that little further—and welcoming the Hon Nikki Kaye to the role. It is a tough role, but it is one that really matters. I go round the schools in my electorate and they are talking about the same things that our committee asked in this annual review. They tell me that they understand that what we want is the best education for the students who are going to school. We want the most young people engaged in education, and that, in fact, again, was one of the questions that we put to the committee.

I was a little disturbed to hear other committee members talking about the total budget and the apparently shrinking budget—when we on the side of the House know it is simply not shrinking—but also alluding to, perhaps, a separation of where the money is spent. It is just incredible to think that members cannot take the whole of education as one and understand that there needs to be a ministry and there needs to be school buildings that the children are taught in, that they experience education in. So to suggest that we should look at those parts of education aside just seemed incredible to me. Buildings did not matter, and the ministry staff did not either—so policy advice. Well, that is an interesting one.

In terms of some of the areas that I particularly want to touch on, one is the COLs—this is the communities of learning, kāhui ako. What we have seen, and what was reported to the committee, is that now 67 percent of schools—roughly 67 percent of schools—are engaged in COLs. I know in my own electorate there are a number of COLs, and, in fact, I am starting to hear the stories about that really working. The engagement by the leading principals—what we have across the country is 52 leaders, and we asked why it had to be principals, and we were told that largely they were the best people to be the leaders. In fact, there are two COLs that have people other than principals as leaders. There are about 1,500 schools, we were told, now involved in COLs, and, of course, a significant investment on the part of the Government—or the taxpayers of New Zealand, really—in the COLs and in what that can mean. The stories that I am hearing and that we were told were around the leadership that is addressing the specific issues within those schools.

I did also want to mention, while I am on my feet, something that, again, seems to have been lost in translation when other members have stood to raise these issues. There was an extra $15.3 million spent in this last year on helping an extra 1,250 students get extra teacher-aides. Those are the facts, not the rhetoric from the comms. Those are the facts.

The other thing is that the operations grant has gone up by 16 percent, and this last year we listened to the principals who said: “I’ve got tough kids in this school—really needy kids in this school—yet you’re just giving a blanket increase to the schools where they don’t have anywhere near as many of those tough kids.” So that is why the operations grant went to the schools where the students had been identified as the most needy. One third of the schools went up. One third of the schools stayed the same. Because they had fewer of those students, one third went down; so 15 schools actually missed out altogether. Now those are the facts about the operations grant this year. So to hear it represented as anything other than that from the other side of the House—oh well, maybe that is the comms and research on the other side of the House. However, what we know is that principals say to us: “Please recognise there are students in our schools who need more help than other students. Please focus extra funding on them.” And that is the way it was done during this last year. So that is why.

At the same time, we hear complaints and we did talk very briefly about early childhood education in the committee. We talked about the revisiting of the curriculum, and that has now, of course, come to pass. The draft was out for consultation at the time. So that is what happened in the annual review.

Reports noted.

Environment Sector