Estimates Debate — Education and Workforce Sector

Members, we come now to the votes in the education and workforce sector, B.5, volume 2. The question is that Vote Education, Vote Education Review Office, Vote Labour Market, Vote Pike River Re-entry, and Vote Tertiary Education stand part of the schedules.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity. It’s a real privilege to chair the Education and Workforce Committee. I would like to start by saying that during the Estimates process it’s expected that when the Minister comes for the Estimates hearing, the Minister provides an overview of his portfolio, overview of the budget, and also the expectations that the Minister has from that budget.

It was really interesting when for Vote Education the Hon Chris Hipkins came for the Estimates hearing. His overview was just literally two minutes, and, given that that overview was just two minutes, that says it all given the education portfolio is a huge portfolio. In the last term, we know that the education portfolio was split because we had a different Minister for tertiary education, but this time we have one Minister looking after early childhood education, school education, and also tertiary education. It could be because the tertiary education fees-free policy has taken up all the budget and space.

So I would like to start from early childhood education. For early childhood education we saw there is an increase of allocation of 5.5 percent from the previous year. All this money is not to meet increasing demand in the early childhood education sector. We have seen that the early childhood education sector—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you very much. I understand the question that you’re going to ask and I am going to ask the member—as chair of this committee, it is your role to summarise the report back from the committee; it is not to make political statements. Your role in this particular debate is very clear. It’s over to other members of your caucus to make other statements, but your role is very specific about the report back from the committee on this particular Estimate. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll try my best to do that. So what we noted was there is an increase of allocation of 5.5 percent in early childhood education from the previous year, and all this money is not to meet increasing demand for early childhood education centres. The Minister also mentioned that home-based early childhood education centres are increasing. The percentage of students attending early childhood education is at 9 percent. The Minister expressed his view to review home-based early childhood education sectors to see that they are providing quality care to all attendees and that is a good thing, and we want to see that actually all early childhood education centres are providing quality care.

But on the other hand we note that the Education Review Office funding has gone down by $90,000 from the previous year. This is for the Education Review Office to review early childhood education centres. So that funding has gone down and also in Budget 2018 we noted that there is no funding allocated for all fully qualified early childhood education teachers. So, yes, on one side the Minister wants to review early childhood education centres, especially the home-based early childhood education centres, but on the other hand there is no funding allocated to see that they are all fully qualified.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I do believe that the member is now trifling with you. That is a direct opposite approach to the direction that you just gave her. Questioning the Minister—saying on the one hand he wants to do this and wants to do the other—is not following the clear direction that you just gave that member not two minutes ago.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I thank the member. I do want to reiterate this is about a report back of the committee. Does the member understand what her role is in this?

Yes, so talking about early childhood education—

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Can you try not reading your speech? Say it from the heart.

Let me do what I’m supposed to do here. I don’t need help from members on the other side. I know they’re very keen on defending their Minister and what is happening in the education portfolio.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! I ask the member again. Your role is very specific as the chair of the committee to report back from the committee. Do you understand what your role is in this debate? Thank you. I ask the member to continue with her contribution.

In early childhood education, that was the summary of what we heard.

The next issue that was discussed was the increasing school roll that is affecting school property. We saw that in Budget 2018 there was an increase of 2 percent compared to the last year’s Budget, and this appropriation includes supporting and advising schools on property issues and managing new and existing property. The Minister did acknowledge that the previous Government’s funding for school property in 2016 was helpful in alleviating the pressure that is there because of the increase in population. We noted that the funding for property maintenance is business as usual and is expected from all Governments to look after the property maintenance. We have around 2,500 schools all around the country.

The Canterbury school rebuild was also discussed. Budget 2018 provides around an additional $10.5 million for the Christchurch schools rebuild programme. The Minister was asked to explain this funding, noting his public comments about a hole left in the rebuild budget. Overcrowding in schools was another issue that was discussed in the Estimates hearing process. Government party members remain concerned about—[Time expired]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m delighted to stand here today to talk about the Estimates that were presented to the Education and Workforce Committee, but I would really like to focus my time here this afternoon on Vote Education. It’s really heartening to be part of a team that is looking at a positive and forward-thinking approach towards education. The lack of foresight and planning and the ad hoc approach by the previous Government left major holes in the education sector, that left a number of people working within that sector feeling very dispirited, and it’s good to see now that we are prioritising a way forward and a way out of those holes, and really looking positively and doing forward thinking around where we’re heading in the education sector.

One of the areas that we’ve put a lot of funding into—and we heard the Minister of Education talk about this in his presentation in the Estimates debate—is in the learning support services. I don’t think there is anyone in this committee who wouldn’t have heard, when they go round schools and early childhood centres, how hard it is to deal with children who have additional learning needs, because of the lack of resourcing that has been available to them and how that has diminished over time. It is heartening, and really exciting, to see that this Government is putting so much resourcing into the learning support area—over $43 million. Now, it’s easy to roll those figures off the tongue, but what that means is extra learning support services to over 7,500 additional children—7,500 additional children are going to get additional learning support services. That is significant.

Only yesterday, I was in early childhood centres and schools that actually thanked me for being part of the team who are delivering those services to children. They are excited, but they also know that that is only the beginning. They know we have had to prioritise. They know that there is still a way to go, and we know that, too. It can’t be an overnight fix. We know that we have to do a lot more in this space, but we really, really had to show that we were making a commitment.

One of the aspects that is really exciting that came in the Minister’s Estimates hearing was that we heard about how the ministry has begun the learning support update. We know that this isn’t just about putting more money in, because when you’ve got a system that’s completely broken—because nothing’s been done, or very little’s been done, over time—you’re actually not going to fix it by just keeping on putting that money in. We know that we have to rethink, and the Minister talked about how that work is being led by the Hon Tracey Martin in her Associate Minister of Education role. He’s confident that over time we will see significant progress being made towards the fantastic findings that came out of the November 2016 Education and Science Committee report findings in the areas of dyslexia, dyspraxia, and autism spectrum disorders. That is so exciting in those areas to think that we will be the Government that will be able to make the significant progress and an absolute difference for those children.

It’s exciting to hear about the review of the New Zealand education system, and as part of that the review of the NCEA and the commitment to removing national standards. I heard that so much yesterday. In fact, I went to a school where they said, “We asked our parents if they wanted us to continue reporting with national standards, so we put a survey out to those parents.” This is a big intermediate school. Over 90 percent of parents came back and said, “No way. We want you to actually report on the progress of our children. Reporting on national standards told us nothing.” And the teachers said to me yesterday, and have continually said to me over time, “Thank you—thank you for having faith in us and knowing that we know our learners and that we know the progressions and where they’re going to.” It’s exciting work that’s going ahead. There is so much to talk about, so much that came through that Estimates hearing, and it’s so exciting to see the way forward that we are heading in. Thank you.

Look, I’m very pleased to speak in this debate. Firstly, though, can I just acknowledge that this Estimates debate and the discussion around Vote Education demonstrate, in my view, the epic failure that is the Hon Chris Hipkins. He has failed to succeed. In the middle of the global financial recession, with the Canterbury earthquakes, National took the Vote Education from $8 billion to $11 billion, and what we saw in this Budget was actually a reduction in overall funding for the compulsory sector from 13.2 percent of the Budget to 12.8 percent. What is incredible is at a time when you had loads of extra cash, Chris Hipkins completely failed to get the compulsory sector a larger chunk of the pie. That’s the first point that I’d like to make.

The second point is this is a Budget of broken promises. We have added up at least 18 areas of broken promises. We saw the Minister on national television say to Hilary Barry, “I am not only going to scrap donations, but I’m going to do it in this first Budget.” Where is it, Mr Hipkins? It isn’t here, and that is a long line of broken promises by this Minister.

You can see in the report back from the Education and Workforce Committee, again, a situation where Labour members want to rewrite history. Well, let’s give you a little bit of history on school property. Actually, under a National Government we went from $3.5 billion of expenditure under the previous Labour Government to $5.5 billion of expenditure. We fixed a whole lot of issues around leaky buildings and invested in growth. But, again, this is a Minister that talked a massive game during the campaign, and what happened? He got exactly the same amount of property funding that we had at a time when we had a global financial recession and Canterbury earthquakes.

Also, the other thing that was not in there was an adequate package around Auckland growth. I know because I put forward a Cabinet paper last year saying there needed to be additional funds in Auckland. He failed in the area of school infrastructure. We also know, in the area of partnership schools, what is telling is what is not in the Budget, in terms of supporting these schools around transitions and transparency in terms of compensation payments. We also know that what’s not in the Budget is additional teacher pay. So we have the situation where the Budget is about $2.8 billion for students, but why do we have teachers out there striking? Because they know that Chris Hipkins failed the primary and secondary sector in this Budget? He hasn’t put—there is no obvious sign there—a whole lot of cash aside for teacher pay. That’s why parents are going to be disrupted—

💬 Jamie Strange: What’s your plan?

—and the answer actually is, Jamie, that under a National Government we did increase, on average, teacher pay by 17 percent. The reality is we did that with the backdrop of a global financial recession and the Canterbury earthquakes, and this is a Minister that is so incompetent that he’s seen the compulsory and secondary sector budgets shrink compared to other areas, and we now have a situation, just like the health situation, where we’ve got planned strikes. So it’s a Budget of broken promises. It’s a Budget that is about a lack of priority for teachers, because we can see the $2.8 billion that’s been put aside for students, and it’s also a Budget about ideology. We can see that in the sense that he is supporting the scrapping of partnership schools—again, not enough transparency around that.

But what is also telling is what is not in this Budget. A litany of broken promises—and a classic example of this, which I know my colleague will talk about, is in the early childhood education area, where, again, we were promised 100 percent qualified and a band in the Budget that would be provided. Where was it? It’s not there. We were promised around school-leavers’ toolkits $170 million. Where is it? $1.7 million—one percent of what was promised. In terms of teacher supply, we were all promised $40 million of initiatives and that all teacher supply issues would be resolved. What happened? He spent two-thirds of that. So at a time when there’s possibly more than 20 percent more cash, the education compulsory and secondary sector budget’s shrunk, and this Minister has delivered a litany of broken promises. The reality is, why? Because he’s given the money to students.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m really pleased to take a call in the Appropriation (2018/19 Estimates) Bill debate this afternoon. I just have to say—in stark contrast to the previous speaker’s comments around the Hon Chris Hipkins being a failure—this very afternoon I had a conversation with a principal of a primary school in Ashburton and he said to me, “If you see Chris Hipkins, please tell him that he is a legend here in Ashburton.” They are so thrilled with the extra money that they are going to be receiving, and they are absolutely rapt.

And as far as the Minister failing to get a decent chunk of the pie—I am sorry, but when the system in so far as education and health and all those areas is so broken and in such disarray, there is no way that you can fix these sorts of things in one Budget. So I’ll end that particular part there, but I also wanted to just acknowledge the work of the Education and Workforce Committee, because, as you can see, we all have quite strong opinions and strong personalities, but it was a good process going through the Estimates and hearing from the appropriate Ministers.

I want to focus my speech today—or part of the debate today—on Vote Education. I am so, so pleased to be part of a Government that is actually recognising the importance of investing in education, and, in particular, early childhood education. As an early childhood teacher, I have seen the feeling of disheartenment from early childhood teachers and centres since 2008 when every year our funding was cut by stealth. I am excited to see there is a 5.5 percent increase in funding for early childhood centres, and that includes 1.6 percent in relation to inflation. That’s going to benefit 4,100 providers in the sector and 200,000 children, from 2019. As an early childhood educator, we are working with our youngest, most vulnerable, most impressionable children, and it is so important that we invest in them at such an early age.

The previous speaker, Nikki Kaye, mentioned the fact that there was nothing in this particular Budget around having funding for 100 percent qualified teachers. Well, as I said to that member previously, when there’s such disarray you can’t fix everything in one Budget, but the Government is committed to applying funding towards that before the end of this term. And when referring to other things mentioned by the previous speaker, they were things from the Labour Party manifesto, so when you form a coalition Government there are some negotiations that happen. So you can’t bring that into the argument, because that’s not applicable—it’s not applicable.

I also want to talk about home-based education. Nine percent of our enrolments for early childhood education are in the space of home-based education. We know that the delivery of education and different quality around that is quite diverse amongst home-based education, so it’s really pleasing to see that we are going to have a review around that. It is becoming quite a popular option for families with young children to put their children into home-based education and to have that home-type environment in which to learn.

Teacher supply is another really big issue in this education space. I visited various schools and they all say the same thing: it is so hard to get teachers when there are vacancies within their schools. So I’m really pleased to see that this Government is going to be addressing that by, first of all, fully funding the courses that primary teachers are required to undergo—the teacher refresher course when they’ve been out of the system for over 6 years. That’s been a huge barrier to some people coming back—whether they’ve gone and had children or gone to do a career or something else such as travelling overseas. It’s been a huge barrier for them to have to come up with the cost of covering that expense. So I’m really proud of what this Government’s doing in this space—in education—and what the Minister has brought to us in so far as the Budget this year. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call in this Estimates debate, and I particularly want to refer to pages 67 and 71 of the Education and Workforce Committee’s report, Vote Labour Market. Earlier today, I had the privilege of receiving a petition from trustees of the Coromandel Rescue Helicopter Trust. They’d travelled from Whitianga, in my electorate, to the steps of Parliament to present their petition, signed by over 8,500 people. They did so because they’re concerned about the lack of Coromandel and Whitianga facilities being included in a current tender for New Zealand’s air ambulance services.

Now, we questioned the Minister on this very issue at the Estimates hearing, and I have to say that he gave an utterly unconvincing account of himself in terms of his attempt to fudge the very real question that Coromandel people and the hundreds of thousands of people that visit the Coromandel every year want answered, which is why the existing funded facilities that currently operate out of Whitianga and cover the peninsula and the Hauraki Gulf and through down into the Waikato were excluded from the current tender document.

As I said at select committee, at the Estimates hearing, the Minister acknowledged that $3.7 million had been allocated to improve New Zealand’s air ambulance services, but, for some inexplicable reason, this service that the constituents and visitors to my electorate rely on has been excluded—but not only in my electorate; in the electorate of Taupō, in Te Ānau, and in Rotorua similar exclusions have occurred. And so we wait with bated breath for the outcome of this tender exercise, knowing that if a decision is made to exclude existing services, lives on the Coromandel will be lost. It’s simply inexcusable for this Government not to participate in a way that gives the people in my electorate the confidence that they need. When the Minister was speaking in select committee on this Estimates, as I said, he gave an utterly unconvincing answer and wasn’t able to give the assurances that the people of the Coromandel or visitors to the Coromandel seek to achieve.

I want to just also raise the matter of the Government’s intended changes to the industrial relations legislation environment in New Zealand. Business confidence, of course, continues to sink through the floor, and notwithstanding the Minister’s scatty response to business and its campaign to draw the public’s attention and to draw the attention of businesses to these Draconian, backward-looking 1970s changes, when we asked questions at select committee about the changes, the Minister was unable to give anything remotely confident in terms of assurances that business costs wouldn’t increase, that flexibility wouldn’t decrease, that prices wouldn’t increase, and that jobs wouldn’t be lost.

Of particular concern are issues relating to proposed changes to collective bargaining. Clauses 9 and 11 of the new Employment Relations Amendment Bill require a collective agreement to be agreed, and clause 13 repeals the ability of employers to opt out of a bargaining for a multi-employer collective agreement. Now, on the face of it, that appears to be utterly inconsistent with the stance of article 4 of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), also known as C098. The bill’s provision offends the specific provision in that convention that collective bargaining should be voluntary by nature. But it gets worse. The Government also appears to have been wrongly advised, in terms of the proper meaning of C098, in regard to proposals to introduce fair-pay agreements. Again, when questioned, the Minister wasn’t able to provide answers. I suspect that the Government has been wrongly advised, has received poor advice on this matter, and, ultimately, these things will play out as that legislation works through the House.

This Government has made some appalling mistakes. The Minister wasn’t able to account for himself. He gave an embarrassing presentation at the Estimates hearing and he needs to improve.

It’s my pleasure to rise and speak on this Estimate debate on behalf of New Zealand First, and I too would like to address the Vote Labour Market presentation. But I would like to set the record straight for that previous speaker, Scott Simpson. I would actually commend Minister Lees-Galloway on his strong grasp of his portfolio and the quality of his presentation to the Education and Workforce Committee. And what a fascinating space this is. This Employment Relations Amendment Bill that we have currently before the House is a major piece of legislation. It has ramifications that are important across the economy and it affects almost every household in the country, and it’s absolutely imperative that we land this in the right place.

New Zealand First find ourselves absolutely in the middle of this debate. We are a centrist party. We do have a centrist policy platform, and we understand the need to balance employer and employee relationships. In fact, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, our Acting Prime Minister, 25 years ago, almost to the day, split away from the National Party in his disbelief in their following the fourth Labour Government’s neoliberal economic experiment and the trickle-down theory that the Leader of the Opposition still appears to believe in.

Of course, he’s been right, and so many things he said over the years have played out. Of course, we see that the top 10 percent now own a hugely disproportionate part of the wealth and, obscenely, the top 0.5 percent own a quite high proportion of that as well. Things that we used to take for granted, like homeownership, are now something of a luxury to many and only a pipedream to far too many.

We as a coalition Government aspire to First World wages and working conditions, and New Zealand First has been instrumental in a first step in that policy platform, pushing and being successful and winning a $20 minimum wage by 2020. We want to go further with that, of course. We want to have a living wage being the norm, to reinstate the egalitarian society of which we were once so proud. So we absolutely support the intent of the Minister and the coalition Government in advancing the interests of working people, where a fair day’s work has the dignity of a fair day’s pay.

But New Zealand First also recognise the importance of employers. Employers are not just Fonterra or Fletcher’s; they could be a book store in Gore, a pub in Whakatāne, or, indeed, a farmer in Lawrence. And if anyone actually knows of a farm manager, could you come and see me later on—I’m hiring. We absolutely understand that those people risk their own capital, and we’re pleased to see the Minister informed us of the Tax Working Group’s proposals to look at tax breaks for small and medium sized enterprises to offset some of the $20 minimum wage and what that may be doing to the bottom line of some of our smaller businesses. But we have been instrumental in retaining the right for the 90-day trial for businesses with under 20 employees, which is actually 97 percent of businesses. We do think that it is a mechanism that allows employers to take a punt on those that may be marginalised in society.

We do note also that we need to retain flexibility. This is a dynamic time. Technology is changing, and lots of disruptive things are coming along, so we need to have flexibility within our employment relations. Indeed, the Labour Party’s own Future of Work, work that they did in the previous Parliament, demonstrated that.

So we are absolutely in the middle of this debate. As I say, we realise that we need some balance in this—that the pendulum has swung too far one way. We want to bring it back, but not at the expense of negating employment opportunities. Of course, we need to do much more if we’re going to lift our productivity. We need to add value to our primary exports. We’ve done things like the R & D tax credits and, of course, our Provincial Growth Fund—things that will build our economy so it does support higher wages. But we do commend the Minister on his performance, and we support the intent of what he’s trying to do. We do look forward to working with him to land this legislation in a great place.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. It’s a privilege to take a call on the Estimates debate. Opposite, we just had a history, Mark Patterson, of the last 25 years of the “Winston First Party”, stuck in the past. As he moved through his speech, we started to get into the future, and then he started talking about the 90-day trials and the concessions that he’s managed to get. I’m not sure whether his colleagues in the Green Party quite share his enthusiasm, but it’s great to see that he’s managed to get at least one concession in his time here in the House.

I’d like to touch on a few things in the Estimates debate, touching on the education report. In summary, what we see here is division, ideology, and broken promises, along with some wrong priorities. We see the Minister, Chris Hipkins, taking an ideological approach to education matters. You just need to go so far as to see what he’s doing with partnership schools: closing them down with a lack of consultation and riling up different parts of our community rather than sorting out these issues and working with people. And, look, these are some of the schools which are achieving some of the best results—

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: They’re very happy.

—and we’ve been hearing the submissions from these schools.

And I note the Hon Willie Jackson on the other side of the House, and I know how much he supports these schools. It’s time for him to take some leadership and stand up for some of the schools, which he has supported so much in the past. And I look forward to the leadership from him and the Māori caucus in the Labour Party to do that.

We also see that this Government is taking an ideological approach to school property. It’s OK to build a road with a public-private partnership, but it’s not OK to build a school. And the Minister failed to answer questions as to why, other than that it’s an ideological approach to education—continually, continually, continually. Public-private partnerships give schools and give communities the opportunity to build new assets, to develop them, and to have better learning environments for the future, but that has been scrapped by this Government and scrapped by a Minister who is taking an ideological approach.

We have to remember that, under National, for nine years, we spent $5.5 billion in education infrastructure; under the previous Government: $3.5 billion. We increased education investment every single year because we know that it matters. That was through the global financial crisis; that was through the Christchurch earthquake rebuild. The National Government invested record amounts in education infrastructure across New Zealand.

Now, I’d like to touch a little bit on some of the wrong priorities of this Government, and you don’t have to go far to see what’s happened in the tertiary education portfolio area, where you’ve had billions of dollars being put into free fees for students. But how many additional students are we seeing? Zero. There’s been no new students going to our universities, going into tertiary education, despite hundreds of millions of dollars—billions of dollars—going into free fees for students. New Zealanders see what this is. They see it as an election promise designed to get votes without incentives, without requirements on students and those who are the recipients of that money, with the wrong incentives in place, and that’s constantly the feedback that we are getting out there.

And we see there are sectors which now want pay rises—nurses, teachers, and midwives—which rightfully deserve that, but the money has already been spent on free fees for students in order to gain their support at the polling booth.

We also have broken promises. I’d like to touch briefly on the broken promise around school donations—well, they call it a delayed promise: a promise which they will expect. It says on page 60 of the report “We heard that the Minister expects the Budget bid to be accepted before the end of [this] parliamentary term. The majority of us are alarmed at how schools became increasingly dependent [on school] donations … and welcome the Minister’s commitment … ending donations during [this term]”. Well, he promised that at the election. He said that would happen this year. So how can we accept this as a commitment that anything will happen before the next election, or is he going to go into another election with the same promise trying to ask for votes? Well, I can tell you—parents out there will not be fooled twice by this Minister. They will not be fooled by a bribe taking away school donations, because he’s failed to do it. He said very clearly what he would do, and he failed to keep his word in this Budget.

Across the education sector we see the wrong priorities. We have ideological decisions and we have broken promises, and the New Zealand public can see that very clearly. Thank you very much.

Thank you for the opportunity to talk about Vote Education around the Estimates. We’ve heard from the Opposition about this sort of last nine years of utopia in education—how everything was so wonderful—but we inherited an absolute mess, with all due respect. We inherited challenges around a rundown education system and burnt-out teachers who wanted to get back to teaching but were in this state of constant assessment and reassessment and reassessment, we had students where their classrooms were having to be set up in the library of the school because they didn’t have enough classrooms, and we’ve had years of underachievement, and that’s why we have frustrated teachers, and we understand that.

In this Budget, we have started to address some of these issues. I am very proud of this Budget, and I’d like to acknowledge the Minister of Education, who has been listening to the sector and has begun to make some of these key changes.

Some of these key changes—the first one I’d like to talk about is school property. In my area of New Zealand, around Hamilton, it’s a growth area, and there are challenges around roll growth and around overcrowding. But the Minister has recognised this and has invested $1.82 million around school property—a 2 percent increase. So we’ve started addressing that issue. We’re listening and we understand.

The second one is around removing charter schools. As a coalition Government, we understand the need for a diverse education system, and charter schools can continue to operate within the designated character model. Within a designated character model, the schools will have registered teachers, and the schools will be a part of our world-class education system.

Another aspect—and my colleague touched on it before—is about learning support. I’d like to give a big shout-out to all of those teachers who work in the learning support area. They do a wonderful job. They have a big heart for kids, and we will support them by investing in an extra 1,000 Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme (ORRS) students. So ORRS students are students who have high learning needs, and we’re going to invest in this area.

We’re going to review the education system because we recognise there are a few challenges with NCEA. It’s a model that has been with us for a number of years, and there are some very good aspects to it, but we’re going to have a look at it. And we’re going to review Tomorrow’s Schools. So we’re a Government that’s here to listen, and principals and teachers know that we’re listening.

💬 Simeon Brown: Listen to partnership schools.

They have not been listened to for nine years, Simeon—nine years, Mr Brown. They have not been listened to, but we have a Government who will listen to the education sector, and we are.

We’re going to increase funding to early childhood education (ECE)—the first funding increase in this area for many years. The first five years of a person’s life are absolutely vital, and if we get that right—if we get the first five years right—it will set them up for lifelong learning. The increase in ECE has certainly been well received. I was at an ECE centre in Taupō last week. We’ve got a number of wonderful centres, but they need the support, and we will provide that support for them.

First year fees free for tertiary students—first year fees free—and two years for apprenticeships, and I’d like to focus on the apprenticeship aspect because we have a shortage of tradespeople in New Zealand. We’ve got an ambitious goal—which we’re working well towards—to build 100,000 houses, and we’re going to need tradespeople. So the first two years of an apprenticeship will be free, and that’s to incentivise people to get into the trades. We’re not just talking about school-leavers. We’re talking about people who may be in their 30s or 40s and who are supporting a family on a low income who want to better themselves. We’re providing the opportunity for them to have the skills and to have the access to education that we need.

We’re removing national standards. As a teacher during the last regime, this constantly came up: why do we have national standards? Why do we have national standards—and this was one of the key reasons that I stood for Parliament, because national standards narrows the curriculum. But this Government is committed to a broad curriculum.

This Government is committed to valuing a diverse range of learning needs. I could go on for hours, but I’m going to leave it there, and I’m going to say well done to our Minister of Education.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak. I would like to speak on the topic of the School Leavers’ Toolkit. I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Education during the Estimates hearings around this particular policy, and what we discovered was a practical idea that’s been put forward. It’s a school-leavers’ tool kit that’s being considered for every single school-leaver, equipping them with practical things like a driver’s licence, workplace competency, and financial literacy.

Now, we’re all about practicality. This is a good idea, and it apparently replaces the careers education pilot, which had a budget of $5.8 million over four years, and those four years had been earmarked very clearly. So what have we got here when it comes to this Government’s particular policy for school-leavers and their practical tool kit? Well, what we have got is a costed-out policy in the Labour Party’s manifesto for $175 million, and they did take the time to cost it out over four years: $25 million in the first, $50 million in the second, $50 million in the third, and $50 million in the fourth.

So now, fast-forward to the actual Budget and where, literally, the rubber hits the road—the money hits the road—what do we have here for the School Leavers’ Toolkit? Well, we’ve got $1.7 million in the first year, and that’s it—nothing in the second or the third or the fourth year. Again, it was supposed to be replacing the $5.9 million career pilot scheme; $1.7 million in the first year is less than 1 percent of what they promised they would do—less than 1 percent.

Not only is this money a fraction of what was promised; it’s not actually even going towards the tool kit itself. It’s going to be spent on exploration, on prep work, and on a little bit of design. How is this transferring your election policy into reality? It’s not even going to go to the tool kit itself. Surely, during their time heading into this policy, they could have figured out where this thing is going to go.

Now, the Minister did say something in response to this particular question. He said that the three coalition parties couldn’t agree on the delivery of the tool kit. So that’s, really, again, where the rubber hits this particular road. The proposal can’t be delivered because they can’t sort out the difference in their views, and it’s a perfect way—is it not?—to describe not only this issue but also the entire Budget and this entire coalition Government. All three heads are pulling in three different directions, and that’s why they can’t deliver on their promises.

Now, if you need some more examples from this particular debate on Vote Education that we’re having, I’ll give you three more. Where’s the funding for all fully qualified early childhood education teachers? We’re not seeing that. How about funding for ending school donations? We’re not seeing that, either. One more example: ensuring that all school buildings are modern learning environments. These aren’t plucked out of thin air. These are promises that aren’t being delivered, and we’re seeing that very clearly, in black and white terms, as we’ve journeyed as a select committee through the Estimates, and now here we are, having a debate.

All three members of the coalition have their hands in the cookie jar, and what we’re seeing is a very big bunch of mishmashed priorities. It’s not good for the education future of this country. Thank you.

I rise to speak on the Estimates for Vote Education, Vote Education Review Office, and Vote Tertiary Education. Now, these appropriations, which we examined at the Education and Workforce Committee, have some good things in them. There’s some additional funding for learning support for students in need. There’s additional funding for property for our schools. There are things in here that members on this side of the House support. But the question then isn’t “What is in this that we support?”; the question is “What is missing?”

The thing that’s really, really upsetting to the sector that supports some of the policies that were promised is that they’re not here. After years of rhetoric, of promises, of big talk, so many promises have not been delivered. Instead, what we’ve had is a Minister who has done many things to explain why he can’t deliver on his promises. One of them is “I’ve got the whole sector under review”. Thirteen different reviews in education, and we’re invited to imagine that this isn’t some sort of delay tactic. Then we had the explanation that it was a bit of surprise that there are some demographic pressures, that the population is growing and that more education services might be required and the Government might be required to fund it. Then we’ve got the excuse that there are coalition partners and, somehow, the coalition partners have stopped these promises from being delivered.

The thing is, in the end, when you’re a politician and you get up and you promise things on the campaign trail, it’s your responsibility to deliver on them. And this Labour Party, which Chris Hipkins is a member of, was incredibly specific about one of its promises, and that promise was that they would introduce additional funding so that all teachers in early childhood centres were 100 percent qualified. And so specific were they about this. The National Party was sensible enough to say, “Well, we’re not sure you’ve costed that. We’re not sure that you’ve actually allowed for the fact that that’s going to cost a bit. We’re not sure that you’re really sure of the commitment you’re making.” So Labour said, “No, no, no—don’t worry; we’ve got it all sorted. Here it is. It’s in our fiscal plan.” Remember this document—you may not be familiar with it any more, members opposite. It was something that your finance spokesperson said was a Bible and that it was going to show your integrity.

Well, in this fiscal plan, I want to draw your attention to the line that says, “Increased funds for 100% qualified ECE centres.” And then it’s got the Budget year “2018/19”—that’s the one to which these appropriations relate—and it says that there will be $33 million provided. So then we go to the appropriations and we say, “Is that $33 million there?” No; it’s not.

So we ask ourselves: why isn’t it there? Well, we know that some things did get an awful lot of funding, didn’t they? There was $2.8 billion found for free fees for tertiary students, for example. So if you were the Early Childhood Council, or if you were the New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI), and you were saying, “Actually, ECE needs a lot more attention.”—that’s what they said after this Budget, Mr Hipkins—or if you were saying that this Budget forces down quality, it would be fair to say that, actually, tertiary students were prioritised over children in this Budget by Labour. The funding for them was more of a priority. The pledges made to them were more of a priority than the pledges made to early childhood education.

And so what we can do when we look through these appropriations is we can have a sense of what the priorities really are—not what the rhetoric is but what is actually there in the black and white, in the money that will be delivered. And I was really interested, at a recent early childhood education conference, when the Minister got up and he said not only was he “hopeful” that 100 percent qualified would be delivered in the next Budget but maybe it would be in the Budget after that. And I say to the members opposite: have a conscience about the promises that you made up and down the country, the pledges you signed, the NZEI that you promised you would be delivering on things to. You were quite happy to sign it, but now, in the actual reality of Government, having to make priorities, that is not the priority that you are making.

So then we say: if it wasn’t this year, and it might be next year or it might be the year after that, then are these appropriations that can be said to be delivering on what the Government said it would do? And the answer is very clear: no, they can’t. And I’ve only talked about 100 percent qualified teachers, let alone the lower teacher to child ratios, the lower group sizes, and the general lifting of quality that were promised. We will judge you on your actions and your numbers, not on your words.

It is very, very exciting to take this call on Vote Education and to discuss the very positive and optimistic view of education that this Government has. I am very excited about the fact that we are working hard in this Government to ensure that all young New Zealanders can discover their potential and have it fulfilled through a world-class, public education system that is well supported and well resourced to do the job that we expect of it—one where teachers are valued and respected; one where young New Zealanders have their voice heard in the decision-making processes that affect them. And what do we get from the members opposite? The relentless negativity of the Simon Bridges National Party.

I made two lists while listening to this debate. I made a list of all the relentless negativity and verbiage that didn’t need to be responded to, and all of the coherent and well-presented arguments that I should make a genuine attempt to respond to. One of those lists is longer than the other. In fact, the second list doesn’t have anything on it, because the members opposite haven’t raised one single coherent argument that deserves to be responded to. Not one new idea has been presented by the Opposition, who are 100 percent focused on the rear-view mirror. But I will run through a few points that were made.

Parmjeet Parmar was the first member of an Opposition ever to complain that a Minister didn’t speak for long enough in their introductory remarks at a select committee. She then went on to complain that the Education Review Office has had their budget decreased by $90,000 a year. That’s because there was an earthquake and they were given some extra funding to relocate their offices following the earthquake. Unless the Opposition now think we should have earthquakes every year and fund those things every year, I’m not quite sure what her argument is there.

Nikki Kaye described me as “an epic failure” for not getting a large enough share of the Budget pie. I would simply point out that this is the largest increase in Vote Education in over a decade. If that makes me an epic failure, I’m not sure what kind of aspersions she is casting upon herself and her other predecessors in the last National Government, who all secured smaller increases in education funding than I managed to do in the first Budget. I would point out that it is also the largest increase in early childhood education funding in over a decade. So when Nicola Willis says that we weren’t valuing early childhood education enough, despite giving them the largest increase in funding that they’ve had in a decade, I think that maybe she should reflect on the track record of the previous National Government, who not only didn’t increase early childhood funding but cut it. They cut it. And the 100 percent qualified rate for early childhood teachers that we have committed to restoring was cut by the previous Government. On a per child basis, funding for early childhood education was cut by the previous National Government, and where were these now lions arguing for early childhood education increases in funding when they did that? They were completely invisible.

Nicola Willis was right, though, when she said that the Budget documents reflect this Government’s priorities. The two biggest increases in education spending in this year’s Budget were early childhood education funding, and funding to support children with special needs. And I make no apology for that—the biggest increase in funding for kids with special needs in over a decade. It’s time we prioritised those most vulnerable kids in our education system and actually gave them the inclusive education system that they have been promised for a long time but haven’t actually had. And I’ll tell you what: it’s not enough. We’ve got a lot more to do, because, for over a decade—for over a decade—the last National Government failed to adequately fund the education system to keep up with population growth, to keep up with the increasing number of kids with special needs, to keep up with the fact that our education infrastructure is ageing and creaking and needs to be replaced.

Nikki Kaye pointed out, in her contribution, that teachers are striking because we have failed in Budget 2018—the biggest increase in funding. Now, let’s just point out the obvious factor here. The obvious factor here was that nothing on Budget day changed the predicament of teachers in a negative sense; in fact, all of the salaries that teachers are paid now were negotiated under the previous Government. And I’ll tell you what: I’m not going to get into the bargaining of that, but I would point out that the offer that’s on the table now—this is a matter of public record—is significantly higher than what they were offered under the previous Government. We know that we’ve got a lot more work to do. We’ve got a big mess to clean up, and we are going to do it. We’re positive and optimistic about the future of our education system.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, that’s going to be a very hard act to follow. It’s obvious, from the Minister of Education’s speech before, that this Budget makes the investments where they are needed, and we are building the foundations for the future. But I am happy to take this call and speak for just a few minutes in this Estimates debate. I’d like to focus on the Vote Labour Market.

Now, this won’t be any surprise to the member for the Coromandel, the Hon Scott Simpson, because we’ve had a few of these encounters before, but I completely disagree with what he had to say in his assessment of our meeting with the honourable Minister Iain Lees-Galloway. The member for the Coromandel mentioned the word “fudging” when he talked about the answer that our Education and Workforce Committee received about the redesign of the air ambulance services. In fact, the Minister very eloquently explained to us the process of this ageing helicopter fleet needing to be replaced, because it’s predominantly single-engine and, therefore, cannot fly over any urban areas, and that comes with obvious problems. The Minister also explained that it was inappropriate for him, as a Minister, to interfere with, basically, what is a commercial tendering process. He explained that it was up to the individual trusts to engage with the process, so perhaps the member Scott Simpson wasn’t entirely listening when the Minister explained that.

The other member that wasn’t listening when there were issues explained was Nicola Willis. I’ll say it again—it’s been said many times—that it’s important to distinguish, as the Minister said on page 13 of the verbatim record of this meeting, between a Labour manifesto and a Government of three parties.

💬 Nicola Willis: Oh, that’s a great excuse!

I don’t know what’s funny about that, but maybe, at some stage, that will get through to the Opposition. [Interruption] No, perhaps not.

Now, I would like to also talk about the numbers, because I have to say that the report given by the chair of our committee was a little bit light on the figures that were supposed to be given to the House. So the appropriations sought for Vote Labour Market in 2018/2019 are just over $2 billion. That is, in fact, a 6.8 percent increase on the 2017/2018 estimated actual spending. Across the portfolios, Budget 2018 has appropriated $194 million in operating funding for 2018/2019 through the 2021/2022 financial years, $28 million in operating funding largely for cost pressures in the 2017/2018 financial year, and $20 million in capital funding.

Now, we had two Ministers presenting to our quite new committee, and these Ministers—Minister Hipkins and Minister Lees-Galloway—really impressed our committee. They were obviously very well briefed on their portfolios and they didn’t have to defer many questions to the officials, so I would like to commend both Ministers—Hipkins and Lees-Galloway—for their respective performances. We heard about the challenges they identified and what they are proposing to do to ensure that we overcome these challenges, and, personally, I find it a lot more reassuring than the messages we heard from the Opposition when they were in Government, basically telling us that everything was hunky-dory; we should just keep going like we were going and nothing needed to change.

Now, the economic forecast shows that we have a modern, productive, sustainable economy under this Government’s plan. Growth is forecast to average at 3 percent in the next few years. We are forecast to deliver more jobs and address the cost of living for Kiwi families. We are ensuring that workers are paid fairly. Under the current labour market conditions, wages should be increasing, but that’s not happening, and, in fact, we see a declining share of economic growth going to working people. So what we’ve done is we’re putting the minimum wage up, and we’re also making the workplace fairer by restoring core employment rights and strengthening collective bargaining through the bill that’s currently going through our committee, the Employment Relations Amendment Bill.

We are also lifting the capability and capacity of the labour inspectorate over the next three years, and the Minister explained that the plan is to double the size of the labour inspectorate by the end of this term. This will help with ensuring that vulnerable workers are receiving their minimum rights. It will also ensure that the majority of employers—who are, in fact, acting legally—can compete in a fair market. We have seen that this is not the case at the moment. Very clearly as an example is the current Wellington bus situation, where employers have to tender for contracts, and therefore we see this race to the bottom. So, therefore, I support this bill.